Bhagavad Gita Question from Galina

[Guest guest]

Hints to the social system at the time when the Bhagavad Gita was

written, are primarily contained in Chapter 1. This is in the context

of Arjuna expressing his reasons to Krishna as to why it would be

improper for him to participate in that fratricidal war. In other

chapters some hints are given as to how priests were corrupting the

Vedic religion into a business by promoting heaven, and not using

religion for spiritual enlightenment.

 

Beyond the above mentioned points the Bhagavad Gita propounds a

philosophy that is applicable to all cultures at all times.

 

I think that Buddhism was already corrupted at the time the Bhagavad

Gita was written. Buddhism was being misinterpreted to mean that one

should withdraw from life. That was not the original intent of Buddha

who based his teachings on the Vedic philosophy. The teachings of

Vedas, and also that of Buddha, have always focused on enlightenment,

so that one could actively participate in the game of life without

being unnecessarily restrained. The above philosophy teaches that one

restrains oneself by becoming attached to the objects used in that

game. Such attachments comes when one has violated one's own basic

sense of ethics in playing the game of life. The misery comes because

one has constrained oneself by identifying oneself with the body and,

to a certain degree, with the desires in the mind. The body and the

desires are transitory. One should be willing to give them up if one

wants to play the game of life with full gusto. Such attachments only

constrain oneself unnecessarily.

 

Reincarnation has to do with attachment to the body. The individual

hypnotically seeks another body after the current body perishes. This

is because he holds the consideration that a body is indispensable in

playing the game of life. This, however, is not true. When a person

realizes this he attains a much greater freedom in playing this game.

 

Vinaire

[Guest guest]

The teachings of

Vedas, and also that of Buddha, have always focused on enlightenment,

so that one could actively participate in the game of life without

being unnecessarily restrained.

 

The Buddha expounded the Buddhist philosphy after rejecting the Vedas and the

main schools of traditional Hindu thought.

 

Buddhism as opposed to traditional Hindu thought holds that there is not a

Supreme Being, but a supreme state, which is void of qualities. Buddha

maintained that enlightenment is to be brought about by individual effort,

whereas the mystical application in tradition Hindu thought is that there is no

'individual' effort, but rather, the Supreme Lord is the fount and source of all

effort that is incorrectly perceived as 'individual.' Grace is integral in

traditional Hindu thought vs. individual effort in Buddhism.

 

The Self has very different meanings in Hinduism and Buddhism.

 

Gurubhakti M

[Guest guest]

I do not believe that Buddha rejected the Vedas, simply

because it is pretty self-evident to me that the basis of

Buddhism is the Vedas. There is no other basis.

 

But I can understand and agree with you if you say that

Buddha rejected the contemporary Hindu interpretation

of the Vedas existing in his times, which regarded BRAHMAN

as the Supreme Being. The idea of BRAHMAN as the

Supreme Being goes against the philosophy expounded in the

Vedas itself. To Vedas, BRAHMAN is neither a being nor a

non-being. BRAHMAN is an actuality which is beyond being

and non-being. Call it what you may, but this actuality is

certainly not the Supreme Being according to the Vedas.

 

Now, a manifestation of BRAHMAN is what is called an

ATMAN. In ATMAN we arrive at the concept of a Being.

It should be well understood that BRAHMAN cannot be

quantified but the manifestations of BRAHMAN can be.

Thus, there can be unlimited number of ATMANs (beings).

 

An ATMAN in its supreme pure state is what we may

call a PARMATMAN (Supreme Being). From the preceding

statements we can see that the number of PARMATMAN

(Supreme Being) is not necessarily limited to one. There

can be more than one Supreme Beings, because

PARMATMAN (Supreme Being) is ATMAN (being) in its

supreme state of purity. Beyond PARMATMAN is the

unmanifested state of BRAHMAN. Buddha called it Nirvana.

 

Of course, Buddhism itself got corrupted with the passage

of time. But if you logically study the great insights

documented in the Vedas, you will find that those insights

to be at the very basis of Buddhism.

 

I may not have answered your objection fully. So, please

let me know if you want me to address another aspect

of your objection.

 

-

M

Ramakrishna

Friday, March 03, 2000 7:23 PM

Re: [ramakrishna] Bhagavad Gita Question from Galina

 

 

" M " <currwamp

 

 

 

The teachings of

Vedas, and also that of Buddha, have always focused on enlightenment,

so that one could actively participate in the game of life without

being unnecessarily restrained.

 

The Buddha expounded the Buddhist philosphy after rejecting the Vedas and the

main schools of traditional Hindu thought.

 

Buddhism as opposed to traditional Hindu thought holds that there is not a

Supreme Being, but a supreme state, which is void of qualities. Buddha

maintained that enlightenment is to be brought about by individual effort,

whereas the mystical application in tradition Hindu thought is that there is no

'individual' effort, but rather, the Supreme Lord is the fount and source of all

effort that is incorrectly perceived as 'individual.' Grace is integral in

traditional Hindu thought vs. individual effort in Buddhism.

 

The Self has very different meanings in Hinduism and Buddhism.

 

Gurubhakti M