The Bhagavad-Gita and Ethics

Water:

Ah! A good point! Which begs the question as to why one shouldn't destroy, if nothing really can be. The act should be morally neutral.

In what sense are they essentially the same?

But yes, the BG certainly preaches not to be attached.

Which forum specifically is that? And considering Hinduism is the only religion that enshrines it as a holy book, and Krishna is a Hindu deity...it certainly seems Hindu in nature.

Yet if I cannot hurt anyone truly, if I cannot inflict violence against anything, even if I do such things in a relative manner, can it be said that I have done a thing wrong?

Yet what if he acts completely without hope for reward? Krishna says that those who act such a way, attain to God. Of course, if he is not practicing his "mania" in a yogic way, then yes, it'd just be regular bad karma.

So you assert that God has a fundementally different moral conception than we?

Then perhaps we have stumbled upon something very interesting?

As I cannot offer you a moral philosophy which is satisfactory, I generally use the terms "good and evil" in this regard, to mean two things: 1. In general, what most people in the world would consider good and evil. 2. What a Hindu or Hindu-minded person would consider good and evil, I.E. true knowledge of reality, as opposed to karmic ignorance.

Everneo:

Interesting.

Yet if the world is truly so terrible, would not so many wish to leave it? It would bring them to a realization of truth through clinging to the means by which they could attain such relief far easier. The worse things are, it is generally observed, the more people attempt to get away from it, so a theoretically hellish Earth would lead to more and more people seeking means to get away from it, no?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, this happened to individuals like Buddha and a lot of sages when they realized harshness of life at one point in their lives or when they struck by great grief in personal life. But the society contains individuals with different levels of attitude,spritual advancement, ambitions, hopes and what not? A society with more evilness may produce more evil to counter the existing evil, few may still hold hope to get the better out of life and continue to fight evil, few may giveup and end up fatalists but only a handful of people may re-think about life and turn towards the right path. The effect of evilness is not the same on everyone.
If the society as a whole to evolve, it needs peace. It need not have 'maniacs' to give impetus to go spiritual but the life itself, at personal level, can teach lessons needed for spritual advancement.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Prince_James,

When people act with the intent to destroy, they act in ignorance, thinking that something can be destroyed (by them).
When acting thus, the person is guided by the guna of ignorance, and we know what this means.
To set out with destructive intentions is to set out in ignorance.

In that they have souls.

As far as I know, opinions differ on this ...
But people there will be able to give you a better scope of the issue. http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/
(I PM'd you, in case you haven't noticed; check out your upper right corner.)

Yes, you have accumulated bad karma. I wouldn't say bad karma is wrong -- but it is certainly not desirable.

Sins committed against other living beings, may, in the inflictor's eyes, appear as if he has hurt other living beings. What such an inflictor is ignorant of is that his sins count against him and defile him.

The living being against whom the sin has been committed, is not the bearer of the sin, only of the wound.

I just don't think a yogi would do such things. It would be against the principles of non-violence. If he had done evil things, even if in "yogic manner", he'd just show he's not a yogi at all.

I am asserting no such thing; it would overstep my competences. What is true is that we are blinded by the Maya, and thus we certainly perceive things differently than God. However, that we are able of this very insight might show that we can aspire to a godly perception (not sure if it would stil be "perception" then).

Might be. I've seen this notion before. You can sometimes hear people say "The next war should come, a big killing, that would eventually clean the world of evil." The implication seems to be that after so much killing, the few people that would remain would walk out with higher morals, as in the course of all that killing, they have become internally changed.

As individual cases can show, people can reach a certain deep moral insight, something that can happen only through a thorough experience of evil.

Alright, thank you for the clarification.

Yes. This can indirectly be observed by a growing awareness for spirituality and a politically correct optimism.


* * *

Everneo,

But do people want peace, and what are they willing to do for it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Law and order are always enforced on the society, for the society, for example. At personal level, BG and similar guidances are available.

 

yada yada hi dharmasya
glanir bhavati bharata
abhyutthanam adharmasya
tadatmanam srjamy aham

“Whenever there are discrepancies in the discharge of natural laws of God, then God incarnates. Either He incarnates Himself, or He sends His bona fide representative, or He sends His powerful representative, like that. So whenever there is incarnation of God, it is to be understood that there is discrepancies in the matter of discharging the laws made by God. And the laws made by God is called dharma” – from URL

Some funny notes on Ravana:

Ravana was treated by Lord Shiva as best and first among disciples
Ravana was extremely good at music and various other arts, science etc
Ravana had Lord of Wealth living in Lanka (his country)
Ravana had and used the most dangerous weapon
Ravana had 7 major planets in his astrological chart in its worst position still enjoyed all the very best in life including death by the hands of Lord
Ravana did all what he wanted in his life and died when he wanted to die

Ravana is my man

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ravana was an ardent devotee of Lord Shiva but i disagree that he was treated as best and first among Shiva's devotees. Ravana's hands were crushed under Mount Kailash as Shiva pressed his toe down when Ravana tried to lift Shiva's abode. It was a punishment as well as an advance warning of what would he get for his arrogance in future.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I went to look for knowledgeable and well-respected information on the Gita, and I haven't found any who are of the opinion that it isn't a Hindu scripture:

Hindu religious literature, the most ancient writings in the world, is of two types: primary scriptures (Sruti) and secondary scriptures (Smriti). The Sruti scriptures are of divine origin, whose truths were directly revealed to ancient rishis (sages) in their deep meditations. The Smriti scriptures are of human origin and were written to explain the Sruti writings and make them understandable and meaningful to the general population. Sruti scriptures include the four Vedas (Rig, Yajur, Sãma and Atharva) and the Bhagavad Gîtã, and constitute the highest religious authority in Hindu religion.
Hindu Universe: classification of Hindu scriptures

The Mahabharata is an encyclopaedia of Hindu Dharma. It is rightly called the fifth Veda. ...The most important part of the Mahabharata is the Bhagavad-Gita. ... The Gita is the most precious jewel of Hindu literature. It is a universal gospel. The Gita teaches the Yoga of Synthesis. It ranks high in the religious literature of the world.
All about Hinduism by Sri Swami Sivananda, chapter 2

The Itihasas reflect popular, non-Brahmanic interests and the rise of theistic Hinduism focused on Shiva, Vishnu and Shakti. The Itihasas include the Mahabharata and Ramayana epics, two of the most beloved Hindu texts, as well as the Puranas. ... The Mahabharata is most well known for the Bhagavad Gita, the single most popular Hindu text. The Bhagavad Gita ("The Song of the Lord") tells the story of King Pandu and his five sons and features a memorable appearance by Krishna, the popular incarnation of Vishnu.
ReligionFacts: Hindu texts: Itihasas​

And from the forum water linked to:

...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.

The Hindus consider many ancient texts to be divinely written, but among them the Bhagavad Gita is considered the most essential and universally accepted.
Jahnava Nitai Das of Bhaktivedanta Ashram, in Who is the author of the Gita? and The Hindu Holy Book?​

 

The problem is more around whether believing what the Gita says makes one a Hindu.
Just like there is the problem of whether one is a Christian if one believes what the Bible says.
In other words: Does belief in God stop at a religion?

 

If it comes down to that, the problem is which scripture one considers authoritive. It would be exceedingly strange to consider only the Gita authoritive and not the four main Vedas, on which the Hindu religion is based, and from which many different schools developed (see the second link).

If someone believes what the New Testament says, it means he believes Jesus' words are true - and that included what He said about sin, fogiveness and his Father in heaven. People who believe that show it by following him (becoming a "Christian"), just as I think people who believe the Gita will take Krishna's teachings seriously and follow him through one of the yogas. (See also: Are Krishna and Christ the same?). Someone who believes the Hebrew Bible (what we call the Old Testament), would convert to Judaism and be waiting for the messiah. And someone who believes Joseph Smith's revelations will accept the Book of Mormon as an additional authoritive source to the Bible, and interpret the Bible in its "new" light. The same will happen with each additional "authority".

Belief does not stop with religion, but religion stops at belief. The Hebrews do not even have a word for "religion", they use Dat, which is Aramaic for "law". They saw everything as "religion", since you do everything in the context of your beliefs. Your faith contains your whole life. Since you can't logically believe everything, a religion cannot include every belief. But everything you do believe, will ultimately be called your religion.

Religion is a flexible system, but God stops somewhere. He is not all gods and all beliefs. He is not only the convenient beliefs or the easy ones, He is not the ethics or the interpretations. The only way to start with the belief that God exists and end with belief in all gods ever conceived on earth, is if one never finds out who He is - in other words: never really believes any of those revelations.

 

Everneo,

I’m afraid you are mistaken everneo, it is called “bhakti-yoga.

Chapter 10, Verse 25.

maharsinam bhrgur aham
giram asmy ekam aksaram
yajnanam japa-yajno 'smi
sthavaranam himalayah

Of the great sages I am Bhrgu; of vibrations I am the transcendental om. Of sacrifices I am the chanting of the holy names [japa], and of immovable things I am the Himalayas.

Chapter 18, Verse 55./56

bhaktya mam abhijanati
yavan yas casmi tattvatah
tato mam tattvato jnatva
visate tad-anantaram
sarva-karmany api sada
kurvano mad-vyapasrayah
mat-prasadad avapnoti
sasvatam padam avyayam

One can understand the Supreme Personality as He is only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of the Supreme Lord by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God.
Though engaged in all kinds of activities, My devotee, under My protection, reaches the eternal and imperishable abode by My grace.



Water,

How are you?

There is no difference between Krishna and Allah, they are essentially the same person, even though Krishna is described as Bhagavan (supreme Lord who posesses all opulence). In the Qu'ran there is a set of of principles for the muslims to follow, of which the main activities are chanting the Lords name and glories, and remembering Allah within everything one does. Religion is set according to time, place and circumstance.



Jan Ardena.

 

May be there is no solid definition for 'Hindu'. Hinduism is a conglomerate of various believes in indian subcontinent and ancient near east like indonesia, thailand that has a common underlying thread - vedas. Bhagavad Gita is free from the ritual parts unlike vedas. Krishna often quotes ancient hindu deities, vedas that would be a deterring factor for non-hindus to accept BG as an universal text.

One of the most deterring factor for other western & middle eastern religions is the karma theory. Though BG's monotheism is based on transcendental supreme being, Krishna asserts the immanence of the supreme being. That gives space to other deities as other facets of the supreme being. Sage Sankara classified the hinduism into 6 major diety based sub-religions. The six major deities are viz. Shiva, Vishnu, Shakti, Ganesha, Karthikeya and Surya (Sun). Some of the devotees of the first three deities believe that their own deities are more supreme than the other deities. These few fundies are the reason for the meaningless in-fights, mud-slinging, ridicule and dis-unity in olden times in otherwise peaceful hindu religions.

Another major deviation was by ritualists and vested economic interests that misinterpreted karma theory and transformed the work-based caste division into birth-based caste division to keep a big chunk of people 'untouchables' for cheap labour. Untouchability was absent in vedas and in BG. Most of the the saints & reformists could not succeed in a big way in getting rid of this caste-discrimination menace because by the time, birth-based castism deeply entrenched and formed the base for feudalistic society. Following BG in letter and spirit irrespective of caste, creed and sub-religions is the only way out for hidnu religions to attain dharma based society,IMO.

 

Jenyar,

It isn't a Hindu scripture because
a) it is not written in any language or dialect associated with Hindu peoples,
b) there is absolutely no mention of Hindu or Hinduism, c) it was sung thousands of years previous to the concept of Hindu and Hinduism, as a people and culture.
The Hindus adopt it as their own because;
a) the pastimes of Krishna took place in Bharat (now known as India due to the British), in the same way the British accept Shakespeare as their own.
b) because it is the greatest insight into God, by God Himself.

Jan Ardena.

 

Jenyar,

What are the criteria for accepting something as authoritative ...

Why would that be "exceedingly strange"? By whose criteria, and who is to say that these criteria are superior to all others?

Hold on. You believe both in the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament.
What does this make you? A Jewish Christian?
Seriously, the quiz around the Bible is similar as the one around Hindu scriptures.

In the light of what Jan said later, let's draw some Venn diagrams:

Draw a big one.
Then, draw several smaller ones: some inside the big one, some outside, some only partly in the big one.
The big circle represents God, in His wholeness. The smaller circles are conceptions of God as various religions have them.

What makes you think so? This is your speculation, not experience.
Have you ever started out from a basis from which all religions seem equally plausible?


* * *


Jan Ardena,

Upset.
But I am most glad you came here!

I see. Alright.


* * *


everneo,

I think that the way we are used to view religion (at least in the Western tradition) is separetely from socio-economical concerns, but when it comes to Hindusim, this understanding of what religion is, is challenged. One can be a Christian regardless of socio-economical status or nationality, for example. But can a foreigner, in a non-Hindu country, become a Hindu? Or take Jews: Who can become a Jew, unless one is born a Jew?

That people get to choose their religion is a fairly new thing, and it seems to me that today, we have a different conception of what religion is than, say, 500 or 1000 or 2000 years back -- yet we try to adhere to the same principles as the people of those times. Or we assess an old religion with our present understanding of what religion is -- which may be a misleading approach.


(Interestingly, the word "religion" means 'fear of God' in Latin!)

 

Jan,
Some questions for you:

What are the languages and dialects associated with Hindu peoples?

There is no arabic in BG. And as you know the word 'Hindu' does not appear in any other Hindu texts either. So disband Hinduism?

Do you mean Hinduism was born thousands of years after BG? Interesting! (and out of my curiosity, did Christianity exist when Christ was born?)

Are there no references to any Hindu thoughts/customs/concepts in the BG? like there are none to, say Christian or Islamic concepts?
And if BG is 'areligious' as you say, can you have some Christians and Muslims vouch for it as a truth?

Does this mean the Hindus were wise enough to accept it but others weren't?

BTW, how are you Janardhan? Nice to see your hard-to-comprehend posts again! (J/k)

Ulti

 

Ravana was the only human who was ever granted a blessing by Lord Shiva to call Lord by name and Lord will appear in front of him in person(~ :bugeye: ) immediately. Ravana was the devotee who wished Lord first every day and continue to do this without fail etc etc and I am not Lord Shiva to confirm this !

Hinduism (Induism) is not merely represented by Lord Krishna but there is more to it, before and after Gita. Lord Krishna in Gita represent the human aspect of Karma that needs to explained to common man for him/her to understand based on his/her belife in God. Karma leads to betterment of soul during every rebirth leading to self realization at the end. Gita is the start and one more thing to remember here is even when Lord Krishna (God himself) was explaining Gita to Arjuna for such a long time at the end Arjuna told he didn't get a thing out of the explanation ! Funny right ? There are also reasons to it. Arjuna was ready for the next level with his soul because of which more explanation was given by Lord Krishna later.

Your soul will tell you were you are and you don't need a Guru or a book for that and a hell of a lot of search and waste of time around it.

Allah, Jesus or any other God for that matter leads or is the original self itself - the truth. The more clear YOU ARE the far better it becomes. Search within and believe.

I read something recently (almost same~)

What an eye can not see but because of which an eye function, is God
What an ear can't hear but because of which ear work, is God
What tongue can't ... is God
What can not be touched ... is God
etc etc

Belief is everything !

 

I would say truth. Thus, the only "criterium" is belief.

I said nothing about anything being superior or inferior. The Vedas is considered authoritive by the people who wrote the Gita. It was their frame of reference. Eclecticism is also belief: the belief that the reader knows better than the people who voiced the words. If you only read the Gita selectively, you are effectively disbelieving some of the things contained in it. It's nothing other than relativism (which many people do consider a superior hermeneutic).

The first Christians were Jews, or did you forget that? The Messiah, the Lamb of God, the Suffering Servant, the priest, the prophet - where do you think all these titles came from? How do Christians understand them? The "New Testament" actually starts with the prophesy in Jeremiah 31:31-33. That's what Christ fulfilled, and therefore where Christians come from.

So you simply reinforce my point. It would be exceedingly strange for someone to profess belief in Christ, yet think He was mistaken about being the Messiah and instituting the promised new covenant (or "Testament") - in other words, to accept Jesus as the Christ while denying that the reasons He was called Christ were valid.

Similarly, the Gita depends on the religion of the Vedas. Was Krishna really part of the Hindu context, a hindu deity, or didn't he really believe in reincarnation and was someone who sought to attain Moksha? If someone doesn't accept what he accepted, in what way can they suppose they're on the "right" path?

Yes, and it would have been wonderful if that said anything about the truth. But it doesn't. Your example is interesting though, because it says some religions are plainly wrong about God (fall outside the "big circle").

But not every religion believes all religions are equal. If some are supposed to be equally right, they're also equally wrong.

If you don't accept any particular revelation as true, you are actually pleading ignorance of their particular beliefs in order to gloss over them as "religion". Then it is simply a form of agnosticism that disguises itself as spirituality.

Of course I have. It's the only reasonable position to start from. But if I remained in that position, I wouldn't have made any progress would I?

You say I'm speculating. I could just as easily answer, "this is your speculation, not experience". The truth is that it is my experience that someone who believes "all" revelations never really believes any of them - or at the least betrays his ignorance of their fundamental claims.

For instance, my belief that Jesus knew who He was (based on who He said He was) is incompatible with a belief that would claim Jesus was an incarnation of a Hindu deity. When Jesus says "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6), he did not use a generic "I" that could apply to many people (or incarnations), because the Christ was not a generic "type" - it was himself. Jesus did not believe in Brahman, or in a God that could be called by any name - on the contrary, he knew exactly who his Father was:

John 8:53-54
Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"
Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.​

That's a mistaken conception of religion, because it doesn't allow for their existence. The religion didn't come first, the beliefs did. People who believe the same, are then said to be of the same religion. It has nothing to do with your socio-economical context. What makes Judaism different is that it was tied to God's promises to certain people. Abraham, not Melchizedek; Jacob, not Esau; Isaac, not Ishmael. Each "generation" depended on God, and a convert had to be circumcized to have part in the Jewish inheritance - become part of the covenant of flesh and offspring. Jesus stated it quite plainly to the Samaritan woman: "You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews" (John 4:22). How would someone who believes all religions are the same, reconcile their belief with Jesus' belief?

That's why we use scriptures: to get an understanding of religion as it was at the time of the events that shaped it. Consider the case of Ruth:

Ruth 1:15-16 "Look," said Naomi, "your sister-in-law is going back to her people and her gods. Go back with her."

But Ruth replied, "Don't urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God.​

 

UltiTruth,

Gujarati and Hindi.

What kind of question is this?

Answer it yourself. Were there Hindus 5000+ years ago?

You appear to be taking something very personally here. The essence of the new testament, like BG, is non sectarian. They belong to no particular physical people, time, or place. If you can contradict this statement using either scripture please do.

Of course there are thoughts/customs and concepts of Hindus in the BG, but that does not mean it is a Hindu scripture.
What does Hindu mean?

Areligious?
Do you mean Irreligious?
Anyhow;
Where did I say this?

If they are not drowned in their particular dogma, it is not only possible, but highly beneficial.

What are you talking about?
Wasn't the term Hindu used to describe people who lived by the Sind?
If no, please state where the term originated, if yes, then could it be possible that some or all of the people were following some aspect of veda.
When did the BG become available for anyone to read?

I am fine Ulti, thank you for asking, and I hope you are well also.

Jan Ardena.

 

cool down, raj. i read, every devotee is calling lord shiva by his name. to have shiva appearing in front of him as an attendent why should he do the penance for years and years to get just brahma appear and offer boons? the night before the final battle ravana tried to get shiva on his side but shiva was determined that he should go. lord shiva was firmly with rama. what do you think?

 

I think, one need not become a hindu to follow hinduism. sanyasis/sadhus (ascetics) have no caste. i have seen so many westerners wandering freely in hindu temples, that are in india or outside, without any protest. there is no single authority in hinduism to determine who is hindu or not.

yes, the western approach of hinduism starts with a definition of hinduism. i feel there is no definition for hinduism. sanathana dharma, as it is called in general, is as old as himalayas and river ganges.! and as modern as explaining the idea behind 'matrix'.

 

It was written in Sanskrit. Which of the Hindu scriptures were not written in Sanskrit? With which other cultures are the Varna system described in 4:13 associated? What other cultures consider Sanskrit a sacred language?

So none of the Hindu scriptures are Hindu?

And it evolved out of Vedism. It apparently became popular in India as a text because it counteracted the influence of Buddhism, and in the West because it accomodates Western thought (which depends a lot on Christian values). Its description of dharma corresponds with the duties of Brahmin Hindus.

Here's an extract from an article on Hinduism, Vaisnavism, and ISKCON:

The many traditions which feed in to contemporary Hinduism can be subsumed under three broad headings: the traditions of brahmanical orthopraxy, the renouncer traditions, and popular or local traditions. The tradition of brahmanical orthopraxy has played the role of a “master narrative,” transmitting a body of knowledge and behaviour through time, and defining the conditions of orthopraxy, such as adherence to varnasrama-dharma. From the medieval period a number of traditions (sampradaya) or systems of guru-disciple transmission (parampara) developed within the broadly brahmanical world. These traditions, which developed significantly during the first millennium CE, are focused upon a particular deity or group of deities.

Among these broadly brahmanical systems, three are particularly important in Hindu self-representation: Vaisnava traditions, focused on the deity Visnu and His incarnations; Saiva traditions, focused on Siva; and Sakta traditions, focused on the Goddess or Devi. The Vaisnava tradition reveres the Veda as revelation and also other texts, notably the Bhagavad Gita, Visnu Purana, and Bhagavata Purana.​

The Hare Krishna movement (a Vaisnava tradition) may have embraced the Gita as a singular text, divorced from its context in the Mahabarata, but it cannot sever its Hindu roots. The article goes on to say "Because of ISKCON’s acceptance of the Veda, it falls clearly within the realm of Hinduism".

The Vedanta tradition is the theological basis of Vaisnava tradition, including ISKCON, and was important in the nineteenth and twentieth century Hindu renaissance.​