(These notes are just my overviews and do not follow any authoritative commentaries that are available in articles,
(These notes are just my overviews and do not follow any authoritative commentaries that are available in articles,
journals and books. I have read many of them from school days. Evan earlier the Gita is something to be recited on a daily basis to acquire Punya (good deeds). When I started thinking on the meanings of the verses being recited daily, I thought of reading the Malayalam translations as well as commentaries in Malayalam and Sanskrit. They were all too solemn in the meanings and short/long explanations mainly exhibiting the saintly spiritual and vedantic slant. They never question the underlying assumptions and bland assertions. I followed them for too long a time in the past. However at certain juncture doubts crept as I found some of the comments contradicted themselves or others. So these notes are based on textual meanings as I understand them with my unfinished Sanskrit college studies.)
Chapter 1.
Gita starts with the blind king asking Sanjaya on the happenings in Kurukshetra where the two sides are arraigned in readiness to commence attacks on each other. Sanjaya with his divine vision sees all and makes a live commentary on the happening in the battlefield. He hears the sayings and conveys them with precision. First it was Duryodhana keeping his teacher Drona informed of the readiness of the army on both sides. The battles are signalled by the noise booming from conch shells of each and every warrior on both sides including that of
Arjuna asks Krishna to take his chariot to the middle of the formations facing each other, combat ready. He says that he wanted to see the battle ready warriors on each side especially whose who are on the other side with the cranky Duryodhana. (Here is my first skeptical quarry. Does this mean that Arjuna had no knowledge of the warriors facing each other before he came to the battle field? The preparations for the war must have taken a long time and consultations with allies and friends on the strength of the armies to be rallied. Might be this is the way the author wanted to introduce his philosophical not philosophical but theological thoughts?)
When he saw his entire dear and near ones ready to fight a deadly war Arjuna sat down resting his weapons and spoke of his dilemma to his charioteer. (I. 28 to 46) He opined that he does not wish to kill any of these near and dear relations even if he gets the three worlds as gifts in return. Arjuna makes a long argument to sustain his stand. He says that killing ones own will result in family women go astray and thus finish off entire clans and that entails falling in hell finally.
Chapter 2.
Again Arjuna repeats his worries. (II.4 to 8)
Here starts
He says: It is the sacred duty of a Kshatriya to wage war. Only too lucky ones get such a divine opportunity. If you are not fighting this war, you will be skipping your duties and losing glory thus readying to be branded as a sinner. Such a situation is more fearful than death itself. Other warriors will insult you as a weakling who ran away from the battle ground. People will say unpalatable things. Keep your thought of happiness and grief as well as gains and loss at an equal level and get ready to fight. You will not be committing any sin by such an act. (II.31 to 38)
Here
Now another prolonged discourse on Yoga. Unlike what is usually understood by Yoga
Chapter 3.
Arjuna question’s Krishna to the effect saying, if according to you duties are at higher level than others then why are you advising me to do something cruel in nature i.e. engaging in war? (III.1 & 2)
According to some; the most essential thought of Gita is here i.e. Doing duties without having influenced by worldly desires. “Nishkama Karma”. Here the charioteer assumes his real identity as god himself.
Arjuna asks: if you have shown the way forward to do good deeds and salvation; why people resort to sin though unintentional and as if forced? (III. 36)
The answer is typical. People sin due to lust and anger that arise out from Rajo Guna i.e. middle qualities. He advises Arjuna to control all emotions. Senses, mind and intellects are the sources of these emotions. (III. 37 to 43)
One could sense how far
Chapter 4.
The God says that he imparted the above said Yoga to Vivaswan and he in turn instructed Manu and Manu told it to Ikshvaku. These lessons went on from generation to generation but completely lost in the process. These are the secret instructions that I have told you now. (IV. 1 to 3)
When Arjuna pointed to the fact that the life of Vivaswan is too far off in the past to claim that you Krishna instructed him in Yoga; Krishna responds to convey that you and me had very many past lives and I remember them but not you. (I am God and you are just a mortal.) This claim by God sounds to contradict his starting lesson conveying; you, me nor the kings assembled here did exist earlier; also all of us will not exist in future (II.12). Then follow more homilies. Among them is the classic: “Yada Yada Hi …”. I take birth through my magical powers (Maya) in all the eras (Satya/Krita, Treta, Dvapara and Kali Yugas.) whenever the righteousness (Dharma) slips down and evil (Adharma) raises up; in order to protect the pious and destroy the evildoers. (IV. 7 & 8) All avatar stories are explained with this promise made by the God. He also promises that those who know this divine origination; will have no re-birth when they get out of their bodies i.e. dead but absolved in me (God). (IV.9)
(Here I find one saying that was incomprehensible. “Karmanyakarma Yah Pashyed, Akarmani cha Karma Yah: Sa Budhiman Manushyeshu, Sa Yukta Krisna Karmakrid.” (IV. 18) it might mean that the one who sees duties as non-duties and non-duties as duties; is the wisest and does his duties well. Could any one explain this without resorting to some mysterious meanings?)
Continuing in the same vain Krishna expounds several types of Yajnas and concludes that among all; the knowledge or intellectual (Jnana Yajna) understanding is the best and following this path person will be out of birth death cycle. The one who doubts will perish and not this world or the nether world will accept the one in doubt. By this
Chapter 5.
Still Arjuna is skeptic on the choice which makes
(V)
Chapter 6.
Arjuna reminds
Chapter 7.
It is clear that Arjuna has completely forgotten the questions where from he started and is being carried away by
Chapter 8.
The Brahma has no end (Aksharam) and it is me. There should not be any doubt that those who leave their bodies thinking about me will be absorbed in me. (VIII. 3 to 28)
Chapter 9.
Now is the time to convince Arjuna about all his (
Chapter 10.
Now Arjuna is convinced that the one speaking to him is God himself and he acknowledges this fact and requests
Chapter 11.
Arjuna tells
Sanjaya also views the God in all its manifest images and explains them. (XI. 9 to 14)
Now it is the turn of Arjuna to elaborate all that he saw in
(I have not come across any believer who entirely imagines his god in this fashion.)
Sanjaya says that after hearing this Arjuna; shaken with fear bowed and mumbled words praising the God for all his attributes and then asked his pardon for posing questions as to a friend without knowing his real nature as God. I am too fearful of this divine image and so please change to image that is familiar to me (XI. 35 to 46)
Sanjaya says that
Chapter 12.
Then he was asked by Arjuna to define favorites and
Chapter 13.
It becomes clear that Krishna has taken Arjuna to that far off place that the former has forgotten as to what he wanted to be cleared and now wishes to hear
Chapter 14.
Arjuna wishes more clarification on the mode of transcending the three qualities and
Chapter 15.
Now
Chapter 16.
Chapter 17.
There are three kinds of concentration (Shradha) as well. They are of three qualities Satva, Rajas and Thamas. These are explained in more detail. Also there comes an explanation when Brahmins perform sacrifices with
Chapter 18.
This is the last part and longer than the earlier ones. At first Arjuna asks for more explanations on renunciation or asceticism (Sanyasa) and on making donation/gift (Tyaga). Incidentally here is re-assertion of the nature and duties of the four castes (Varnas) making it more clear that castes are based on birth and birth alone These duties are ingrained in each caste. Verses 41 to 44. Once again it is said that ones own duties are greater than another’s’. Even if one’s duties are bad in themselves they should not be abandoned. Verse 47. (One hopes that the present day honour killers and khaps may not quote these to defend and justify.)
The God has still some doubts about Arjuna. He states that once more I will impart the most secret of all secret teachings because you are my most beloved friend: Keep me in your mind, be my devotee, perform sacrifices for me and bow to me always. I assure you my fast friend that at the end you will join in me. Relinquishing all duties/faiths (Dharma) take refuge in me and then I will redeem you from every kind of sinful deeds; so don’t grieve. (XIII. 65 & 66)
Then comes a kind of admonition: This knowledge should not be made available to anyone who is not a devotee etc.
I say that he does a Jnana yajna who learns these conversations between us. Also the one who hear them with concentrated attention and without envy will escape from sins and reach worlds of good people. (XIII. 70 & 71)
Now
Sanjaya concludes that he is both happy and awestruck hearing these conversations and viewing the God Universal. This was made possible through the blessings of Vyasa (the author). There will be wealth and victory where dwell both
After going through the text at several occasions and reading those commentaries in Malayalam the last one by late Nitya Chaitanya Yati (an ardent disciple of Sri Narayana Guru a Vedanta scholar and composer of several works on the philosophy in Sanskrit and Malayalam. He was an un-touchable by caste) and also in English; I noticed that the God did not refer to the rightful duties of women anywhere in his preaching. It is strange and a little distressing indeed. This might be due to the fact
Though the Gita is considered as a vedantic text; I find it emphasizing more on devotion (Bhakti) to
There are a number of puzzles that confounded me while reading the text. I will site only four of them here.
(1) “Thraigunya Vishaya Veda; Nistraigunyo Bhava Arjuna.” (II. 45) Does
(2) “Vidya Vinaya Sampanne, Brahmane, Gavi, Hastini;
Suni chaiva Svapake cha, Pandit á Samadarsina:”
(V. 18). Here it is pronounced that learned wise men view
all creatures as equal. The puzzle is the word “Svapaka”
meaning the groups who cook and eat dogs. Were there such people during the time of
(3) “Dharmaavirudho Bhuteshu Kamosmi” (VII. 11). The word “
(4) “Dyutam Chalayatamasmi”. (X. 36) I am the dice game among the acts of gambling. Just like in the case of lust, gambling is frowned upon and denounced as vice and therefore dark (Thamasa) by nature but there seems to be something that is acceptable to God.
I do accept that these notes penned here above seem too clumsy and disorganized. They are clumsy because of my own weak command on both Sanskrit as well as English languages. There could be better and more appropriate words and usages to convey the correct meanings of the concepts propounded. They are disorganized due to my perception on reading the text. I was dutifully reading Gita as sacred text since childhood. Slowly and during the course of time I became skeptical about its teachings finally culminating in disbelief. I do see that there are certain good things that could be accepted by all as universal. However all those are qualified as edicts of a god. All the good things to do and practice in life could be arrived at through well founded reasoning and scientific inquiry. There is no need to postulate a god to enforce good.
I am of the view that one of the essential teachings of the god could be interpreted as professing or justifying killing one’s own kith and kin if necessary. I am afraid that the recent developments in the killings of own siblings in the name of honour (sic) might come under these teachings.
The idea of caste being based on birth is explicitly explained where ever the subject was dealt with in the gita text especially in “It is honorable to do one’s own (caste) duties even if they are qualitatively lower than others’. Also it is honorable to die while doing one’s rightful duties. The duties of others are scary enough.” “…..One does not sin in doing own assigned natural duties.”
Sreyan Swa Dharmo Viguna: Paradharmat swanishtitad; Swadharme Nidhanam Sreya: Paadharmo Bhayavaha: (III. 35) Sreyan Swadharmo Viguna: Paradharmat swanishtitad; Swabhava Niyatam Karma, Kurvannapnoti Kilbisham. (XIII. 47) See that the first part of the verses being repeated making it difficult to mean anything else.
Of course there are modern commentators who would circumvent the topic to different directions to establish that cast is based on duties and professions. None of them are convincing enough at least in my case.
I find that almost on every other day one of those who script and fill the columns on spirituality and puranic lore in daily papers; quote some or other sayings of
In so many ways
I have not come across
There is some kind of follow up to the Gita in Mahabharata in Aswamedha Parvam. Following the victory in the war both Arjuna and
(Add on: After going through the notes I happened to search the web where I found an English translation of Bhagavad Gita with a long introduction by the venerable and devout Hindu scholar advocate, Kashinath Tryambak Telang. He made the translation in 1875 or so when social reform movements were getting encouragement. Telang is only one of several scholars who commented upon the ancient scriptures. They were trying to be reasonable without any bias. To my astonishment and elation I found the following observation penned by Telang in the introduction:
“He (
There is one other line of argument, which leads, I think, to the same conclusion. There are several passages in the Gîtâ which it is not very easy to reconcile with one another; and no attempt is made to harmonise them. Thus, for example, in stanza 16 of chapter VII, Krishna divides his devotees into four classes, one of which consists of 'men of knowledge,' whom, Krishna says, he considers 'as his own self.' It would probably be difficult to imagine any expression which could indicate higher esteem. Yet in stanza 46 of chapter VI, we have it laid down, that the devotee is superior not only to the mere performer of penances, but even to the men of knowledge. The commentators betray their gnostic bias by interpreting 'men of knowledge' in this latter passage to mean those who have acquired erudition in the Sâstras and their significations. This is not an interpretation to be necessarily rejected. But there is in it a certain twisting of words, which, under the circumstances here, I am not inclined to accept. And on the other hand, it must not be forgotten, that the implication fairly derivable from chapter IV, stanza 38, would seem to be rather that knowledge is superior to devotion--is the higher stage to be reached by means of devotion as the stepping-stone. In another passage again at Gîtâ, chapter XII, stanza 12, concentration is preferred to knowledge, which also seems to me to be irreconcilable with chapter VII, stanza 16. Take still another instance. At Gîtâ, chapter V, stanza 15, it is said, that 'the Lord receives the sin or merit of none.' Yet at chapter V, stanza 29, and again at chapter IX, stanza 24, Krishna calls himself 'the Lord and enjoyer' of all sacrifices and penances. How, it may well be asked, can the Supreme Being 'enjoy' that which he does not even receive?' Once more, at chapter X, stanza 29,Krishna declares that 'none is hateful to me, none dear.' And yet the remarkable verses at the close of chapter XII seem to stand in point-blank contradiction to that declaration. There through a most elaborate series of stanzas, the burden of Krishna 's eloquent sermon is 'such a one is dear to me.' And again in those fine verses, where Krishna winds up his Divine Lay, he similarly tells Arguna, that he, Arguna, is 'dear' to Krishna. And Krishna also speaks of that devotee as 'dear' to him, who may publish the Mystery of the Gîtâ among those who reverence the Supreme Being. And yet again, how are we to reconcile the same passage about none being 'hateful or dear' toKrishna , with his own words at chapter XVI, stanza 18 and following stanzas? The language used in describing the 'demoniac' people there mentioned is not remarkable for sweetness towards them, while Krishna says positively, 'I hurl down such people into demoniac wombs, whereby they go down into misery and the vilest condition.' These persons are scarcely characterised with accuracy 'as neither hateful nor dear' to Krishna . It seems to me, that all these are real inconsistencies in the Gîtâ, not such, perhaps, as might not be explained away, but such, I think, as indicate a mind making guesses at truth., as Professor Max Müller puts it, rather than a mind elaborating a complete and organised system of philosophy. There is not even a trace of consciousness on the part of the author that these inconsistencies exist. And the contexts of the various passages indicate, in my judgment, that a half-truth is struck out here, and another half-truth there, with special reference to the special subject then under discussion; but no attempt is made to organise the various half-truths, which are apparently incompatible, into a symmetrical whole, where the apparent inconsistencies might possibly vanish altogether in the higher synthesis. And having regard to these various points, and to the further point, that the sequence of ideas throughout the verses of the Gîtâ is not always easily followed, we are, I think, safe in adhering to the opinion expressed above, that the Gîtâ is a nonsystematic work.” (Pages 10-13: Some intervening sentences are omitted here.)
“My view is that in the Gita and the Upanishads, the philosophical part has not been consistently and fully worked out. We have there the results of free thought, exercised on different subjects of great moment, unfettered by the exigencies of any foregone conclusions, or of any fully developed theory. It is afterwards, it is at a later stage of philosophical progress, that system-making arises. In that stage some thinkers interpret whole works by the light of some particular doctrines or expressions. And the result is the development of a whole multitude of philosophical sects, following the lead of those thinkers, and all professing to draw their doctrine from the Gîtâ or the Upanishads, yet each differing remarkably from the other.”(page 7-8)
The last para is an explanation for all the inconsistencies in
No comments:
Post a Comment