The Bhagavad-Gita and Ethics

[everneo]

Jan,

The fact that Krishna represents 'Hinduism' and it has it roots in Vendanta might put off someone who don't accept immanence of God and Karma theory. That is the essence of BG, IMO. If someone can take the wisdom of BG irrespective of its roots then whether BG is hindu scripture or not really does not matter. If someone does not take BG because of its roots, well, they will be at loss. And BG is open to all, not exclusive to hindus, to accept BG as a guide but not to become a hindu is also an option.

 

[water]

It can give the impression that the BG is Indian or Hindu which can be off-putting to someone who is of neither designation, or someone who may be impartial to either designation.
It gives the impression that Lord Krishna is Indian or Hindu, when neither concepts were even around at that time.
The Hindus claim of BG is the same as the atheists claim for Albert Einstein IMO.

When it comes to wisdom and truth, petty human sensitivities are not something deserving to be let to have impact.
Indeed, a particular qualification of something may be off-putting for some people, but this doesn't make said thing any less valuable or true.
Indulging in being put off by this or that qualificator is nothing but a form of sectarianism. No?

 

[water]

The fact that Krishna represents 'Hinduism' and it has it roots in Vendanta might put off someone who don't accept immanence of God and Karma theory. That is the essence of BG, IMO. If someone can take the wisdom of BG irrespective of its roots then whether BG is hindu scripture or not really does not matter. If someone does not take BG because of its roots, well, they will be at loss. And BG is open to all, not exclusive to hindus, to accept BG as a guide but not to become a hindu is also an option.

Alright. So all the fuss around whether the Bagavad Gita is Hindu or not is just petty prejudice of people who want something else but to serve God.

 

[Jan Ardena]

everneo,

If someone can take the wisdom of BG irrespective of its roots then whether BG is hindu scripture or not really does not matter.

I totally agree. It is not that I desire the BG to be non-Hindu, nor do I have anything against, but it is obvious to me that the BG is a universal scripture, for the pleasure of Krishnas devotees from all over the universe, who are the well wishers of all living entities. It is a scripture that explains everything.

And BG is open to all, not exclusive to hindus, to accept BG as a guide but not to become a hindu is also an option.

Why only an option?
Krishna says; "Abandon all varieties of religion and surrender unto me...."
Krishna comes to this world when there is a decline in religious principles, to anihilate the miscreants and restore the principles. What does this have to do with Hinduism which was a terminology coined by the British?



water,

Indeed, a particular qualification of something may be off-putting for some people, but this doesn't make said thing any less valuable or true.

But it can distort the value or truth. The furious rows which errupt between Hindus and Muslims, are fuelled by gross levels of blasphemy of each others religion, including the Qur'an and BG. What is the point of that?

Indulging in being put off by this or that qualificator is nothing but a form of sectarianism. No?

Indulging in being put off from BG because one is not a Hindu, or one does not like Indians, or because the Bible or Qur'an is more superior, means you've missed the whole point of God, IMO.

 

[water]

Jan,

But it can distort the value or truth. The furious rows which errupt between Hindus and Muslims, are fuelled by gross levels of blasphemy of each others religion, including the Qur'an and BG. What is the point of that?

(False) egos battling.
Some just have to learn it the hard way, unfortunately. And take many others with them.

Indulging in being put off from BG because one is not a Hindu, or one does not like Indians, or because the Bible or Qur'an is more superior, means you've missed the whole point of God, IMO.

I agree.



(P.S.
Dvořak's Cello concerto op. 104 has such jewels in it! am listening to it right now, and couldn't not mention it. )

 

[UltiTruth]

everneo,
I totally agree. It is not that I desire the BG to be non-Hindu, nor do I have anything against, but it is obvious to me that the BG is a universal scripture, for the pleasure of Krishnas devotees from all over the universe, who are the well wishers of all living entities. It is a scripture that explains everything.

No conflict then. It looked all the while that you loved the fruit but hated the tree!

The furious rows which errupt between Hindus and Muslims, are fuelled by gross levels of blasphemy of each others religion, including the Qur'an and BG.

This is the subject of a different discussion; not so simple to be taken on face-value.
Thanks.

 

[Jenyar]

Alright. So all the fuss around whether the Bagavad Gita is Hindu or not is just petty prejudice of people who want something else but to serve God.

Yes, it was my petty prejudice. I can't believe I was so stupid not to notice it. I'm looking for excuses not to serve God, so I argue about the importance of the cultural context for a text.

And by the way, I have read it.

The fact that Krishna represents 'Hinduism' and it has it roots in Vendanta might put off someone who don't accept immanence of God and Karma theory. That is the essence of BG, IMO.

The fact that God judges sin might put off someone who doesn't like his sins judged. Should we rewrite the Bible? Throw away the Old Testament because some people would like the New better without it?

I have a question though. I wasn't able to find it in the Gita: how does karma affect a new creation? The Gita does say "Just as a person puts on new garments after discarding old ones, the living entity or the individual soul acquires a new body after casting away the old body" (2.22). What if the soul was clothed with an immaterial and therefore eternal body?

If someone can take the wisdom of BG irrespective of its roots then whether BG is hindu scripture or not really does not matter. If someone does not take BG because of its roots, well, they will be at loss. And BG is open to all, not exclusive to hindus, to accept BG as a guide but not to become a hindu is also an option.

Why aren't people who revere the Gita proud of its roots? Is there something shameful about it being a product of proto-Hinduism?

 

[everneo]

The fact that God judges sin might put off someone who doesn't like his sins judged.

Karma is nothing but reap what you sow. It is God's impartial tool to judge. God's grace may reduce the burden of bad karma and may balance the fruits of good karma that might go straight into the head and tempt to indulge in bad karma.

Should we rewrite the Bible? Throw away the Old Testament because some people would like the New better without it?

You are absolutely free to have your own faith. Hinduism and BG does not believe in proselytizing as far as i know.

I have a question though. I wasn't able to find it in the Gita: how does karma affect a new creation? The Gita does say "Just as a person puts on new garments after discarding old ones, the living entity or the individual soul acquires a new body after casting away the old body" (2.22). What if the soul was clothed with an immaterial and therefore eternal body?

Vedanta says, there is no eternal body, only eternal soul. Even Devas who are supposed to have such eternal bodies and reside in heaven have to come to be born in earth and work towards liberation if they want to cross the maya to reach God.

Why aren't people who revere the Gita proud of its roots? Is there something shameful about it being a product of proto-Hinduism?

Who are those people? What shame they might have? Better you ask them than prosposing something as absurd as 'product of proto-hinduism'.

What is proto-hinduism?

Would you call OT as proto-NT?

Hinduism as it is called now, is a dharma, a way of life and as old as vedas.

 

[Jenyar]

Where in the Bible or the Gita or anywhere does God say

GO ON NOW, PEOPLE, AND FIGHT AND ARGUE ABOUT WHAT I HAVE SUPPOSEDLY SAID!!

?

Then don't fight and argue about it. And don't fight and argue with those who do, or you're just as guilty of it. "If due to ego you think: 'I shall not fight'; this resolve of yours is in vain. Your own nature will compel you to fight. ... We are puppets of our own Karma." (Gita 18:59-61).

What is there to be proud of?! Of anything?!

Neither is there anything to be ashamed of. If Krishna says he compiled and is known through the Vedas (15.15), why do you say "this just doesn't matter to me when I read the Gita"?

 

[Jenyar]

Karma is nothing but reap what you sow. It is God's impartial tool to judge. God's grace may reduce the burden of bad karma and may balance the fruits of good karma that might go straight into the head and tempt to indulge in bad karma.

Or He might nullify it completely by renewing His creation. Mercy and forgiveness is precisely what makes someone's karma inconsequential.

You are absolutely free to have your own faith. Hinduism and BG does not believe in proselytizing as far as i know.

Didn't you understand the analogy?

Vedanta says, there is no eternal body, only eternal soul. Even Devas who are supposed to have such eternal bodies and reside in heaven have to come to be born in earth and work towards liberation if they want to cross the maya to reach God.

Indeed, it says the visible physical body is transitory (2.16). But it also says God is "eternal and above these modes" (7.13). So if God decides to redeem the physical body as well as the spiritual one? "When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined..."

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. ... For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory." (1 Cor. 15)​

Who are those people? What shame they might have? Better you ask them than prosposing something as absurd as 'product of proto-hinduism'.

It was an open question.

What is proto-hinduism?

Would you call OT as proto-NT?

Hinduism as it is called now, is a dharma, a way of life and as old as vedas.

Everything is dharma or a way of life - nobody can live any other way than "the way they live". The idea you were giving me before is that its age or circumstances aren't important, that it's timeless and placeless. I called it proto-hindu because it precedes the culture we commonly call "Hinduism". So the analogy would be that the Jewish faith - especially its messianic expectations - is proto-Christian.

What would you call the culture that embraced both the Vedas and the Gita before the term "Hindu" came into use?

 

[everneo]

Then don't fight and argue about it. And don't fight and argue with those who do, or you're just as guilty of it. "If due to ego you think: 'I shall not fight'; this resolve of yours is in vain. Your own nature will compel you to fight. ... We are puppets of our own Karma." (Gita 18:59-61).

Fight over what?

 

[everneo]

Or He might nullify it completely by renewing His creation.

If you mean nullify as nullifying karma then all the souls are liberated, maya vanished, why should there be any new creations? Does God need toys to play around with? Do you have any answer? I don't have any answer.

Mercy and forgiveness is precisely what makes someone's karma inconsequential.

May be. I have not heard of anyone who recieved mercy and forgiveness and escaped all his bad karma and attained liberation. There should be some brief time of reaping.. like purgatory?

The intervention of God to accelerate one's liberation process in one life itself is not against Karma. But one should learn, often in hard way, to detach for the sake of not affected by past karmas' effects, no escape from that - atleast in Hindu belief. Focus and surrender to God could help during such harvest time. I doubt that God would totally write-off unconditionally one's karma, that too bad ones, with Mercy and forgiveness. If that is the case Adam & Eve should have received them to start with.

Indeed, it says the visible physical body is transitory (2.16). But it also says God is "eternal and above these modes" (7.13). So if God decides to redeem the physical body as well as the spiritual one? "When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined..."

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. ... For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory." (1 Cor. 15)​

Vedanta suggests no body business of any kind in case of Liberation. Liberation of soul is joining the supreme soul/spirit/being. Body is not necessary at that time because body is an effect of maya. However hindu puranas suggest that between cyclic deaths and births so many exotic/heavenly as well as frightening/pugatory worlds the soul might undergo. WTF? I am not bothered about them, you know why? they are not eternal anyway even if they are true.

It was an open question.

There are plenty of open questions regarding everything and anything.

Everything is dharma or a way of life - nobody can live any other way than "the way they live".

What are you talking? Sanathana Dharma based on vedas is different from Jewish way of live. which is different from Pagan Roman way of life. and so on.

The idea you were giving me before is that its age or circumstances aren't important, that it's timeless and placeless. I called it proto-hindu because it precedes the culture we commonly call "Hinduism".

Name only changed, not the way.

So the analogy would be that the Jewish faith - especially its messianic expectations - is proto-Christian.

But Jews would not call themselves that way. They won't accept your term of calling them. Instead they might call christan faith as pseudo-Jewish?!.
May be would you call both jewish and christian faith as proto-Islam?!!

What would you call the culture that embraced both the Vedas and the Gita before the term "Hindu" came into use?

Sanathana Dharma, i guess. or Vedic culture.

 

[Jenyar]

I am, indeed.
But this is my frustration speaking, as Christian theists have trained me to think I must be able to TALK a lot about God. I am now trying to unlearn this.

Blame "Christian theists" if you want to, but the truth had always been that "the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power." Though talk is still necessary for communication and understanding, among other things.

... or slaves to sin, trapped in our sinful ways.

While we're alive to it - still expect to work off karma or earn salvation - yes. But "anyone who has died has been freed from sin" (Rom. 6:7) and "is a new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17).

 

[Jenyar]

Talk about what and for what?

About ideas, about life, the universe, and everything - for people who can't communicate by telepathy.

 

[Jenyar]

But can you talk about that to me?

And you haven't answered my questions ...

Not on a thread about the Bhagavad Gita, no. Here, I think we should try to limit the discussion to the Gita and Hinduism.

"So?" isn't a question.

 

[Guru]

So now if the Christian and the ex-christian are done with their argument in front of the "audience" can we discuss the thread question at hand ...I can't believe it, 3 pages of Bible and xian discussions..in this part of the forum..Why can't you xians live in your "religion" forum - with all due respect.

Hinduism is very old and mature religion and should be given the due respect ..it is not as immature as turning water into wine and plagiarizing other religious books to create their holy book.

B.Gita has lots of gems - it is a very western way of looking things and pigoen holing them so that there cannot be one single powerful sect. I would really appreciate if we can leave the personal discussion to be offline ..it seems Jenyar and Water need to get a room ..

 

[water]

I would really appreciate if we can leave the personal discussion to be offline ..it seems Jenyar and Water need to get a room ..

Done.
I apologize.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No conflict then. It looked all the while that you loved the fruit but hated the tree!

This is the subject of a different discussion; not so simple to be taken on face-value.
Thanks.

You are right about there being no conflict, as there is entirely no need of any. BG is both the fruit and the tree, and there is no question of separation. Hinduism is to BG as Christianity is to the NT. I doubt we will ever agree on that so I shall leave it there.

As for your second point, it makes no difference as to internal, personal squabbling, face value is what counts.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Gustav]

It can give the impression that the BG is Indian or Hindu which can be off-putting to someone who is of neither designation, or someone who may be impartial to either designation.
It gives the impression that Lord Krishna is Indian or Hindu, when neither concepts were even around at that time.
The Hindus claim of BG is the same as the atheists claim for Albert Einstein IMO.

Jan Ardena.

ahhh
so this is about jan's petty sensibilities being offended
it also is about the labels that sought to identify the societies that lived around the indus valley

i claim that the bg was the product of a people that inhabited the region now called india. call em dots/darkies/hindoo/gunga/indian and whatnot

the shit is ours
not yours
we are the chosen ones

 

[Hagar]

I'm not going to read the entire thread, but my perception is this: being a pre-Judaic religion, there is no sense of dualism within the realm of Hinduism. Thus what is commonly taken for granted as being good/evil in modern times must be re-examined in an amoral context. What ancients enterpreted as just or good often makes little sense to us now. War and slavery for example, are commonly denounced as horrific, but in ancient times it was acceptable and even good. Morality is subjective in that it is just a human invention of course, having no origin in external reality, but it is an imperitive in some form for a rational and just society. What ancients had instead of a MORAL code, was a TRADITION, a set of rules and rites that would guide one towards a better life. To go against this tradition would result in bad karma. In our very own modern world we see the collapse of morality and rise of LEGISLATION, the only common law that can control diverse groups of people with no common background or common morality or tradition. Food for thought I guess. I happen to be a friend with a Indian, perhaps he would know.