Satguru Subramuniyaswami says Bhagavad Gita is not scripture

[sporkubus]

 

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

Interesting, since many Muslims use these supposedly small differences to justify branding other Muslims heretics and killing them, and many Muslims use hadith to decide what the Qur'an actually says when verses are in conflict with each other.

 

 

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"

The religion of the Vedas is immense and offers many, many paths to God. God is too huge, too transcendent and vast to be contained in one tiny book or one man's belief system. Even many Vaishnavas would say "It's okay for someone to worship Shiva in this life, because that will lead them to Vishnu/Krishna in their next life." It is all part of the same progression, the same religion.

[Guest guest]

 

The religion of the Vedas is immense and offers many, many paths to God. God is too huge, too transcendent and vast to be contained in one tiny book or one man's belief system

But the conclusions must be the same...

 

There should not be conflicting beliefs....One says "God incarnates" the other one "God does NOT incarnate" see..

 

And How can one believe "becoming one with brahman after attaining moksha" and "serve krishna forever in paradise after attaining moksha" at the same time?

[redhead]

you know it amazes me that i come here and only get argument that is all this forum is. my first post ended up being closed cause of jerks.

 

some of you turds sound like worthless idiot xians catholic vs protestants or mormons vs jehovas sicknesses when you post. it is sad that you call your selves hindus of whatever faith you claim to. i wonder if you are just xians posing as hindus to make hinduism look bad. i have seen a few true savites and vishnavites and a lot of eather fakers or very low evolved people.

i may not be totally knowlageabout but at least i am not a scetarian raskel.

get off your high horses and grow up.

 

if siva is supreme and i worship krishna he will forgive my ignorance, and if krishna is supreme and i worship siva krishna will forgive my ignorance also. but i am sure some fanatical demon will tell me i will be reborn as a dog or a flea and suffer in some hell as a pig lead to slaughter and be reborn again and again to die and suffer as a pig for a 100 life times then when i am born again as a human i will be born in a negro family in detroit city.

 

twisted nails of faith i guess. thank god i am not so inclined to enjoy employing threats of horror if i worhsip the wrong god. if the ones i ma insulting are former xians good god go back to the bible nad jesus.

[redhead]

the xians of today would crucify jesus if he did come back. most of you guys would deny krishna if he came back too.

[Guest guest]

What's even more amazing is we have another nutty mullah on this site trying to create a rift between Saivite and Vaishnavas.

 

It seems you can't even have a civilised discussion on Hinduism without a mullah coming here to promote his bloodthirsty religion. This is not a site to discuss Islam, just Hinduism. We should have know by his name that all he had was bad intentions.

 

Well let me say that although Vaishnavites and Saivites disagree on certain points they are unitited in seeing Islam as a false religion and of course no sane person can see Muhamad as a true prophet of God.

[sporkubus]

 

But the conclusions must be the same...

Says who?

 

Hinduism is a pretty dumb term, actually. It was used by non-Hindus to lump together a whole variety of religions that had only geography in common. However, the use of the term today is any religious belief or worship that has its foundation in the Vedas. I don't see any reason why it is bad to use the term in that sense, since they do have many things in common. No, not all sects of Hinduism are the same, but so what? That variety is, in my opinion, a very good thing.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

This is from the Qu'ran the 3 main english Translations:

026.032

YUSUFALI: So (Moses) threw his rod, and behold, it was a serpent, plain (for all to see)!

PICKTHAL: Then he flung down his staff and it became a serpent manifest,

SHAKIR: So he cast down his rod, and lo! it was an obvious serpent,

026.033

YUSUFALI: And he drew out his hand, and behold, it was white to all beholders!

PICKTHAL: And he drew forth his hand and lo! it was white to the beholders.

SHAKIR: And he drew forth his hand, and lo! it appeared white to the onlookers.

__

This is from the Chaitanya Charitamrta [www.vedabase.net]:

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu continued, “‘Whatever Vedic mantras describe the Absolute Truth impersonally only prove in the end that the Absolute Truth is a person. The Supreme Lord is understood in two features—impersonal and personal. If one considers the Supreme Personality of Godhead in both features, he can actually understand the Absolute Truth. He knows that the personal understanding is stronger because we see that everything is full of variety. No one can see anything that is not full of variety.’

CC: Madhya 6.142

[Ganeshprasad]

 

"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

Jai Ganesh

Who cares for your Islam on this forum? End result one can see is violence and more violence so where is this peace you so strive for and wish in your greetings shalom?

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Ganeshprasad]

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]

Ganeshprasad

 

Hinduism is a monotheistic religion with one God (Brahman) assuming many forms and names. Brahman, as Nirguna, has no attributes (is formless and unmanifested), whereas as Saguna (or Iswara) is manifested and with attributes. People use many different names for God.

How can Brahman which is eternal assume forms?

[Ganeshprasad]

 

Ganeshprasad

How can Brahman which is eternal assume forms?

Jai Ganesh

I would not want to get in to the argument of saguna and nirguna there is enough literature on this regard. Both are a valid path worthy to attain. Neither if followed properly injures the other or an obstacle in any way to each other unless one wants to make it

Maduka Upanishad 7

Nantah-prajnam, na bahih prajnam, no'bhayatah- prajnam, na prajnanaghanam, na prajnam, na-aprajnam; adrishtam-avyavaharayam-agrahyam-alakshanam-acintyam avyapadesyam-ekatmapratyayasaram, prapancopasarnam, santam, sivam-advaitam, caturtham manyante, sa atma sa vijneyah.

Translation 1

He is not knowable by perception, turned inward or outward, nor by both combined.

He is neither that which is known, nor that which is not known, nor is he the sum of all that might be known.

He can not be seen, grasped, bargained with.

He is undefineable, unthinkable, indescribable.

The only proof of his existence is union with him.

He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second.

This is the fourth condition of the self- the most worthy of all. (Mandukya Upanishad 7

In ghagvat Gita Bhagvan and Brahman has been interchanged many times have look your self.

Bg.4.24

 

brahmarpanam brahma havir

brahmagnau brahmana hutam

brahmaiva tena gantavyam brahma-karma-samadhina

 

Brahman is the oblation. Brahman is the clarified butter. The oblation is poured by Brahman into the fire of Brahman. Brahman shall be realized by the one who considers everything as (a manifestation or) an act of Brahman.

 

 

8.3

sri-bhagavan uvaca

aksaram brahma paramam

svabhavo 'dhyatmam ucyate

bhuta-bhavodbhava-karo

visargah karma-samjnitah

The Supreme Lord said: Brahman is the Supreme imperishable. The individual self (or Jeevaatma) is called Adhyaatma. The creative power that causes manifestation of beings is called Karma. (8.03)

 

I shall fully describe the object of knowledge, knowing which one attains immortality. The beginningless Supreme Brahman is said to be neither Sat nor Asat. (13.13)

Having hands and feet everywhere; having eyes, head, and face everywhere; having ears everywhere; the creator exists in the creation by pervading everything. (13.14)

He is the perceiver of all sense objects without the senses; unattached, yet the sustainer of all; devoid of the Gunas, yet the enjoyer of the Gunas. (13.15)

He is inside as well as outside all beings, animate and inanimate. He is incomprehensible because of His subtlety. He is very near as well as far away. (13.16)

Undivided, yet appears as if divided in beings; He, the object of knowledge, is the creator, sustainer, and destroyer of (all) beings. (13.17)

The light of all lights, He is said to be beyond darkness. He is the knowledge, the object of knowledge, and seated in the hearts of all beings, He is to be realized by the knowledge. (13.18)

Thus the creation as well as the knowledge and the object of knowledge have been briefly described. Understanding this, My devotee attains Me. (13.19)

Know that Prakriti and Purusha are both beginningless; and also know that all manifestations and Gunas arise from the Prakriti. (13.20)

The Prakriti is said to be the cause of production of physical body and organs (of perception and action). The Purusha (or the consciousness) is said to be the cause of experiencing pleasures and pains. (13.21)

The Purusha associating with Prakriti (or matter), enjoys the Gunas of Prakriti. Attachment to the Gunas (due to ignorance caused by previous Karma) is the cause of the birth of Jeevaatma in good and evil wombs. (13.22) (Jeevaatma or Jeeva is defined as Atma accompanied by the subtle (or astral) body consisting of the six sensory faculties and vital forces; the living entity; the individual soul enshrined in the physical body. )

The Supreme Spirit in the body is also called the witness, the guide, the supporter, the enjoyer, and the great Lord or Paramaatma. (13.23)

They who truly understand Purusha and Prakriti with its Gunas are not born again regardless of their mode of life. (13.24)

Some perceive God in the heart by the intellect through meditation; others by the yoga of knowledge; and others by the yoga of work (or Karma-yoga). (13.25)

Some, however, do not understand Brahman, but having heard (of it) from others, take to worship. They also transcend death by their firm faith to what they have heard. (13.26)

Whatever is born, animate or inanimate, know them to be (born) from the union of the field (or Prakriti) and the field knower (or Purusha), O Arjuna. (13.27)

The one who sees the imperishable Supreme Lord dwelling equally within all perishable beings truly sees. (13.28)

Seeing the same Lord existing in everybeing, one does not injure the other self and thereupon attains the Supreme goal. (13.29)

Those who perceive that all works are done by the (Gunas of) Prakriti alone, and thus they are not the doer, they truly understand. (13.30)

When one perceives diverse variety of beings resting in One and spreading out from That alone, then one attains Brahman. (13.31)

The imperishable Supreme Self, being beginningless and without Gunas, though dwelling in the body (as Atma) neither does anything nor gets tainted, O Arjuna. (13.32)

As the all-pervading ether is not tainted because of its subtlety, similarly the Self, seated in everybody, is not tainted. (13.33)

O Arjuna, just as one sun illuminates this entire world, similarly the creator illumines (or gives life to) the entire creation. (13.34)

They, who understand the difference between the creation (or the body) and the creator (or the Atma) and know the technique of liberation (of Jeeva) from the trap of Maya with the help of knowledge, attain the Supreme. (13.35)

Consider what Krishna says in chapter 5 and 12

The ignorant, not the wise, consider Karma-Samnyasa and Karma-yoga as different from each other. The person who has truly mastered one, gets the benefits of both. (5.04)

 

Chapter 12: Path of Devotion

Arjuna said: Those ever-steadfast devotees (or Bhaktas) who thus worship You (as the manifest or personal God), and those who worship the eternal unmanifest (the formless or impersonal) Brahman (by developing Jnana), which of these has the best knowledge of yoga? (12.01)

The Supreme Lord said: Those ever steadfast devotees who worship with supreme faith by fixing their mind on Me as personal God, I consider them to be the best yogis. (See also 6.47) (12.02)

But those who worship the imperishable, the undefinable, the unmanifest, the omnipresent, the unthinkable, the unchanging, the immovable, and the eternal Brahman; (12.03)

Restraining all the senses, even minded under all circumstances, engaged in the welfare of all creatures, they also attain Me. (12.04)

Self-realization is more difficult for those who fix their mind on the formless Brahman, because the comprehension of the unmanifest Brahman by the average embodied human being is very difficult. (12.05)

But, to those who worship Me as the personal God, renouncing all actions to Me; setting Me as their supreme goal, and meditating on Me with single minded devotion; (12.06)

I swiftly become their savior, from the world that is the ocean of death and transmigration, whose thoughts are set on Me, O Arjuna. (12.07)

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

 

Well this 'guru' cannot change the fact that Vishnu is counted as above Shiva -

 

"(I bow) to Shiva of the form of Vishnu and Vishnu who is Shiva; Vishnu is Shiva’s heart and Shiva, Vishnu’s. Just as Vishnu is full of Shiva, so is Shiva full of Vishnu. As I see no difference, I am well all my life."

 

-Skanda Upanishad 1.8,9

 

 

Ekam Sat Viprâha Bahudhâ Vadanti.

 

 

Jaya Shiva Omkaraa!

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

Jai Ganesh

I would not want to get in to the argument of saguna and nirguna there is enough literature on this regard. Both are a valid path worthy to attain. Neither if followed properly injures the other or an obstacle in any way to each other unless one wants to make it

 

Your quoting Gita by an Impersonalist. I asked you a very simple and precise question, can you not use your commen sence?

How can Brahman which is eternal assume forms?

[Guest guest]

Jai Sri Krishna

 

I think this post has gone a bit crazy and gone of on a tangent (like a lot of discussions do on this site). Now i have read some of the work of this Subhramanya Swami. I dont know what he said exactly about the Gita, but i know that The swami and his fallowers do not hold the Gita at the level Vaishnavas and Smartas do.

 

Firstly we need to remember this swami is from the Shaiva sampradaya and often Vaishnavas and Shaivas will have conflicting views on the scriptures. For example the Shiva Purana mentions the supremacy of Siva over Vishnu. Shaivas see this Purana as a great (maha purana) whereas in Vaishnavism The Shiva Purana is seen as Tamasic (lesser) Purana.

 

So considering this us Vaishnavas should not get to bothered about the regard Shaivas and Shaktas give to our main Scriptures. We know that The great 3 vedantic philosophers (shankara, Madhava and Ramanuja) accepted the Gita as one of the 3 authorative (parama) scriptures of Vedanta.

 

Its pretty obvious that Gita is such a bonafide Scripture as it comes directly from Bhagavan's mouth!!!! I think we should learn to accept that Indian religion is full of contradicting views,; this is beauty of our religious heratige as each can find his/her own path. I personaly do not share all the views if Shaivas, Shakthas and Smarthas (hence why i beleive in Sri Ramanuja and the Alavars)..but at the end of the day they are all indirectly serving krishna even if at times they relagate Krishna to a lesser position(which we find offensive). I rekon too much attention to Shaiva beleifs which contradict Vaishnvism should be avoided, it leads to the age old Vaishnava-Shaiva rivalries, which lead to pride at our own choice of Sadhana (no good for serving Krishna).

 

Jai Sri Krishna and Sri Bhagavat Gita Ki Jai!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest guest]

Okay guys, i took full care in reading Satguru's words.

he says Gita has been used as an excuse to create violence and street roits b/c it serves as a justification to conflict.

 

okay, but this is taken purely out of context. Satguru sivaya subramuniyaswami did not understand that if Arjuna DID NOT fight, the consequences would be far worse!

 

okay, so in this "daily lesson" number 276, he quotes arjuna's argument towards not fighting. but this is WRONG b/c arjuna was very deluded and confused!! he thought that not fighting was better than fighting! but it had already been established that the war was a dharma yuddha, a war of dharma. so NOT FIGHTIING WOULD HAVE FAR WORSE CONSEQUENCES. but arjuna was overcome by emotion and his intellect was overpowered.

 

so over here Satguru does not understand that fact. that fact that NOT FIGHTING would have had far worse consequences. if he understood that, then he would not have quotes arjuna's arugment.

 

he did not understand that arujna was speaking compeltly out of control and that arjuna was sooo confused. if he had known arjuna's grieving state of mind, then he would not have written that i think.

 

okay, i have read the rest of his "daily lesson" where this quote occurs and the satguru does not fully understand that mahabhart was a dharma yudda.

 

WAR OF DHARMA! so if it wasnt fought!! FAR WORSE CONSEQUENCES!!

[Guest guest]

oh my gosh! i cannot believe how this thread has become about muslim quran and not about gita and saivite view.

 

obviously b/c Saiviet people dont get taught GITA!!

 

HELOOOOOO that is why they dont understand the details which would make them say such things!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

and yes, u muslim ppl stop trying to cause a rift. its not right. u go to ur muslim site and discuss muslim things. come here only to learn. and even that will be difficult.

[Nataraja]

 

u go to ur muslim site and discuss muslim things. come here only to learn. and even that will be difficult.

Is this Hindu-like? Is this the acting of a people, who follows sanatana-dharma?

 

Gita and shruti/smriti? Is this important? It's important for sophisticated people, searching for good arguments. Or not?

Words from god is shruti. If this is the definition, the Quuran is shruti too. The Buddistic sutras are shruti too. The bible is shruti too! Isn't this the definition for shruti?

Is shruti more than words of god or less? Is shruti a category made by men for having an allround argue against all doctrines, which are against my own doctrin?

What is the essence of shruti? Wisdom? Moksha? Krishna? Nothing?

Little boxes this thing with shruti and right doctrines and not-shruti. Little boxes are always seperatet from the One! Seperatism is not good, it's the work of fools!

Ah: Gita is not shruti! But this doesn't matter, 'cause Gita is one of the holy books of mankind. and if you're very silent, you can hear god speaking between the lines!

 

Greez

 

Nataraja