|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:58 am
Well, what would a Hinduism guild be without a discussion of the Gita? Anyway, The way I see it, its based on a battle that actually occurred way back in antiquity. However, whether it actually took place or not is completely irrelevant. The text deals with the war between the self and the Self during the spiritual journey. Arjuna, since he chose Krishna alone, of course represents the Self, while the other side, equipped with all Krishna's soldier's and weaponry is the self in its lower form.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:02 am
Just FYI: Gita and the Ramayana are tiny little slivers of the Srimad Bhagavatam, which in its current form (with original Sanskrit and English translation) stretches across roughly 30 volumes of 300 - 400 pages each. To count the Gita as anything significant would be like equating the Bill of Rights to the entire Constitution of the USA.
That said, the concept of the battle itself is very relevant, as the story is said to have been transcribed a few thousand years BEFORE it happened. When Veda Vyasa recited the Mahabharat (महाभारत) to Ganesh (who broke off one of his tusks to write it down), he was prophesising the event(s). That is the record we read today. It's not a first person account.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 7:29 am
I mean, sure, we can argue about the symbolism of the battlefield till we're blue in the face (hell, I think there are some two to three dhyayas in the Mahabharata dedicated to describing all the positions of all the major and minor characters on the Kurukshetra), but honestly, can we instead argue about the significance of the Gita itself? Can it telling us something we don't already know from the Vedas? Can it impart to us the significance of the Soma ritual? Can it tell us whence our ancestors originated? Can it help us in understanding any real history, and thereby tell us anything about ourselves and whether or not we descended from conquerors or liberators? Can it help us in establishing a precedence in Hindutva that allows us to better understand the practices and rituals that the "Aryans" performed to their deities?
Personally, I believe that there is a problem with the Itihasas: they establish a singular deity which really doesn't bear significance to the system of personal salvation. We agree that there is a spiritual singularity somewhere, and all we have to do is have the balls to join it in order to attain something "better" than this life. We agree that there isn't a set path to attain that something "better." However, we cannot agree on what that spiritual singularity is. Is it a god? Is it the Cosmic Consciousness? Is it just a giant atma ********? Does it even have to be a god? As far as I can recall, the Rig Veda gave it no name; what is a later document, giving this entity physical attributes when it was praised as being formless and beyond comprehension, to give it such a name or shape or description?
Maybe I'm just an a*****e spewing a load of explosive diarrhea, but if I'm to believe that the Vedas are the fount of all Hindu knowledge, what need have I of the Bhagavathams or other Puranic literature which on some points seems to contradict, the Vedas?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 8:24 am
Dino Just FYI: Gita and the Ramayana are tiny little slivers of the Srimad Bhagavatam, which in its current form (with original Sanskrit and English translation) stretches across roughly 30 volumes of 300 - 400 pages each. To count the Gita as anything significant would be like equating the Bill of Rights to the entire Constitution of the USA. That said, the concept of the battle itself is very relevant, as the story is said to have been transcribed a few thousand years BEFORE it happened. When Veda Vyasa recited the Mahabharat (???????) to Ganesh (who broke off one of his tusks to write it down), he was prophesising the event(s). That is the record we read today. It's not a first person account. The Gita is part of the Mahabharata, not the Srimad Bhagavatam, anybody that tells you otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about. The Ramayana is also its own seperate work. Its the story of the life of Rama, the Srimad Bhagavatam is about the life of Krsna. I didn't say the battle was irrelevant, I said whether or not it actually took place at some point in history was irrelevant to the relevancy of its message, even though I PERSONALLY believe it did occur. I think you will find that most Hindus would disagree with you about the significance of the Gita. It is one of the few parts of the massive Mahabharata that every Hindu reads. It is said that the Gita encapsulates the essence of Hinduism, and I would have to say that any document that is able to do that deserves more than to simply be discounted as you have done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:24 am
Dino Ganesh (who broke off one of his tusks to write it down) I read his tusk got broken in a struggle o.O How odd. As for the Gita, about all I can say is all the titles got confusing as to who was talking to who sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 11:45 am
Oh-mi-kaze I mean, sure, we can argue about the symbolism of the battlefield till we're blue in the face (hell, I think there are some two to three dhyayas in the Mahabharata dedicated to describing all the positions of all the major and minor characters on the Kurukshetra), but honestly, can we instead argue about the significance of the Gita itself? Can it telling us something we don't already know from the Vedas? Can it impart to us the significance of the Soma ritual? Can it tell us whence our ancestors originated? Can it help us in understanding any real history, and thereby tell us anything about ourselves and whether or not we descended from conquerors or liberators? Can it help us in establishing a precedence in Hindutva that allows us to better understand the practices and rituals that the "Aryans" performed to their deities? Personally, I believe that there is a problem with the Itihasas: they establish a singular deity which really doesn't bear significance to the system of personal salvation. We agree that there is a spiritual singularity somewhere, and all we have to do is have the balls to join it in order to attain something "better" than this life. We agree that there isn't a set path to attain that something "better." However, we cannot agree on what that spiritual singularity is. Is it a god? Is it the Cosmic Consciousness? Is it just a giant atma ********? Does it even have to be a god? As far as I can recall, the Rig Veda gave it no name; what is a later document, giving this entity physical attributes when it was praised as being formless and beyond comprehension, to give it such a name or shape or description? Maybe I'm just an a*****e spewing a load of explosive diarrhea, but if I'm to believe that the Vedas are the fount of all Hindu knowledge, what need have I of the Bhagavathams or other Puranic literature which on some points seems to contradict, the Vedas? why do you think that Vedic texts are more accurate than any other?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 8:02 am
Kalorn why do you think that Vedic texts are more accurate than any other? Why shouldn't I? A vast bulk of Smriti (disregarding the Itihasas) is based on the multidimensional meanings of the Vedic sukthams. The current rites of Hinduism are condensed forms of the rites prescribed in the Yajur Veda. We pick and choose too much; I still haven't found a good reason why the Somayajna fell out of practice. Do we even know where in Shruti (Vedas and Upanishads) the consumption of meat or liquor is expressly forbidden to the Brahmins? Yet they are all found in Smriti, and we simply assume it to be part and parcel of personal salvation; why? Shouldn't a regression and re-evaluation of the Vedas be paramount to Hindus, to remind us of whence we came, and to figure out where we should be? The Vedas have given us the basis of our religious, cultural, scientific, political, and philosophical systems. And yet, the problems mentioned arise when I try to reconcile the Vedas and other Shruti with Smriti.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 6:14 pm
Oh-mi-kaze Kalorn why do you think that Vedic texts are more accurate than any other? Why shouldn't I? A vast bulk of Smriti (disregarding the Itihasas) is based on the multidimensional meanings of the Vedic sukthams. The current rites of Hinduism are condensed forms of the rites prescribed in the Yajur Veda. We pick and choose too much; I still haven't found a good reason why the Somayajna fell out of practice. Do we even know where in Shruti (Vedas and Upanishads) the consumption of meat or liquor is expressly forbidden to the Brahmins? Yet they are all found in Smriti, and we simply assume it to be part and parcel of personal salvation; why? Shouldn't a regression and re-evaluation of the Vedas be paramount to Hindus, to remind us of whence we came, and to figure out where we should be? The Vedas have given us the basis of our religious, cultural, scientific, political, and philosophical systems. And yet, the problems mentioned arise when I try to reconcile the Vedas and other Shruti with Smriti. yes, but i think over time things have evolved. a belief i have been raised with and i think you have been too based on another post of yours, is that the Truth always shines through. i think the elements of Modern Hinduism that have continued are the Truth where elements that are no longer practice are not. Hinduism is a religion of evolution. it evolved and changed. this is not at all a weakness, just as the evolvtion of reality doesn't make it any less glorious. just because a text is old doesn't make it right. the ideas behind it, and REASONS behind it, and the logic and morals that can be taught from it are what is important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 7:11 am
Of course. How long ago it occurred is completely irrelevant; the truths it contains are eternal. Myself, I love the Gita dearly; it is spiritually and intellectually uplifting. However, it is by no means the sole or even necessarily the best means to 'salvation.'
((I apologize, but I not very knowledgeable when it comes to Hindu texts. Oh sure, I know about the bare bones of Hinduism, Advaita, Visishtadvaita, the Gita, the 4 main types of Yoga, the deities, and so on, but my knowledge of the texts themselves wouldn't fill a teaspoon. Probably, for the most part, because I am not overly interested in any texts in any religion whatsoever as a means of salvation (wisdom, maybe). They make good reading though. ^^))
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 5:58 pm
Kalorn yes, but i think over time things have evolved. a belief i have been raised with and i think you have been too based on another post of yours, is that the Truth always shines through. i think the elements of Modern Hinduism that have continued are the Truth where elements that are no longer practice are not. Hinduism is a religion of evolution. it evolved and changed. this is not at all a weakness, just as the evolvtion of reality doesn't make it any less glorious. just because a text is old doesn't make it right. the ideas behind it, and REASONS behind it, and the logic and morals that can be taught from it are what is important. Then why would it ever be called "Sanathana Dharma," and why would the Vedas be called "Veda," if it meant that "eternal truth" is never constant and "knowledge" is constantly being revised? How can we say, "This part is obsolete," if the whole is supposed to be eternal? Likewise, how can it be eternal if parts of it are deemed eroded? Eternal truth needs to be eternal, and knowledge needs to be known. The combination of the two, in my opinion, require the Vedas to be practiced seriously. How can the requirement be any less than this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 3:33 pm
Has everybody here read the entire Bhagavat Gita?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 9:15 pm
Gigglypuff Has everybody here read the entire Bhagavat Gita? Who'd have the time? Well, dino has, I'm sure. I've never had the time or dedication for reading the whole thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 5:47 pm
Gigglypuff Has everybody here read the entire Bhagavat Gita? I tried... I had to read the first page like 6 times and I still couldn't understand it!... I mean I understood it as it was written... but I don't think in the sense that it should be... Did that make sense or am I just spewing nonsense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 22, 2006 3:25 pm
Grim___Reaper Gigglypuff Has everybody here read the entire Bhagavat Gita? I tried... I had to read the first page like 6 times and I still couldn't understand it!... I mean I understood it as it was written... but I don't think in the sense that it should be... Did that make sense or am I just spewing nonsense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
