Guest guest Posted March 3, 2001 Report Share Posted March 3, 2001 Namaste Sunderh > Thank you for the novelty of your approach to the study of >Gita. No permissin is required on this open forum to continue your >explication! Please proceed. Thanks a Lot Sir. > I am somewhat confused by your statements about Gita being >non-historical, and yet mixing it with historical events of Buddhist >philosophy. What I mean by non-historical is that Mahabharat (of which Gita a part) is a Fictional work rather than Historical account of Hastinapur. It is written by clair intelligence of Ved Vyas to counter the effect of Buddha on the society at large. It means that contents of Mahabharat are not factual representation of the History of HASTINAPUR. All the characters in Mahabharat are creation of Ved Vyas. It as well means Mahabhart never happened and hence Gita as well never actually told in the actual battel field but entire creation is clair intelligence of Ved Vyas. Why Ved Vyas wrote a poem that looks like an account of History? This is because to capture the masses and tell them the actual path of truth in the manner in which masses would appriciate and enjoy. It must be clear that the time when Mahabhart and hence Gita was written society had great impact of Buddha. Buddha strongly opposed the Ved and Upnisidhas and Buddha chose the medium of his teachings not as Sanskrit. This made masses to follow him and hence entire Vedic culture was seriously threathed. The first attempt to stop the onslaught of Buddha was made by Maharishi Valmiki. It is belived that Mahabharat was written after 70-100 years of Ramayan. So my point was that Mahabharat did not happen. It is a great poetic work of Ved Vyas. > The word 'atha' also may simply indicate an auspicious >beginning, and 'iti' mean the end of the Canto. Of course one can >look for other meanings also as you have done. What I feel is that once we belive that Ved Vyas written it with specific intentions and superhuman intelligence then it is difficult to belive that words used by him would have some simple meanings. That is why I tried for some other meaning. We belive that Lord Ganesh scripted the Mahabhart as told by Ved Vyas. Moreover Mahabharat says that when Ved Vyas started thinking about Writting a poem he wanted someone to write it. He requested Lord Ganesh to assitt him as a scriber. Lord Ganesh aggreed with a condition that Ved Vyas must tell the poem without stoping for even a moment. Ved Vyas accepted the challange but imposed another conditions that Lord Ganesh would write only when he would fully understand what ever is told to him. Now here we have Lord Ganesh who is belived to be Lord of Vidya and Ved Vyas has put a condition that Lord Ganesh would write only when he understands it!!!!. Can we assume that a Lord of Vidya can be challanged like that? But Ved Vyas did it!!! In my opinion this story is the key in entire understaning of Mahabharat and hence Gita. When a Man challenges his Lord in such a way then the activity must be of super intelligence and high degree of creativity. Ved Vyas started Mahabharat and Lord Ganesh could understand only first two stanzas. After that he had to take time to understand and that way it provided time to both and hence Mahabhart was completed!!! Now if we read Mahabharat and Gita we dont find it that difficult to understand. Gita takes time but stories in Mahabharat are pretty straight forward and any person of teens can understand and enjoy it. Why Lord Ganesh faced problems to understand it? Why Ved Vyas inspite of knowing Lord Ganesh put up such condition? And why Ved Vyas would call for Lord Ganesh as a scriber in the first palce? He in that case would have done it with some other. But Ved Vyas probably wanted to convey something from the story itself. It means that the great poet Ved Vyas wants to convey us through this story that the real meaning of his immortal work is not so easy to understand unless and until the person elevates himself to the level of Lord Ganesh, the Lord of Vidya(Knowledge) nay Knowledge itself. That is why the poem is called as MahaBharat Maha+Bharat i.e. Bha+Rat 'Bha' means Knowledge and 'Rat' means enjoying fully that state. So Many times in Gita Arjun is addressed as Bharat to indicate that a person who enjoys the full state of being all knowledgeable. This poem is MahaBharat i.e. superlative of Bharat. Who soever will fully understand it will be not only Bharat but as well MahaBharat. Lord Ganesh was first to do that and that is why he is a Lord of Knowledge. That is why we start every good activity with the name of Lord Ganesh. Ramayan does not start with Ganesh Stavan. It is only in Mahabharat and all subsequent epics start with Ganesh Stuti. That is why Lord Ganesh is Lord of Knowledge. So may point is that we must pain ourselves to find real meaning and words used in Gita must have some specific purpose. In my opinion nothing is simple in Mahabharat and hence Gita. That is why I tried to find out real meaning of 'Atha' and 'Iti'. > 'Stubha' literally means 'praise'. anu-Stubh a meter with >4 'feet' used in praise of Gayatri [with three 'feet' in the meter], >was thus called [anu = following], Ref. RigVeda X:130:4, according to >Monier-Williams dictionary. If you happen to have any other >references, please let us know. As far as my Knowlwdge goes we learnt in our school days that 'Stubha' is a state of purity to be achieved or a stem. That is how we were taught 'KauStubha' i.e.Kau+Stubha i.e. Kau=Good and Stubha=State of purity to be achieved. That is why KauStubha is reffered as Jewl of Lord Indra. Actually I did search and found at http://www.miraura.org/lit/skgl/skgl-21.html stubh=the rhythm that affirms the gods; the Word considered as a power which affirms and confirms in the settled rhythm of things. stubha=light, enjoyment, bliss. Hence 'Anu' means to follow and 'Stubha' means that desired stage of pursuit. So Anu is a Vector i.e. it indicates direction where as Stubha is Scaler i.e. it indicates a state(Stithi). So Ved Vyas must have thought that who so ever will follow(Anu) should ultimatly reach to a state(Stubha) of purity/enjoyment/bliss. Thanks lot for your Time and Space. Prabodh Vekhande Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2001 Report Share Posted March 3, 2001 Namaste, Thanks again for continuing the thread of discussion, and hope that our disagreements with your hypotheses does not discourage you from futher sharpening your points. I would just like to re-iterate Ram-ji's point that historicity is not a relevant argument to the understanding of the essence of Advaita or Sanatana Dharma. While reading about Hindu Symbology, I came across this quotation by Sw. Adidevananda: .....parokshapriyaa iva hi devaaH pratyakshadvishhaH . [brihad.Up. IV:ii:2] ....for the gods are fond of the indirect, as it were, they dislike the direct [or the evident]. [i have added more comments under the asterisks below]: Regards, s. advaitin, "softbit" <softbit@n...> wrote: > What I mean by non-historical is that Mahabharat (of which Gita a part) is a > Fictional work rather than Historical account of Hastinapur. It is written > by clair intelligence of Ved Vyas to counter the effect of Buddha on the > society at large. It means that contents of Mahabharat are not factual > representation of the History of HASTINAPUR. All the characters in > Mahabharat are creation of Ved Vyas. It as well means Mahabhart never > happened and hence Gita as well never actually told in the actual battel > field but entire creation is clair intelligence of Ved Vyas. It is belived that > Mahabharat was written after 70-100 years of Ramayan. So my point was that > Mahabharat did not happen. ******** Ved Vyasa also wrote many Puranas, which are accepted as fictional stories. The fact that Mahabharata and Ramayana are classed as Itihasas gives them a different authority. Fictions may have been added in the course of time, and that is why they are classed a smritis, and not shrutis. In any case, it is futile to argue the merits of your opinion in this forum, as Ramji has indicated. It is pitting one belief against another! We need to focus on the essence of Sanatana Dharma. ______________ > What I feel is that once we belive that Ved Vyas written it with specific > intentions and superhuman intelligence then it is difficult to belive that > words used by him would have some simple meanings. ********* Here is a an explanation of the word 'atha' by Shri Deglurkar, in his scholarly commentary on the Narada Bhakti Sutras [original in Marathi]. "It is the practice among the learned ones to begin a treatise with an auspicious word, in order to accomplish its completion without obstacles. The word atha indicates this, as noted in the verse: AUMkaarashchaatha shabdashcha dvaavetau brahamaNaH puraa . kaNThaM bhittvaa viniryaatau tena maa~Ngalikaavubhau .. At the beginning of Creation, the first words uttered by Brahma were AUM and atha, hence they are indicative of auspiciousness. Deglurkar makes an interesting comment that though adhikaara ia an accepted meaning, it is not used in that sense here! For all other saadhanas,adhikaara is expected; but for bhakti, just being born as a human being is qualification enough!! A third meaning of atha is anantara; Naradamaharshi composed numerous works, but because of their subtlety many people would forfeit their chance to understand them. Therefore, he composed these sutras to explain the secrets in an easier manner. This first sutra is also called a 'pratij~naa suutra'; indicating the composer's determination to fulfil the will to explain the secrets." If we extrapolate these comments to Gita, the simplest meaning is the most meaningful to me. ____________________ _____ > > As far as my Knowlwdge goes we learnt in our school days that 'Stubha' is a > state of purity to be achieved or a stem. That is how we were taught > 'KauStubha' i.e.Kau+Stubha i.e. Kau=Good and Stubha=State of purity to be > achieved. That is why KauStubha is reffered as Jewl of Lord Indra. > Actually I did search and found at > http://www.miraura.org/lit/skgl/skgl-21.html > stubh=the rhythm that affirms the gods; the Word considered as a power which > affirms and confirms in the settled rhythm of things. > stubha=light, enjoyment, bliss. > Hence 'Anu' means to follow and 'Stubha' means that desired stage of > pursuit. So Anu is a Vector i.e. it indicates direction where as Stubha is > Scaler i.e. it indicates a state(Stithi). So Ved Vyas must have thought that > who so ever will follow(Anu) should ultimatly reach to a state (Stubha) of > purity/enjoyment/bliss. ********** Here are the dictionary meanings of the verb 'stubh' : stubh Entry stubh Meaning 1 (connected with 1. %{stu} and %{stumbh}) cl. 1. P. (Naigh. iii , 14) %{sto4bhati} (only in pres. base ; 3. sg. %{stobdhi} JaimBr. ; p. A1. %{-stubhAna} RV. ; Gr. also pf. %{tuSTubhe} ; fut. % {stobhitA} &c.) , to utter a joyful sound , hum , make a succession of exclamations , shout (esp. applied to the chanted interjections in a Sa1man) RV. Br. La1t2y. ; cl. 1. A1. %{stobhate} , to pause , stop , cause to stop , paralyze &c. (%{stambhe}) Dha1tup. x , 34: Caus. %{stobhayati} (aor. %{atuSTubhat}) , to praise in successive exclamations , celebrate RV. [Cf. Eng. {stop}.] stu4bh Entry stubh Meaning 2 (ifc.) uttering joyful sounds , praising (cf. %{anu-} , % {tri-STubh} , %{vRSa-stubh} &c. ; accord. to some %{stubh} in the first two comp. means `" stopping , pausing "' , the metre requiring regular stoppages or pauses ; but see , %{anu-STubh}) ; f. joyful exclamation or cry , praise RV. ; m. a praiser Naigh. iii , 16. Sri Aurobindo's glossary is his interpretation of the Vedic words in the light of the particular path [integral Yoga] he developed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2001 Report Share Posted March 6, 2001 06032001 Namaste Sunderji >Ved Vyasa also wrote many Puranas, which are accepted as fictional >stories. The fact that Mahabharata and Ramayana are classed as >Itihasas gives them a different authority. Fictions may have been >added in the course of time, and that is why they are classed a >smritis, and not shrutis. It is difficult to understand that author writes most of the things as Fiction but only one great Epic as History? Why do we belive only Puranas are Fictions? It is in my opinion simple case of effect of our KuruKhetra that debars us to accept some thing that we dont want to.These are the cultivations we have received in terms of society and culture that make us to have a very attached and strong feeling about some aspect of our religious ego. >In any case, it is futile to argue the merits of your opinion in this >forum, >as Ramji has indicated. It is pitting one belief against another! Yes I do agree with you and RamChandranji that we must see the philosopical aspect of these epics rather than any thing else. But in doing so some times we have to make our basis clear so as to make it simple for one and all. That is why I put up the theory of History or NonHistory. >We need to focus on the essence of Sanatana Dharma. This is what I wanted to say. We must see the essence of Sanatana Dharma. We may at times get tempted to consider Sanatanta as superlative of History as Ancient. Thats make whole of the problem. >Here is a an explanation of the word 'atha' by Shri Deglurkar, in his >scholarly commentary on the Narada Bhakti Sutras [original in >Marathi]. > >"It is the practice among the learned ones to begin a treatise with >an auspicious word, in order to accomplish its completion without >obstacles. The word atha indicates this, as noted in the verse: > >AUMkaarashchaatha shabdashcha dvaavetau brahamaNaH puraa . >kaNThaM bhittvaa viniryaatau tena maa~Ngalikaavubhau .. > >At the beginning of Creation, the first words uttered by Brahma were >AUM and >atha, hence they are indicative of auspiciousness. Here again I say same thing, Ved Vyas set many precedences about writtings. The practice of Ganesh pujan in the begining of every good work started with only Mahabharat. Mahabharat starts with Ganesh pujan Not Ramayan. Ramayan was written much before that by Maharishi Valmiki but UttarRamayan i.e. YogVasishta starts with Ganesh Vandana that was written after the Mahabharat. Author of YogVashishta is again Maharishi Valmiki. It would be interesing to find out how many puranas begin with the word Atha written by Ved Vyas. So authors after Ved Vyas took many things from Ved Vyas writtings. Since Ved Vyas started his astronomical work with Atha that means it is to be done with every good activity that leads to auspiciousness this is what authors and populace at large belive and hence explanation regarding that will always be like that. >If we extrapolate these comments to Gita, the simplest meaning is the >most meaningful to me. I respect your sentiments but again request you to just give a thought to it without much distrubing our belief. And with the word 'Stubha' I suppose we both want to point to same meaning with different vision. lets accept it and appriciate it . One last request please eloborate the placing of quotation by Sw. Adidevananda I could not understand what you wanted me to understand. With all sincerity thanks a lot for yor Time and Space. Prabodh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2001 Report Share Posted March 6, 2001 Namaste, [Responses below asterisks: advaitin, "softbit" <softbit@n...> wrote: > 06032001 > It is difficult to understand that author writes most of the things as > Fiction but only one great Epic as History? Why do we belive only Puranas > are Fictions? It is in my opinion simple case of effect of our KuruKhetra > that debars us to accept some thing that we dont want to.These are the > cultivations we have received in terms of society and culture that make us > to have a very attached and strong feeling about some aspect of our > religious ego. *********** This is known as argumentum ad hominem, and carries no weight in logic. > > Yes I do agree with you and RamChandranji that we must see the philosopical > aspect of these epics rather than any thing else. But in doing so some times > we have to make our basis clear so as to make it simple for one and all. > That is why I put up the theory of History or NonHistory. ********* The theory of non-history seems irrelevant, unless you argue and prove that taking it as history makes the interpretations illogical. > > >We need to focus on the essence of Sanatana Dharma. > > This is what I wanted to say. We must see the essence of Sanatana Dharma. We > may at times get tempted to consider Sanatanta as superlative of History as > Ancient. Thats make whole of the problem. ******** Same as above. There is no problem unless one creates a paper tiger to shoot down! You yourself brought in the 'historical' point that Gita was written to offset the influence of Buddhism. Sanatana refers to eternal and not just ancient. > > > Here again I say same thing, Ved Vyas set many precedences about writtings. > The practice of Ganesh pujan in the begining of every good work started with > only Mahabharat. Mahabharat starts with Ganesh pujan Not Ramayan. Ramayan > was written much before that by Maharishi Valmiki but UttarRamayan i.e. > YogVasishta starts with Ganesh Vandana that was written after the > Mahabharat. Author of YogVashishta is again Maharishi Valmiki. It would be > interesing to find out how many puranas begin with the word Atha written by > Ved Vyas. So authors after Ved Vyas took many things from Ved Vyas > writtings. Since Ved Vyas started his astronomical work with Atha that means > it is to be done with every good activity that leads to auspiciousness this > is what authors and populace at large belive and hence explanation regarding > that will always be like that. ********* Mahabharat starts with worship to Narayana, Nara, and Sarasvati, and itself is referred to as "Jaya" and not Mahabharata. I can only say that there is no need to replace what you call 'fiction' with a another fictional theory; and such theories need to be argued in another forum. > > >If we extrapolate these comments to Gita, the simplest meaning is the > >most meaningful to me. > > I respect your sentiments but again request you to just give a thought to it > without much distrubing our belief. ********* I am more than willing to believe you, but the theory of non-history is not relevant and after reading as many sides as possible of the argument for and against, over a period of 50 years, I do not think it is time well-spent to rehash the same. > > And with the word 'Stubha' I suppose we both want to point to same meaning > with different vision. lets accept it and appriciate it . > > One last request please eloborate the placing of quotation by Sw. > Adidevananda I could not understand what you wanted me to understand. ************* The quotation was meant to highlight the reasons for the different interpretations of the subtleties of spiritual truth, which transcends language itself. Regards, s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2001 Report Share Posted March 6, 2001 06032001 Namste Sunderji >> Fiction but only one great Epic as History? Why do we belive only >Puranas >> are Fictions? It is in my opinion simple case of effect of our >KuruKhetra >> that debars us to accept some thing that we dont want to.These are >the >> cultivations we have received in terms of society and culture that >make us >> to have a very attached and strong feeling about some aspect of our >> religious ego. > >*********** >This is known as argumentum ad hominem, and carries no weight in >logic. This was argumentum ad hominem? Basically I never said regarding that and if you felt like 'ad hominem' I tender my unconditional apology. No problems at all. I never wanted any thing like that to happen. But if you still feel like that I again make it clear that I did not mean anything like 'ad hominem'. I suppose this time you wont take it as ad populum. What is this: >I am more than willing to believe you, but the theory of non-history >is not relevant and after reading as many sides as possible of the >argument for and against, over a period of 50 years, I do not think >it is time well-spent to rehash the same. Is it not what I said earler. These are the cultivations we have received in terms of society and culture that make us to have a very attached and strong feeling about some aspect of our religious ego. >The theory of non-history seems irrelevant, unless you argue and >prove that taking it as history makes the interpretations illogical. I, never in my posting said anything against or intented that I wanted to prove that History gives illogical conclusions.Why are we drawing conclusions like this? I just wanted to say that considering it as History may not allow us to see many hidden thoughts. But simply considering as NonHistory makes us t interpret it with more philosophical insight. Every one here some how or the other seems to have grasp the impressions that I refute validity of History and I want you to start beliving from day one that entire Mythology is NonHistory. Not at all. Why should I? and Who am I to do that? I made it very clear and repeatedly requesting to honour each others views. Now further you wont allow me to say anything. >I can only say that there is no need to replace what you >call 'fiction' with a another fictional theory; and such theories >need to be argued in another forum. Should I Consider it as ad Baculum???? >Same as above. There is no problem unless one creates a paper tiger >to shoot down! So early so much of energy is lost. Thanks for yor Time and Space Prabodh sunderh <sunderh advaitin <advaitin> Tuesday, March 06, 2001 7:10 PM Re: Sunderh :gItAsatsang: Atha Shrimad Bhagwad Gita >Namaste, > > [Responses below asterisks: > >advaitin, "softbit" <softbit@n...> wrote: >> 06032001 > >> It is difficult to understand that author writes most of the things >as >> Fiction but only one great Epic as History? Why do we belive only >Puranas >> are Fictions? It is in my opinion simple case of effect of our >KuruKhetra >> that debars us to accept some thing that we dont want to.These are >the >> cultivations we have received in terms of society and culture that >make us >> to have a very attached and strong feeling about some aspect of our >> religious ego. > >*********** >This is known as argumentum ad hominem, and carries no weight in >logic. > > > > >> >> Yes I do agree with you and RamChandranji that we must see the >philosopical >> aspect of these epics rather than any thing else. But in doing so >some times >> we have to make our basis clear so as to make it simple for one and >all. >> That is why I put up the theory of History or NonHistory. > >********* >The theory of non-history seems irrelevant, unless you argue and >prove that taking it as history makes the interpretations illogical. > > >> >> >We need to focus on the essence of Sanatana Dharma. >> >> This is what I wanted to say. We must see the essence of Sanatana >Dharma. We >> may at times get tempted to consider Sanatanta as superlative of >History as >> Ancient. Thats make whole of the problem. > >******** >Same as above. There is no problem unless one creates a paper tiger >to shoot down! You yourself brought in the 'historical' point that >Gita was written to offset the influence of Buddhism. Sanatana refers >to eternal and not just ancient. > >> > >> >> Here again I say same thing, Ved Vyas set many precedences about >writtings. >> The practice of Ganesh pujan in the begining of every good work >started with >> only Mahabharat. Mahabharat starts with Ganesh pujan Not Ramayan. >Ramayan >> was written much before that by Maharishi Valmiki but UttarRamayan >i.e. >> YogVasishta starts with Ganesh Vandana that was written after the >> Mahabharat. Author of YogVashishta is again Maharishi Valmiki. It >would be >> interesing to find out how many puranas begin with the word Atha >written by >> Ved Vyas. So authors after Ved Vyas took many things from Ved Vyas >> writtings. Since Ved Vyas started his astronomical work with Atha >that means >> it is to be done with every good activity that leads to >auspiciousness this >> is what authors and populace at large belive and hence explanation >regarding >> that will always be like that. > >********* >Mahabharat starts with worship to Narayana, Nara, and Sarasvati, and >itself is referred to as "Jaya" and not Mahabharata. >I can only say that there is no need to replace what you >call 'fiction' with a another fictional theory; and such theories >need to be argued in another forum. > >> >> >If we extrapolate these comments to Gita, the simplest meaning is >the >> >most meaningful to me. >> >> I respect your sentiments but again request you to just give a >thought to it >> without much distrubing our belief. > >********* >I am more than willing to believe you, but the theory of non-history >is not relevant and after reading as many sides as possible of the >argument for and against, over a period of 50 years, I do not think >it is time well-spent to rehash the same. > > >> >> And with the word 'Stubha' I suppose we both want to point to same >meaning >> with different vision. lets accept it and appriciate it . >> >> One last request please eloborate the placing of quotation by Sw. >> Adidevananda I could not understand what you wanted me to >understand. > > >************* >The quotation was meant to highlight the reasons for the different >interpretations of the subtleties of spiritual truth, which >transcends language itself. > >Regards, > >s. > > > > > > >Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. >Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ >Please Note the New Changes at the Mail Server >For details, visit: /local/news.html >Post message: advaitin >Subscribe: advaitin- >Un: advaitin >URL to Advaitin: advaitin >File folder: advaitin >Link Folder: advaitin/links >Messages Folder: advaitin/messages > > > >Your use of is subject to > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.