Bhagavad Gita controversy

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

There is no need for mundane explanation including what JNDas gave because the fact that time "stopped" can be well established. I will do it in the next post in a scientific manner.

But no text mentions that the time stopped. On the other hand, I have seen texts stating one muhurta passed, which is a mundane measurement of time.

 

[karthik_v]

Originaly posted by Karthik:I have presented only one argument so far. I will wait till tomorrow and others have nothing more to contribute to that argument, then I will present my second.

Avinashji responds:Nooooooooooooo. You can't present another argument now. You wrote that Dhristdyumna had not blew his conch shell. But, Gita says that he did. So, that argument is wrong.

I was referring to A L Basham's argument and not my response to that. When I said I will other arguments, I meant the other arguments of ALB.

 

I acknowledged that I was wrong about the blowing of conch shell after you pointed out. Perhaps, you missed my response.

[karthik_v]

I Seattle, we recited BG in group once and it took 1 hour 40 minutes. Most of us didn't know Sanskrit. ne person who is conversant with Sanskrit said that he recites the whole BG once a week and it takes him just 1 hour.

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by jndas:

But no text mentions that the time stopped. On the other hand, I have seen texts stating one muhurta passed, which is a mundane measurement of time.

BG 18.76

 

rajan samsmrtya samsmrtya imam samvAdam adhbhutam...

 

Not only did this conversation take place once but Sanjaya continues to remember it again and again before moving on to narration of the battle. He starts the narration of the battle with the first arrow shot. So it was not that he was meditating about the Gita conversation while time elapsed.

 

The vedic concept of time is very complicated and allows for multiple perceptions of time. Anyway, what is the source of the text that explains that one muhurtha elapsed ?

 

[karthik_v]

Ram prabhu argues that time stopped while Krishna addressed Arjuna. J N Das prabhu argues that it didn't take more than 45 minutes or so for the entire conversation. Both could be possibilities. In either case we need exact references in support. I personally believe that it is possible to recite the Gita in less than an hour.

 

Assuming (for argument's sake) that time didn't stop, still there is reason to believe that the armies wouldn't have started the battle, keeping with dharma. Krishna and Arjuna were talking in the middle of the battlefield, between the 2 armies. Obviously, Arjuna was unwilling to start the war. So, one can argue that Bhisma, Drona etc., wouldn't have started the war against an unwilling opponent. This practice finds mention in other itihasas too. For example, when Rama injures Ravana, Ravana is in no mood to fight. Rama stops fighting as well and allows Ravana to go away. Even as late as 10th century CE, remnants of this dharma was practised in India. When Prithviraj Chauhan defeated Mohammad of Ghori [no, not the prophet], Ghori is demoralized. He stops fighting and is scared as a rabbit. But PRC lets him go magnanimously. Aristobulus recalls something very similar w.r.t. Alexander the [not so] great. When Alexander climbs the walls of the fortress to fight the Malis, the enemies pierce his breastplate and Alexander is badly injured. Malis stop fighting right away, though that enabled Alexander to get away.

 

So, it doesn't seem so remote when it comes to Kurukshetra war.

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Ram prabhu argues that time stopped while Krishna addressed Arjuna. J N Das prabhu argues that it didn't take more than 45 minutes or so for the entire conversation. Both could be possibilities. In either case we need exact references in support. I personally believe that it is possible to recite the Gita in less than an hour.

 

Assuming (for argument's sake) that time didn't stop, still there is reason to believe that the armies wouldn't have started the battle, keeping with dharma. Krishna and Arjuna were talking in the middle of the battlefield, between the 2 armies. Obviously, Arjuna was unwilling to start the war. So, one can argue that Bhisma, Drona etc., wouldn't have started the war against an unwilling opponent. This practice finds mention in other itihasas too. For example, when Rama injures Ravana, Ravana is in no mood to fight. Rama stops fighting as well and allows Ravana to go away. Even as late as 10th century CE, remnants of this dharma was practised in India. When Prithviraj Chauhan defeated Mohammad of Ghori [no, not the prophet], Ghori is demoralized. He stops fighting and is scared as a rabbit. But PRC lets him go magnanimously. Aristobulus recalls something very similar w.r.t. Alexander the [not so] great. When Alexander climbs the walls of the fortress to fight the Malis, the enemies pierce his breastplate and Alexander is badly injured. Malis stop fighting right away, though that enabled Alexander to get away.

 

So, it doesn't seem so remote when it comes to Kurukshetra war.

Absolutely. I agree with Karthik's point assuming the time did not stop. (Ofcourse stop means different when applied to time than when applied to cars )

 

Also blowing the conchshell is not the signal to start the war. Actual war starts only after Bhishma, the seniormost warrior on the battlefied ties the wire to his bow ( never mind the English usage )

 

There is no problem in speaking the entire gita before the war starts. But I will explain time did indeed stop when I get time. Otherwise, go on with the topic and I will open a new thread.

[karthik_v]

 

[This message has been edited by karthik_v (edited 05-13-2002).]

[karthik_v]

A L Basham's argument # 2:

 

"Only chapters 1 and 2 are related to the context of Kurukshetra war. The remaining chapters are out of context. The moral quandary of Arjuna is directly answered with verse 38 of chapter 2. These 2 chapters pose the moral dilemma of whether to fight or not and Krishna gives a convincing answer in these 2 chapters. So, only these 2 chapters formed the original BG.

 

There is further evidence to this. In the Asvamedha parvan of Mahabharat, there is an Anu Gita. This describes events that happened long after Mahabharat. Here the Pandavas are ruling peacefully. Krishna visits them and Arjuna tells him that he has forgotten all that taught by Krishna in the battlefield and requests Him to repeat them. Krishna says that He can't repeat everything and adds "I already declared the highest Brahman to you". Then He gives a discourse that talks about Brahman, guna and Samkhya philosophy. Yet there is not one reference to Bhakti. Nor is there any mention of Krishna's divinity.

 

All these prove that Anu Gita, as it is in line with chapters 1 and 2 of BG, was original and all the other chapters of BG were later interpolations."

[Avinash]

The moral quandary of Arjuna is directly answered with verse 38 of chapter 2. These 2 chapters pose the moral dilemma of whether to fight or not and Krishna gives a convincing answer in these 2 chapters. So, only these 2 chapters formed the original BG.

 

I do not consider this argument given by Al Basham as good. We may think that the words spoken by Krsna in the first two chapters were convincing enough. But Arjuna, who was overcome with compassion, needed much more detailed explanation.

[Avinash]

Regarding Anu Gita, as Al Basham has himself written, Krshan says that He could not repeat everything and then explains to Arjuna what is known as Anu Gita. The words 'I can not repeat everything' prove that Bhagavad Gita must be larger than Anu Gita. So, it is not at all surprising if Bhagavad Gita contains something which is not there in Anu Gita.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

The whole story of Arjuna again becoming conditioned by maya (i.e. confused) and needing further enlightenment is quite doubtable, for Krishna states, "Knowing this nothing further remains to be known."

[Pritesh01]

Hare Krishna

All glories to Srila Prapupada.

The entire purpose of the battle of Kurukshetra was so that the Bhagavad-gita could be spoken and to establish the principals of relegion. This was Krishnas arrangment. The supreme being, situated as the supersoul within everyones heart, is fully capiable of halting the war for two hours or two millennium if He so desired. For us this concept is not so difficult to understand. But for a demonic atheist, who is so puffed up with pride due to his mundane "knowledge" gathered through imperfect senses, it is easy to understand why he is bewildered. There are always going to be people who denounce God. Such mudhas are hardly worth our energy. I do not mean to be offensive. Please forgive me if anyone takes offense to my statement. I just baffles me how such a "learned" person could be so foolish

[shvu]

 

Does anyone know how many verse the Anu-Gita contains? Also can anyone post the reason given by Krishna for being unable to repeat the BG?

 

According to one source I have, Krishna says it is impossible for him to summon that absolute power that delivered the BG once again and so he settles for something else.

 

Thanks

 

[shvu]

 

I do not consider this argument given by Al Basham as good. We may think that the words spoken by Krsna in the first two chapters were convincing enough. But Arjuna, who was overcome with compassion, needed much more detailed explanation.

But it is also possible Arjuna was satisified with the instructions given in chapter II. Most of the following instructons are not relevant to Arjuna's situation in the battlefield. Talk on Yoga, Saankya, duties of Brahmanas, characterestics of Varnas, etc, etc were all unnecessary to Arjuna, especially when he is about to fight a war. All that was required was for Krishna to convince Arjuna to fight, to peform his duty without worrying over it's outcome, period. Everything else, is irrelevant.

 

If you notice, the BG contains instructions to cover all types of people and is not specific to Arjuna and his situation. So it is possible, the BG was initially small and addressed only the probems of Arjuna and was later on developed to inroduce more Maargas and make it complete by covering all kinds of people.

 

Another point is, 18 seems to be THE number. The Gita has 18 chapters, the Mahabharata has 18 books, the number of Puranas mentioned in the Mahabharata are 18, etc. This is suspicous, although it proves nothing. If one reads the Puranas, one will find hymns and gitas coming up at regular intervals, pertaining to the context of the story. This is exactly how instructions/Gitas come up in the Mahabharta too. When you look at the scope of the work, everything is clear.

 

Cheers

 

[Avinash]

But it is also possible Arjuna was satisified with the instructions given in chapter II. Most of the following instructons are not relevant to Arjuna's situation in the battlefield. Talk on Yoga, Saankya, duties of Brahmanas, characterestics of Varnas, etc, etc were all unnecessary to Arjuna, especially when he is about to fight a war. All that was required was for Krishna to convince Arjuna to fight, to peform his duty without worrying over it's outcome, period. Everything else, is irrelevant.

 

At the beginning of third chapter, Arjuna asks Krsna to tell clearly which option between doing one's duty and renouncing all actions is better. Since Arjuna asked this question, it was quite appropriate for Krsna to answer this. This is not at all surprising. Very often it happens that when a person is explained something, then he gets some questions from the explanation itself and then those questions are to be answered if the person explaining is willing to answer. You have written that it is possible that Arjuna was convinced in the first two chapters itself. If you really want to consider all possibilities, I accept that it is definitely a possibility. But the first verse of 3rd chapter shows that Arjuna was still having doubts. Now, of course, it is one of the possibilities that even the first is latter addition. But, it is also possible that the first verse is not latter edition. In that case, the verses that show Krsna's answers are also not latter additions.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

All that was required was for Krishna to convince Arjuna to fight, to peform his duty without worrying over it's outcome, period. Everything else, is irrelevant.

That is assuming Krishna's message to Arjuna was simply to fight in ignorance. I would contend that was not His message nor His purpose in speaking Bhagavad Gita.

[karthik_v]

J N Das Prabhuji and Avinash Prabhuji,

 

Nice points and I agree.

 

Originally posted by J N Das:

The whole story of Arjuna again becoming conditioned by maya (i.e. confused) and needing further enlightenment is quite doubtable, for Krishna states, "Knowing this nothing further remains to be known."

Do you consider Anu Gita to be an interpolation? Many schools think so and even A L Basham considers it to be an interpolation, though he argues that BG itself is a later interpolation than AG, though his argument is not substantiated. What has been the stance of Vaishnava acaryas on AG?

 

Originally posted by Pritesh01:

Hare Krishna

All glories to Srila Prapupada.

The entire purpose of the battle of Kurukshetra was so that the Bhagavad-gita could be spoken and to establish the principals of relegion. This was Krishnas arrangment. The supreme being, situated as the supersoul within everyones heart, is fully capiable of halting the war for two hours or two millennium if He so desired. For us this concept is not so difficult to understand. But for a demonic atheist, who is so puffed up with pride due to his mundane "knowledge" gathered through imperfect senses, it is easy to understand why he is bewildered. There are always going to be people who denounce God. Such mudhas are hardly worth our energy. I do not mean to be offensive. Please forgive me if anyone takes offense to my statement. I just baffles me how such a "learned" person could be so foolish

Pritesh Prabhuji,

 

Indologists do not necessarily have a strong case when they denounce traditions. Often times, their arguments are very weak. But, we should not forget that they are in a position to influence the society. They are the university professors and it is their writings that every child reads. So, we should systematically repudiate their statements if we are keen on establishing the rich ideals of Sanatana dharma. I hope you might have heard of a banker from Maharashtra by the name Shrikant Talageri. He systematically deconstructed Michael Witzel of Harvard university and in the process also showed how shaky other indologists from Oldenberg downwards have been. As a result, Witzel is at the receiving end on many forums. This has had tremendous effect in disproving Aryan invasion theory. While Witzel has not been capable of selling a single book, Talageri put up his book on the net for free and also sold it by thousands. The same with Koenraad Elst, David Frawley, K D Sethna and Jim Shafer. So, we have to create a systematic model for taking on these indologists, which I am sure we can. In that process we will learn a lot too. Ignoring them doesn't help.

 

Originally posted by Shvu:

According to one source I have, Krishna says it is impossible for him to summon that absolute power that delivered the BG once again and so he settles for something else.

Interesting. I have never heard this. What is the source of this argument?

[shvu]

 

Interesting. I have never heard this. What is the source of this argument?

Here.

 

btw, It is not an argument.

 

Cheers

 

 

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by shvu:

Here.

 

btw, It is not an argument.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

Thanks Shvu. I read through that link and here is what is said: Next to the Bhagavadgita, in importance, comes the Anu-Gita which occurs towards the end of the Mahabharata epic. This Gita is supposed to be a tentative answer which Krishna gave to Arjuna, on the latter’s request to hear the contents of the Bhagavadgita once more. Krishna’s reply meant that it was impossible to summon again that power of the Absolute, by which the wisdom of the Bhagavadgita was spoken. He, however, agreed to give Arjuna a substitute which goes by the name of Anu-Gita. The contents of the Anu-Gita are not so inspiring as those of the Bhagavadgita and they touch upon the usual themes of Sankhya and Vedanta, which we shall have occasion to discuss elsewhere.

 

The highlighted portion is more of speculation and doesn't constitute a definite answer unless, it is stated so in Anu Gita itself. Do you have any idea if it is stated in Anu Gita?

[shvu]

 

The highlighted portion is more of speculation and doesn't constitute a definite answer unless, it is stated so in Anu Gita itself. Do you have any idea if it is stated in Anu Gita?

I don't know. I asked this question earlier on this thread, this morning. Also, is the Bhagavad Gita praised in any Purana? Strangely, the Bhagavatam does not mention BG at all (Not very sure, though).

 

Cheers

 

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by shvu:

I don't know. I asked this question earlier on this thread, this morning. Also, is the Bhagavad Gita praised in any Purana? Strangely, the Bhagavatam does not mention BG at all (Not very sure, though).

 

Cheers

Hope somebody answers the first part. I don't know if Bhagavad Gita is praised in any purana, but certainly the acaryas of various schools have used it to establish their principles. and this includes Sankara and Ramanuja as well. None of them even suggested that any part of BG is unreliable. That is worth noting.

 

[Avinash]

Also, is the Bhagavad Gita praised in any Purana? Strangely, the Bhagavatam does not mention BG at all (Not very sure, though).

 

Bhagavad Gita is praised in Padma Purana. Bhagavatam does mention Gita. Before leaving Earth, Krsna answered questions of Arjuna. In the answer to one question He says that He gave the answer to that question to Arjuna when the latter was not ready to fight. Of course, the word 'Gita' is not explicitly used, it is quite clear that Krsna was referring to Gita. Padma Purana uses the word 'Gita' explicitly.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Bhagavad Gita is praised in Padma Purana.

This section of Padma Purana is known as Gita Mahatmya, and in goes into great deal explaining the power and potency of each chapter of the Gita (thus it has at least 18 chapters, plus perhaps some general descriptions). It was translated and published in English by some devotee of ISKCON, but I don't have a copy on hand. The stories are very nice (it explains a story for each chapter, where someone did sadhana with that chapter of Gita, and the result).

 

[abhi_the_great]

Originally posted by jndas:

That is assuming Krishna's message to Arjuna was simply to fight in ignorance. I would contend that was not His message nor His purpose in speaking Bhagavad Gita.

I think this response is enough to cut thru Argument #2.

[Pritesh01]

PAMHO. AGTSP.

It's these kind of arguments given by this A.L. Basham person

which are why nondevotees should never speculate on Krishna conscious

philosophy. To hear such speculation has a poisonous effect and leads

one to the darkest regions of delusion. What is this business that a

'noted historian' has any authority to denounce that Krishna is the

Supreme Personality of Godhead and not an ordinary man or politician?

For Bhagavad-Gita to be understood as it is it must be heard from a

bona fide representative in parampara disciplic succession and not

based on the manufactured interpretations that suit the whimsy of

one's sense of history and neglects actual spiritual instuction.

Bhakti yoga means prioritizing Krishna's desires over our own, so no

one broadcasting some nonsense that Krishna is an ordinary mortal

blatantly advertises his complete ingorance in the matter. University

scholorships have no value in determining matters relating to the

Absolute. Krishna has very carefully laid out a clear path to Him and

for some mundane scholar to attempt to sully that instruction for the

sake of increasing his own name and fame is certainly an offense. It

is important to learn to avoid these kinds of Vaishnava aparadhas.