The Bhagavad-Gita and Ethics

[everneo]

And it evolved out of Vedism. It apparently became popular in India as a text because it counteracted the influence of Buddhism

No, buddhism was against the rituals and gave emphasise to service and meditational practices and more use of intelectual faculties. The existence of BG predates buddha and already emphasised service (karma yoga), yogic practices, jnana yoga (more intellectual than other yogas). BG was least concerned about rituals. What differentiated buddhism was its silence about God. otherwise buddhism was just an offshoot of vedanta and BG tops these schools of thought.

Its description of dharma corresponds with the duties of Brahmin Hindus.

Krishna was a kshathria, so was Arjuna and it all started in the battle field. Sage Vyasa and charioteer sanjaya were sopposed to be of the so called lower castes. BG was hardly espousing the duties of brahmin hindus. In fact it almost rejects rituals that are closer to brahmins.

 

[everneo]

With which other cultures are the Varna system described in 4:13 associated?

BG 4:13 - I created the four divisions of human society based on aptitude and vocation. Though I am the author of this system of the division of labor, one should know that I do nothing directly and I am eternal.

BG 18:41 - The division of human labor is also based on the qualities inherent in peoples’ nature or their make up.

You can divide a single family on the above basis. Hardly it indicates birth/race based division as it was later interpreted. As against the clear OT God/Father's racial license to jews over the gentiles.

 

[Jenyar]

The existence of BG predates buddha and already emphasised service (karma yoga), yogic practices, jnana yoga (more intellectual than other yogas). BG was least concerned about rituals.

Of course it predates Buddhism. But Buddha had access to the Gita and still went through with his reforms. I don't think they would have seemed so necessary to him, if the Gita held the same importance as it does today. Don't you ever wonder why the Gita in specific is favoured by so many above the more authoritative, extensive and perhaps more inspired texts? Certainly its current popularity cannot be a sole criterium for its authority?

Krishna was a kshathria, so was Arjuna and it all started in the battle field. Sage Vyasa and charioteer sanjaya were sopposed to be of the so called lower castes. BG was hardly espousing the duties of brahmin hindus. In fact it almost rejects rituals that are closer to brahmins.

Maybe it's my mistake, but it seemed to me that its concepts of karma yoga and bhakti yoga best described the duties of the Brahmin caste - regardless of what social role you play. But I won't press this point.

BG 4:13 - I created the four divisions of human society based on aptitude and vocation. Though I am the author of this system of the division of labor, one should know that I do nothing directly and I am eternal.

BG 18:41 - The division of human labor is also based on the qualities inherent in peoples’ nature or their make up.

You can divide a single family on the above basis. Hardly it indicates birth/race based division as it was later interpreted. As against the clear OT God/Father's racial license to jews over the gentiles.

I know the divisions were shown to be duty-based and not birth-based, that wasn't my point. Whatever form it took, I wanted to know how Jan could argue that the Gita doesn't pertain to Hinduism in particular, in the light of this peculiarity.

As for the OT "racial license" that is hardly the case. Israel's duty should have given them no more supremacy than the Hindu divisions should have (and historically, for the most part it didn't. Arguably, the Jews bore the brunt of racism more than any nation on earth), as it was a task of servanthood and complete trust. They were the undeserving recipients of a promise.

Deut. 7:7-8 The LORD did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath he swore to your forefathers that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Amos 9:7
"Are not you Israelites
the same to me as the Cushites?"
declares the LORD.
"Did I not bring Israel up from Egypt,
the Philistines from Caphtor
and the Arameans from Kir?"
​

 

[UltiTruth]

UltiTruth,
Gujarati and Hindi.

Why not Sanskrit, Tamil & Telugu? I always thought Sanksrit was the language of the scriptures.

What kind of question is this?

A reasonable one. If no Hindu text is actually 'Hindu', then Hinduism has no base.

Answer it yourself. Were there Hindus 5000+ years ago?

Yes.

You appear to be taking something very personally here. The essence of the new testament, like BG, is non sectarian. They belong to no particular physical people, time, or place. If you can contradict this statement using either scripture please do.

Nothing personal. All I am saying is if BG predates Hinduism, and if BG is a base to the development of Hinduism, does this mean that BG is not a Hindu text?
True, it is non-sectarian. That doesn't mean that it was or will be universally accepted.

Of course there are thoughts/customs and concepts of Hindus in the BG, but that does not mean it is a Hindu scripture.
What does Hindu mean?

You are saying: BG ideas are in Hinduism, Hindu ideas are in BG- But they are two unrelated things. I am at a loss to understand this.

Areligious?
Do you mean Irreligious?
Anyhow;
Where did I say this?

No, I mean 'areligious'.
Are you now saying BG is a religious text?

If they are not drowned in their particular dogma, it is not only possible, but highly beneficial.

Agreed. But the tenets of other religions themselves don't allow such acceptance.

What are you talking about?
Wasn't the term Hindu used to describe people who lived by the Sind?
If no, please state where the term originated, if yes, then could it be possible that some or all of the people were following some aspect of veda.
When did the BG become available for anyone to read?

Very true that 'Hindu' was a reference to the people who lived by the Sind, by people who lived away from it. But the implication is that people who lived by Sind also had their own unique culture.
By the same logic, since BG itself was probably born by the Sind, and is widely held by the Sind, it is Hindu, right?

Thanks.

 

[everneo]

Of course it predates Buddhism. But Buddha had access to the Gita and still went through with his reforms. I don't think they would have seemed so necessary to him, if the Gita held the same importance as it does today.

To be frank, i suspect even Buddha ever read Gita preoperly. Buddha's difference with BG happens to be in terms of God. BG was held as the word of God while Buddha did not recognize God. He naturally would have chosen his own way.

There was no church-like organization to proliferate the gospel of Krishna. The masses were more interested in Krishna worship than his ultimate revealation, Gita.

It is tough to live by Gita even for the enlightened people. That does not mean there were none. How many christians live by the gospel of Christ? may be plenty. But, Why Islam came into existence when Christianity was wide spread?

Don't you ever wonder why the Gita in specific is favoured by so many above the more authoritative, extensive and perhaps more inspired texts? Certainly its current popularity cannot be a sole criterium for its authority?

We have no exact data as to how many in the ancient world, or atleast in indian sub-continent, held Gita as the top guide and lived by it. I and you would not have known about Gita but for the printing press and internet.
What was lacking in the case of Gita was organized spreading like Christ's Gospel,Islam's Quran and Buddha's preachings by the Sangha's.

Maybe it's my mistake, but it seemed to me that its concepts of karma yoga and bhakti yoga best described the duties of the Brahmin caste - regardless of what social role you play. But I won't press this point.

I think, karma yoga suits everyone, bhakti yoga and jnana yoga depends upon the aptitude of one - emotional or intellectual, raja yoga needs more strict life style and so on. There is a yoga suitable for everyone, in short. By yoga i don't mean excercises you see in TV. BG referes yoga as way of life.

As for the OT "racial license" that is hardly the case. Israel's duty should have given them no more supremacy than the Hindu divisions should have

You asked for the 'divisions' in other religious texts, in OT you can see plenty but i have no time & no anti-semitic feelings to dig deep.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It was written in Sanskrit. Which of the Hindu scriptures were not written in Sanskrit? With which other cultures are the Varna system described in 4:13 associated? What other cultures consider Sanskrit a sacred language?

Sanskrit is not spoken by Hindus today. Hindi is very close which is to be expected, but it is not sanskrit. Sanskrit is more akin to northern european languages than you probably give it credit for. It is regarded as sacred by anyone who understands that it is the language that God, in His form, as Shree Bhagavan spoke, but then, anything the Bhagavan did, said, touched, anywhere he walked, bathed etc, is considered sacred by those who know.

Varnashram Dharma is not the caste system we see operating in India today, that is a hopeless perversion (no offense Ulti). This Dharma is relative to the whole of human population, as every single person is characterised due to their particular qualities, or modes of material nature.

So none of the Hindu scriptures are Hindu?

They are as "Hindu" as the NT is Christian, IMHO (if we are talking about the ancient texts).

And it evolved out of Vedism.

What evolved out of "vedism?"
Veda means "knowledge. The period we call "vedic" was thus called because people lived according to "knowledge" or "veda". Every body lived according to their "varna" and "ashram." This period is called satya-yuga. There are 4 yugas (ages) satya, treta, dwapara and kali and as time goes by religious principles decline, kali-yuga (the current age) being the the worst (irreligious).

It apparently became popular in India as a text because it counteracted the influence of Buddhism, and in the West because it accomodates Western thought (which depends a lot on Christian values). Its description of dharma corresponds with the duties of Brahmin Hindus.

The BG goes way beyond counteracting any religious movement.
Buddhism is the begining of religious principles for the age of Kali-yuga. From Buddhism comes impersnalism, then personalism. This is a very sketchy description, but I am sure the Hindus in this thread can be more specific.

The Hare Krishna movement (a Vaisnava tradition) may have embraced the Gita as a singular text, divorced from its context in the Mahabarata, but it cannot sever its Hindu roots.

Why do you say "divorced from...?"
The Maha Bharata is more in the context of a history book which lays the foundation for the BG. To separate one from the other is not very sensible.

The article goes on to say "Because of ISKCON’s acceptance of the Veda, it falls clearly within the realm of Hinduism".

But that does not mean that the veda are Hindu scriptures. When we talk about Jesus Christ it could be said that we are within the realm of Christianity, but the teaching of Jesus are not Christian, they are universal.

Jan Ardena.

 

[water]

Jan,


Regarding whether the Bhagavad-Gita is Hindu or not, tell me if I understand your position correctly:

The Bhagavad-Gita has no (human) owner, God has not intended that a particular tribe be a recipient of its teachings.
The Hindu people were merely looking after it, throughout the centuries, as someone had to do it.

The Hindu hold no monopoly over the Gita, similarly like Christians don't hold monopoly over the Bible.

 

[Gustav]

Sanskrit is not spoken by Hindus today.

it is however the language of prayer for the hindus
as is pali for the buddhists

and you avoid ulti's questions

 

[Gustav]

similarly like Christians don't hold monopoly over the Bible.

the bible has been revised
by christians
yes?

 

[Gustav]

From Buddhism comes impersnalism, then personalism. This is a very sketchy description, but I am sure the Hindus in this thread can be more specific.

no
flesh them out yourself please
why?
i feel like a laugh

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan,


Regarding whether the Bhagavad-Gita is Hindu or not, tell me if I understand your position correctly:

The Bhagavad-Gita has no (human) owner, God has not intended that a particular tribe be a recipient of its teachings.
The Hindu people were merely looking after it, throughout the centuries, as someone had to do it.

The Hindu hold no monopoly over the Gita, similarly like Christians don't hold monopoly over the Bible.

Hi water,

It is my opinion after studying BG, that the brahmins are the particular class of men who are in charge of any scripture, as they are naturally equipt with the capacity to fully understand, and practically live them, qualifying them to distribute this knowledge. Due to the impending age known as kali-yuga, the brahminical system became increasly perverse and could not be trusted to carry out its duty, which is why the Gita was (again) recited by Lord Krishna.
I believe that is where the contention lies.
The BG is a trancendental literature, to the self-realised, it is a literal incarnation of God, as the words were uttered by Him, therefore it cannot be owned or controlled by anyone, exept His unalloyed devotee, who is, in effect, non-different to Krishna, in quality.

Chapter 4, Verse 1.

The Blessed Lord said: I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god, Vivasvan, and Vivasvan instructed it to Manu, the father of mankind, and Manu in turn instructed it to Iksvaku.

Chapter 4, Verse 2.

This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost.

Here's the clincher...

Chapter 4, Verse 3.

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; therefore you can understand the transcendental mystery of this science.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

it is however the language of prayer for the hindus
as is pali for the buddhists

and you avoid ulti's questions

Don't be daft, I haven't responded to Ulti, as yet.

no
flesh them out yourself please
why?
i feel like a laugh

What's so funny?
Do you mind sharing it with the rest of us?

Jan Ardena.

 

[Gustav]

What's so funny?
Do you mind sharing it with the rest of us?

Jan Ardena.

nothing if you will not oblige
not at all

 

[Jan Ardena]

nothing if you will not oblige
not at all

Then how do you know you will find it funny?

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

UltiTruth,

I always thought Sanksrit was the language of the scriptures.

Which cultural group in India speaks sanskrit today?

A reasonable one. If no Hindu text is actually 'Hindu', then Hinduism has no base.

Then tell me, what is Hinduism?
When I read BG, there is nothing in it that leads me to believe it is Hindu and I know loads of Hindus. What does worshiping Ganesha, Shiva or Kali, have to do with BG?

Answer it yourself. Were there Hindus 5000+ years ago?

Yes.

Were they called "Hindus?"

All I am saying is if BG predates Hinduism, and if BG is a base to the development of Hinduism, does this mean that BG is not a Hindu text?

That is a question you should try and answer yourself. From my perspective there is no mention of "Hindu" or "Hinduism" in any vedic literature I have read, or BG. So for me to see it as Hinduism, would be a forced action. I can understand and apreciate why you would see it as Hindu, but there is no reason for me to see it as Hindu.

True, it is non-sectarian. That doesn't mean that it was or will be universally accepted.

True, but it is not accepted by all Hindus, and some only accept it on condition.

You are saying: BG ideas are in Hinduism, Hindu ideas are in BG- But they are two unrelated things. I am at a loss to understand this.

You must have misunderstood my point.

No, I mean 'areligious'.
Are you now saying BG is a religious text?

I don't know of the word "areligious", but I am not saying it is a religious text.

Agreed. But the tenets of other religions themselves don't allow such acceptance.

All bona-fide religions have their form of Gita in their scripture which suits their particular circumstance, and if they followed thOSE principles, they would be able to discriminate with more clarity.

By the same logic, since BG itself was probably born by the Sind, and is widely held by the Sind, it is Hindu, right?

No. I wouldn't have thought so.

Jan Ardena.

 

[UltiTruth]

Jan,

Do you also think Europe is actually not of the Europeans; since the current Europeans merely lived in Europe and hence have just as much right on Europe as, say the people in Japan?

An why is your house yours? Probably you are missing out on the norms among humans on how possessions are determined.

Thanks.

 

[UltiTruth]

UltiTruth,
Which cultural group in India speaks sanskrit today?

All Indian languages have varying degrees of Sanskrit. e.g., Telugu is 70% Sanskrit.
But what are your trying to prove with this?

Then tell me, what is Hinduism?
When I read BG, there is nothing in it that leads me to believe it is Hindu and I know loads of Hindus. What does worshiping Ganesha, Shiva or Kali, have to do with BG?

Then you are arguing without knowing what Hinduism is!
To cite a couple of examples:
The concept of all-pervading 'Brahman' is Hindu. So also the concept of incarnations/avatars. And these are in BG too.

Were they called "Hindus?"

How does that matter? Hindu was the name used by Arabs.

That is a question you should try and answer yourself. From my perspective there is no mention of "Hindu" or "Hinduism" in any vedic literature I have read, or BG. So for me to see it as Hinduism, would be a forced action. I can understand and apreciate why you would see it as Hindu, but there is no reason for me to see it as Hindu.

Don't go by the word 'Hindu'. Look at the content.

True, but it is not accepted by all Hindus, and some only accept it on condition.

Please let me know some Hindu groups which have disowned BG.

No. I wouldn't have thought so.

Why? Isn't it double standards that you call people living by the Sind Hindus, but don't call scriptures of Sind as Hindu?
Thanks.

 

[water]

Do you also think the Europe is actually not of the Europeans; since the current Europeans merely lived in Europe and hence have just as much right on Europe as, say the people in Japan?

An why is your house yours? Probably you are missing out on the norms among humans on how possessions are determined.

Thinking about possessions and ownership ...

 

[Jan Ardena]

UltiTruth,

Do you also think Europe is actually not of the Europeans; since the current Europeans merely lived in Europe and hence have just as much right on Europe as, say the people in Japan?

Europe is a place, the BG is a trancendental conversation between Shree Bhagavan and His friend, diciple and devotee, Arjuna. It was recited for the whole of mankind through diciplic sucsession starting from the Sun-god. The two are incomparible.

An why is your house yours? Probably you are missing out on the norms among humans on how possessions are determined.

.

How is it possible to possess a trancendental scripture?
How is it possible to possess God through a material culture, to the exclusion of all others?

All Indian languages have varying degrees of Sanskrit. e.g., Telugu is 70% Sanskrit.
But what are your trying to prove with this?

I'm not trying to prove anything, i'm trying to understand why you believe the BG to be a Hindu scripture.

Then you are arguing without knowing what Hinduism is!
To cite a couple of examples:
The concept of all-pervading 'Brahman' is Hindu. So also the concept of incarnations/avatars. And these are in BG too.

I'll get back to this.

How does that matter? Hindu was the name used by Arabs.

First you're saying BG is a Hindu scripture, now you're saying it doesn't matter that the people weren't called Hindus 5000 years ago. I'm afraid it does matter because you're saying BG is a Hindu scripture meaning it was written for Hindus, by Hindus.

Don't go by the word 'Hindu'. Look at the content.

The content is a dialouge between Krishna and Arjuna, neither of them are described as Hindus. In BG, Krishna says that He delievered this science to Vivaswan who gave it to Manu, who gave it to Maharaja Ikshvaku, the forefather of the Raghu Dynasty from which appeared Lord Ramachandra
Hence it was given at the begining of the treta-yuga, which happened some 2,005.000 years ago. Do you still say it is a "Hindu" scripture?

Why? Isn't it double standards that you call people living by the Sind Hindus, but don't call scriptures of Sind as Hindu?

I just don't see the point of ascribing any bona-fide scripture to the indegenous people of the time or place. I believe it lessens the real impact of the essence and leaves it open for unecessary interpretation, not to mention giving the people in question, a sense of pride over and above the whole human population, to whom it is for.

 

[UltiTruth]

UltiTruth,
I'll get back to this.

Please do.

Thanks.