Lord Ganesha's broken tusk

[mmaranr]

Hi all,

 

I came across a letter written to The Editor that question the writer of Gita. The extract of the reply is as follows:

 

"Later Vyasa Muni wanted to put the Mahabharata in written form, and for this he took the assistance of Sri Ganesh. Lord Ganesha broke one of his tusks and used it as a pen. Vyasa Muni spoke the Mahabharata (which includes the Gita), and Lord Ganesha transcribed it."

 

From my understanding, Lord Ganesha is only a mythological god who never existed in history. His origin (from the dust from Parvathy's body) and the reasons behind the elephant head are also merely philosophical. I thought that his character was introduced in ancient scripts to explain the intangible and complex emotions of humans. Do most believers accept the fact that the Gita was written using a broken tusk?

 

 

 

[karthik_v]

 

From my understanding, Lord Ganesha is only a mythological god who never existed in history. His origin (from the dust from Parvathy's body) and the reasons behind the elephant head are also merely philosophical. I thought that his character was introduced in ancient scripts to explain the intangible and complex emotions of humans. Do most believers accept the fact that the Gita was written using a broken tusk?

 

 

Having concluded yourself that Ganesha is only a myth, what is the purpose of your question? Is this a survey? If so, would your conclusion change based on majority perception?

 

There are 2 streams of thoughts amongst the Hindus. One stream accepts Ganesha and Vyasa deva as real personalities. The other regards them as symbolic [NOT mythological] meant to convey a higher and often abstruse reality. Neither of them disrespects such personalities, whether they consider them to be real or symbolic. Both streams are focussed on getting to the purport of the message that such personalities have given. What you need to understand is that Hinduism DOES NOT rely upon the historicity of its personae; it relies on the philosophy that emanated from those personae. That is precisely the reason we don't have calendars based on Krishna era, Vyasa era, Shiva era and Ganesha era, unlike theChristians who have an era based on Jesus or the Muslims who have one based on Mohammad. Hope that answers your question.

[Guest guest]

Dear karthik_v,

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

>>Having concluded yourself that Ganesha is only a myth, what is the purpose of your question? Is this a survey? If so, would your conclusion change based on majority perception?>>

 

The reason I posed the question is because I find it difficult to accept the fact the Ganesha actually existed and wrote Gita using his broken tusk. If Ganesha is, indeed, only symbolic (as you mentioned) could the story behind the writing of Gita using his tusk be merely conceptual? There are three things in the reply given by the editor that is difficult for me to accept: (i) existence of Ganesha (a human with an elephant head) (ii) breaking of a tusk (normally tusk are sawed to make ivory) (iii) the use of tusk to write (unless it is on soft clay). My apology if my questions sound absurd. I am only trying to reason things out.

 

Regards,

 

mmaranr

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

The scriptures state these divine personalities such as Rama, Krishna, etc., to be realities.

 

According to the Gita, whenever there is a decline in religious practice, the Lord incarnates to reestablish dharma. These descents, and Lord Krishna's words in Gita, become meaningless if they are mere mythological stories.

 

There are realities beyond our perception, both spiritual and subtle. The saints and rishis have described these realities to us because they have factually seen them (thus they are tattva-darshis). We may choose to believe their statements or disregard their statements, but the reality will remain unaffected.

 

The absolute truth can not be comprehended by mere logic. His unlimited expansions and vibhutis are beyond the explanation of our intellect. Lord Krishna as a seven year old child lifted the mountain of Govardhana on his pinky. Lord Rama killed 14,000 demons with a single arrow. Lord Vamana covered the entire existence in three footsteps. These are the divine lilas of the Lord.

 

Whether you believe in them or not, listen to these glories of the Lord, for they purify our hearts of all contamination and bring us to the spiritual platform from where these divine activities can be understood:

 

shrinvatam sva-kathah krishnah

punya-sravana-kirtanah

hridy antah stho hy abhadrani

vidhunoti suhrit satam

 

"Sri Krishna, the Personality of Godhead, who is the Paramatma in everyone's heart and the benefactor of the truthful devotee, cleanses all bad qualities from the heart of the devotee who has developed the urge to hear of His pastimes, which are in themselves virtuous when properly heard and chanted."

[mmaranr]

Dear jndas,

 

"The absolute truth can not be comprehended by mere logic. His unlimited expansions and vibhutis are beyond the

explanation of our intellect. Lord Krishna as a seven year old child lifted the mountain of Govardhana on his pinky. Lord

Rama killed 14,000 demons with a single arrow. Lord Vamana covered the entire existence in three footsteps. These are

the divine lilas of the Lord."

 

When the truth cannot be comprehended by mere logic, it is difficult for one to distinguish between reality

and imagination (like in a fairy tale). Our brain automatically tells us that a child could not lift a real mountain

or it is unlikely for anyone to kill 14,000 with a single arrow because these things do not occur normally, and

we have prior knowledge of how big a mountain is and what an arrow can do (in this specific example). To

undertake a detailed study of any knowledge that is beyond comprehension and logic is dangerous because

different people can have different interpretations and beliefs with regard to that knowledge. Accepting the

teachings without questioning can also lead to blind faith. On the other hand, answers that seem difficult of

believe or not logical (compared to normality) leads to loss of confidence at the very start.

 

Any comments?

 

Regards,

 

mmaranr