Satguru Subramuniyaswami says Bhagavad Gita is not scripture

[Guest guest]

The "greatest" and the most famous Saivite Hindu guru Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami said in his book about Bhagavad Gita

 

"I agree fully with those awakened Indian swamis who have called it kolai nul, the "book of carnage," a book that gives divine sanction to violence. "

 

He also says:

 

"The Bhagavad Gita was also known at that time as a historical poem, NOT A DIVINELY REVEALED SCRIPTURE AT ALL. It is smriti, specifically Itihasa, meaning a MAN-MADE HISTORY, a poem excerpted from the Mahabharata epic. But all that aside, no matter how it is interpreted, whether it is revered by millions of Hindus or not, let us not be mistaken that the Bhagavad Gita gives permission for violence. The Mahabharata itself says, "Ahimsa is the highest dharma. It is the highest purification. It is also the highest truth from which all dharma proceeds" (18.1125.25). An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is definitely not a part of true Hindu doctrine."

 

(I could not write the link...it is in “himalayanacademy” website. İn “publications” “Living with siva” and in “war and peace” section.)

 

 

He claims "BHAGAVAD GITA IS MAN MADE" "IT IS NOT REVELAED SCRIPTURE", "BHAGAVAD GITA IS A BOOK OF CARNAGE"...

 

I love bhagavad gita..it is one of the most spiritual and beatiful holy book I have ever read..But "Satguru" sivaya subramuniyaswami attacks it eagerly..

 

What do you think?

[Zilmiki]

 

The "greatest" and the most famous Saivite Hindu guru Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami said in his book about Bhagavad Gita

"I agree fully with those awakened Indian swamis who have called it kolai nul, the "book of carnage," a book that gives divine sanction to violence. "

He also says:

"The Bhagavad Gita was also known at that time as a historical poem, NOT A DIVINELY REVEALED SCRIPTURE AT ALL. It is smriti, specifically Itihasa, meaning a MAN-MADE HISTORY, a poem excerpted from the Mahabharata epic. But all that aside, no matter how it is interpreted, whether it is revered by millions of Hindus or not, let us not be mistaken that the Bhagavad Gita gives permission for violence. The Mahabharata itself says, "Ahimsa is the highest dharma. It is the highest purification. It is also the highest truth from which all dharma proceeds" (18.1125.25). An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is definitely not a part of true Hindu doctrine."

(I could not write the link...it is in “himalayanacademy” website. İn “publications” “Living with siva” and in “war and peace” section.)

He claims "BHAGAVAD GITA IS MAN MADEIT IS NOT REVELAED SCRIPTURE", "BHAGAVAD GITA IS A BOOK OF CARNAGE"...

I love bhagavad gita..it is one of the most spiritual and beatiful holy book I have ever read..But "Satguru" sivaya subramuniyaswami attacks it eagerly..

What do you think?

Hi. I truely agree with you that bhagvad geeta says that ahimsa is the highest dharma but have you thought about ahimsa actually means. ahimsa does not always means violence. if you examine the real meaning to it you will actually find out what it really means. i don't want to spoil it for you so please look deeper into the word ahims.

[Guest guest]

Thank you but did you read my post carefully?

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

Well this 'guru' cannot change the fact that Vishnu is counted as above Shiva - starting within the RK Veda.

Also - if that 'guru' thinks that the Gita is preaching violence - he has no understanding. If a police officer sees an assault and they smack the criminal over the head with their flashlight to stop the assault - is that violence?

It's like the cutting of a person by a surgeon in an operation theator vs. the cutting of a person by some guy in the street. Krishna wasn't preaching that Arjuna engage violence - he was to engage his duty.

What is the primary scipture of Shavites? How can we say that isn't scripture?

What we must understand is that all the vedic texts outside of the four original Vedas are not exactly scriptures. There are two kinds of holy writngs - revealed and remembered - the Shavite texts are the latter.

So I think this is the real point of contention for this 'guru' - this point Krishna makes oh so well:

Whatever a man may sacrifice to other gods, O son of Kunti, is really meant for Me alone, but it is offered without true understanding. [bG 9.23]

Just my opinion...

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

 

Hi. I truely agree with you that bhagvad geeta says that ahimsa is the highest dharma but have you thought about ahimsa actually means. ahimsa does not always means violence. if you examine the real meaning to it you will actually find out what it really means. i don't want to spoil it for you so please look deeper into the word ahims.

"AHIM" - Are you taking it that it means 'a snake'?

I think the two words are not related... 'Himsam' - "violence" or - 'himsaya' - "by violence" - these are not the same - though the root word may be - that I do not know...

BDM

[Guest guest]

"What we must understand is that all the vedic texts outside of the four original Vedas are not exactly scriptures"

 

You mean 4 Vedas+Brahmanas+Upanishads+Aranyakas ? They are all "shruti" (revealed)

[Guest guest]

 

The "greatest" and the most famous Saivite Hindu guru Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami said in his book about Bhagavad Gita

 

"I agree fully with those awakened Indian swamis who have called it kolai nul, the "book of carnage," a book that gives divine sanction to violence. "

 

He also says:

 

"The Bhagavad Gita was also known at that time as a historical poem, NOT A DIVINELY REVEALED SCRIPTURE AT ALL. It is smriti, specifically Itihasa, meaning a MAN-MADE HISTORY, a poem excerpted from the Mahabharata epic.

 

 

The truth is this swami represents the saiva siddhanta school and saiva siddhanta has it's own scriptures where the Gita is not part of it. Plus, being a saivite he is probably a little prejudiced against the Gita as it shows Krishna as supreme and not Shiva. Another reason is the Himalayana academy have the largest non-indian followers of Saivism in the west, where ISKCON is that largest for non-indian vaishnavas. There is possibly bias here. The same things can be said about saivite scriptures and being man-made.

This swami is definately not the greatest saivite guru, maybe the most famous in the west but there are many in India.

 

What awaked India swamis say it is a book of carnage? I don't know of any but him. If there are, they are probably prejudiced saivites.

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

 

"What we must understand is that all the vedic texts outside of the four original Vedas are not exactly scriptures"

You mean 4 Vedas+Brahmanas+Upanishads+Aranyakas ? They are all "shruti" (revealed)

Hari Bolo!

The Four original Vedas:

RK - Yajus - Sama and - Atharva

The other texts come after these and are explications on these.

Regarding the Gita - Srila Prabhupada says this in a letter dated - June 14, 1974:

...In one sense it is both sruti and smrti...

In the literal sense 'sruti' is taken as "revealed" and 'smrti' is taken as "remembered".

For us however - all the Vedic texts are 'revealed' - either directly or - indirectly.

As Srila Prabhupada notes in that quoted letter:

...The purport of sruti is to make one advanced in understanding the Absolute Truth. Here the Absolute Truth is explaining personally, therefore the Gita should be taken as sruti. But they take it as smrti because it is part of the Smriti (Mahabharata).

In this letter dated January 23, 1970 Srila Prabhupada notes:

We have to receive transcendental sound through the transcendental channel, therefore, Vedas are called Sruti. That means transcendental sound can be received through the ear. And by hearing this transcendental sound through the ear our heart becomes spiritually purified, and we can realize at that stage the transcendental Name, transcendental Qualities, transcendental Form, transcendental Pastimes etc. That is the way of descending process.

Because everything manifested is creation of the original transcendental Sound, therefore, factually everything is spiritual. But being covered by material cloud, we do not appreciate properly the spiritual nature of everything. The Krishna Consciousness Movement means gradually advancing towards that stage of spiritual realization. As such, the philosophy of acintya bhedabheda tattva is perfect. Everything is simultaneously one and different from the Supreme. One in quality because the original source is the Spiritual Whole, and different in quantity. This quantitative difference becomes more and more separate by increase of material consciousness.

Of course we have an understanding of Lord Siva which is correct - Lord Siva, is a Mahajana - one of the twelve authorities in the universe and - while He is God 'in contact with His material energy - in charge of the mode of ignorance' or 'He is God in the same way that Yogurt is Milk' - under His direction we see Him as the topmost Vaishnava.

We understand that on His Mala [prayer beads] He is chanting the Names of Vishnu and - that while in meditation - He is focused on Vishnu.

In the Gita - Srila Prabhupada writes of Siva:

...He is the incarnation of the Supreme Lord in charge of the modes of ignorance in the universe... [bG, 10.23, purport]

BDM

[kcp1982]

Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami is a raskal if he says the Bhagavad-gita is man made.

[Guest guest]

"Satguru Subramuniyaswami says Bhagavad Gita is not scripture "

 

Then he is not a 'Satguru'

[Guest guest]

Lol that rascal word is so full of fanaticism!! did Krsna wirte it? Who wrote it and how - centuries after it was spoken by Krsna himself. How many more shlokas were added? And what was modified? Further more what was twisted in Prabhupada's purports of the present day "BG "as it is"? What about BG as it was back then? Inspite of all these questions, it is still a scripture, because it gives the Lord's words spoken to Arjuna, although there definitely are some modifications made by men. Hari Bol

 

 

 

 

Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami is a raskal if he says the Bhagavad-gita is man made.

[Guest guest]

Yes as there has been bias in and from Iskcon ever since SPP started it. He started it on glorifying Chaitanya/Krsna and putting down Hinduism and Hindus and Shiva.

 

 

 

The truth is this swami represents the saiva siddhanta school and saiva siddhanta has it's own scriptures where the Gita is not part of it. Plus, being a saivite he is probably a little prejudiced against the Gita as it shows Krishna as supreme and not Shiva. Another reason is the Himalayana academy have the largest non-indian followers of Saivism in the west, where ISKCON is that largest for non-indian vaishnavas. There is possibly bias here. The same things can be said about saivite scriptures and being man-made.

This swami is definately not the greatest saivite guru, maybe the most famous in the west but there are many in India.

 

What awaked India swamis say it is a book of carnage? I don't know of any but him. If there are, they are probably prejudiced saivites.

[Guest guest]

I think there is no such a thing called "Hinduism"

 

There are different religions from india like "Saivism", "Vaishnavism", "Shaktism"...etc

 

They have different scriptures,totally different views...

 

For instance;

 

According to Saivites, Bhagavad Gita is a man-made crap..it is not revealed...

 

But according to Vaishnavites Bhagavad Gita is word of God literally...Maybe the most important scripture..

 

Saivites say, Krishna is not even a God..He is a murderer man...According to Saivism God Does NOT incarnate anyway..There is no "avatar" doctrine in Saivism..

 

Vaishnavites say "Krishna is supreme God.. He is God incarnate" as Bhagavad Gita says.

 

Vaishnavite puranas say "Lord Vishnu punished and beat Shiva, He sent Shiva to Hell".... Saivite puranas say "Lord Shiva beat Vishnu, He cursed Vishnu"

[Pankaja_Dasa]

What Sampradaya does he belong to? ! Did his Guru tell him this?

 

Gita is accepted even by Shankracharaya. !!

[Guest guest]

The name Mahmad08 hints at Islam. If true, then a nice thread to stoke the rage of vaishnavas & pit them against Shaivas.

 

Cheer

[Guest guest]

"Gita is accepted even by Shankracharaya"

 

Shankracharaya is not a Saivite...

 

Saivites and Shaktis (Saivites+Shaktis=%45 of Hindus) do not accept Bhagavad Gita...They do not even accept lord Krishna as "God"...

 

You can read the articles of Saivite Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami and see those yourself

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

"Gita is accepted even by Shankracharaya"

Shankracharaya is not a Saivite...

Saivites and Shaktis (Saivites+Shaktis=%45 of Hindus) do not accept Bhagavad Gita...They do not even accept lord Krishna as "God"...

You can read the articles of Saivite Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami and see those yourself

The Goal of Saivites and Brahmavadis/Mayavadis is exactly the same..,to become one with Brahman. So how do you say they are different?

[Guest guest]

is doing a good job creating a rift between shaivites and vaishnavites.

[Guest guest]

"to become one with Brahman. So how do you say they are different?"

 

I explained that above:

 

"According to Saivites, Bhagavad Gita is a man-made crap..it is not revealed...

 

But according to Vaishnavites Bhagavad Gita is word of God literally...Maybe the most important scripture..

 

Saivites say, Krishna is not even a God..He is a murderer man...According to Saivism God Does NOT incarnate anyway..There is no "avatar" doctrine in Saivism..

 

Vaishnavites say "Krishna is supreme God.. He is God incarnate" as Bhagavad Gita says.

 

Vaishnavite puranas say "Lord Vishnu punished and beat Shiva, He sent Shiva to Hell".... Saivite puranas say "Lord Shiva beat Vishnu, He cursed Vishnu

 

Saivites do not even accept lord Krishna as God..."

[Pankaja_Dasa]

Saivite goal is totally different to Vaishnava's, we want to serve God not become one with Him.

[Guest guest]

Thank you for proving my point Pankaja_Dasa;

 

Even I didn't know that:-):-)

 

So there is HUGE difference between saivism and Vaishnavism..

 

As I said there is no such a religion called "hinduism" there are TOTALLY DIFFERENT religions like Saivism and vaishnavism

[Pankaja_Dasa]

Yeah but don't say that to anybody. It's meant to be a secret.

I see it as Philosophies. I found many 'chinks in the armour'.

[sporkubus]

 

Thank you for proving my point Pankaja_Dasa;

 

Even I didn't know that:-):-)

 

So there is HUGE difference between saivism and Vaishnavism..

 

As I said there is no such a religion called "hinduism" there are TOTALLY DIFFERENT religions like Saivism and vaishnavism

Might be true... but then again, might not be.

 

All Hindus believe in the Vedas as the revealed Word of God (I think) and they share a common tradition of scripture and culture that springs from Vedic culture. Shiites and Sunnis have different scripture and beliefs but they are all still Muslims because of the Qur'an, right? The Vedas just seem to allow for a large area of freedom in worship and belief.

[Guest guest]

"Shiites and Sunnis have different scripture and beliefs but they are all still Muslims because of the Qur'an, right?"

 

Quran contains EVERYTHING muslims need to know...All sects of islam accept Quran as literal word of God...That is enough for muslims....

 

All of muslims believe basically same things..There is no big difference between the two sect.All sects of islam believe the same God,All of them believe the same kind of heaven,all of them believe the same kind of universe..So hadiths do not matter that much

 

BUT;

 

For instance; There is a HUGE difference between Saivism and vaishnavism....Their view of universe are totally different,Their Gods are totally different....Even their "moksha" are totally different..

 

One of them says "When I attain Moksha I will serve Krishna directly forever I will be in his paradise"

 

The other one says "When I attain Moksha I will be one with brahman"

 

Those are just a few examples..There are tons of difference...We can safely say "vaishnavism and Saivism and Shaktism are TOTALLY different religions"

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

"

Quran contains EVERYTHING muslims need to know...All sects of islam accept Quran as literal word of God...That is enough for muslims....

 

Can you tell me the verses in which Qu'ran talks about the Personal aspect of God? For instance.. it says 'that God's hand'. How come your Scholers don't accept this? And what is the reason?