Gita is/isn't sacred

[DeviChaaya]

So... been reading some things (posts here and elsewhere, books by Himalayan Academy, etc) and stumbled over the revelation that only certain sects (primarily Vaishnava) view the Gita as a sacred text.

This is a huge weight of my shoulders! As a Shakta I have always felt guilty that I can't finish the Gita; I get quickly bored and most commentaries infuriate me (primarily As it Is, women are not what Prabhupada calls us!). It is such a relief to find that I don't have to consider it a sacred text!

I have never felt close to Krisna, I did try to cultivate a loving relationship with Him at one time but I have always had a much closer relationship with Shiva and Devi. (I've never felt close to Ganesha, either, and only started keeping Him on the altar after a satsanga I attended.) After all, it is not Krisna who fills my dreams and pulls me back on tract, but Shiva and Devi (they are quite insistent!).

I can totally understand seeing the Gita as sacred, by the way, and I respect other devotees views, but it is a relief for me that I do not have to.

 

[Bob Dixon]

I know I'm technically not supposed to be posting here but...

I was under the impression that only the Vedas and the Upanishads are actually canonical, that even the Gita isn't really part of the canon, being part of the Mahabharata.

But some do see it as on the level of the Vedas...?

 

[Vinayaka]

I know I'm technically not supposed to be posting here but...

I was under the impression that only the Vedas and the Upanishads are actually canonical, that even the Gita isn't really part of the canon, being part of the Mahabharata.

But some do see it as on the level of the Vedas...?

You are correct. (Not completely as Agamas fall into same category as Vedas) So is DK. Only quite recently, like in the last 200 years, has the Gita become so popular. And of course in the last 60 years or so, ISKCON has REALLY made it popular.

I have absolutely nothing against it, but I've never read it. I did read a very condensed version of the Mahabharata once. I'm sure it has some great things.

Fact is many Hindus go without any scripture at all, and do just fine. (Oral tradition, parentall guidance, Gurus, and temples ) SD is so vast that you can go without scripture..Imagine that! Another huge difference between Abrahamic and Dharmic religions. In Abrahamism, often it seems that scripture IS the religion.

Thanks DK, for pointing this out ..

 

[Andal]

I see the Gita as being sacred text. It, within the Vaishnav perspective, is Shruti.

I honestly have not found a commentary that I've like though. I do not like ISKCON's version. The translation is ok but the commentary does not speak to me. Until I find a guru who's commentary does feel right, I will rely solely on the text itself.

The Bhagavad Gita to me is one of the most beautiful things I've ever read. It's a love letter from God.

Ultimately though, texts are texts and what really counts is what is in your heart. The Lord says that it doesn't matter what form you worship him as, that devotion is received and returned in full.

Aum Hari Aum!

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

The Smarta also follow the Gita. It is also seen as Prasthanatrayi or one of the three starting points of Vedanta Philosophy along with Upanishads and Brahma Sutras.

With that said it is not as important as the Vedas. I read it occasionally and enjoy it. It started me off in Hinduism. The good thing about Hinduism there are no shortage of scriptures to pick from. I find the Devi Gita very practical. It teaches all about sadhana; how to sit, breath, and Chant to find devotion and knowledge.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I like the Gita Translated by Swami Tapasyananda. It breaks down the meaning of each word in Sanskrit and the commentary is not in the translation so you don't have to look at it. There are two versions so you have to be sure you're buying the right book.

 

[Jainarayan]

The Smarta also follow the Gita. It is also seen as Prasthanatrayi or one of the three starting points of Vedanta Philosophy along with Upanishads and Brahma Sutras. ...

The Gita is canon in VishishtAdvaita also, and in Achintya BhedAbheda as a Vaishnava school.

Ramanuja, the main proponent of Visishtadvaita philosophy contends that the Prasthana Traya ("The three courses") i.e. Upanişads, Bhagavad Gītā, and Brahma Sūtras are to be interpreted in way that shows this unity in diversity, for any other way would violate their consistency.

Vishishtadvaita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jainarayan]

I honestly have not found a commentary that I've like though. I do not like ISKCON's version. The translation is ok but the commentary does not speak to me. Until I find a guru who's commentary does feel right, I will rely solely on the text itself.

I've never paid attention to the commentaries. The text and message of the Gita is simple enough to understand, unless I am too dense to know I need someone to comment on it for me!

The Bhagavad Gita to me is one of the most beautiful things I've ever read. It's a love letter from God.

Ultimately though, texts are texts and what really counts is what is in your heart. The Lord says that it doesn't matter what form you worship him as, that devotion is received and returned in full.

Aum Hari Aum!

And there we have it!

 

[Madhuri]

So... been reading some things (posts here and elsewhere, books by Himalayan Academy, etc) and stumbled over the revelation that only certain sects (primarily Vaishnava) view the Gita as a sacred text.

This is a huge weight of my shoulders! As a Shakta I have always felt guilty that I can't finish the Gita; I get quickly bored and most commentaries infuriate me (primarily As it Is, women are not what Prabhupada calls us!). It is such a relief to find that I don't have to consider it a sacred text!

Hey Kala,
I hope you are not basing your opinion of the Gita on Prabhupada's commentaries. I find him very offensive and do not take seriously his purports. The Gita has so many different commentaries, some very different from Prabhupada's. As a Shakta, you might enjoy Paramahamsa Yogananda's Gita.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Ramanuja, the main proponent of Visishtadvaita philosophy contends that the Prasthana Traya ("The three courses") i.e. Upanişads, Bhagavad Gītā, and Brahma Sūtras are to be interpreted in way that shows this unity in diversity, for any other way would violate their consistency.

I love Ramanuja

 

[DeviChaaya]

Hey Kala,
I hope you are not basing your opinion of the Gita on Prabhupada's commentaries. I find him very offensive and do not take seriously his purports. The Gita has so many different commentaries, some very different from Prabhupada's. As a Shakta, you might enjoy Paramahamsa Yogananda's Gita.

Unfortunately my first encounter with the Gita was 'As It Is' and that has seriously tainted my view of it. I will look into Paramahamsa Yogananda's version; it might get me to start reading Autobiography of a Yogi once more!

While I have not read much of either, I also have the commentaries by Gandhi and Sri Aurobindo. From what I have read of both I like how they view it and dissect it.

 

[Vinayaka]

I've never paid attention to the commentaries. The text and message of the Gita is simple enough to understand, unless I am too dense to know I need someone to comment on it for me!

It (and all other texts written in a different language) still has to go through the mind of the translator, which in a very real sense, is a commentary. When concepts are non-existent in the language its being translated into, what can one do?

How could you possible translate 'snow' int a language of a culture where it never froze?

 

[Jainarayan]

You're right... the translator sees what he sees. I thought about the translation thing after I posted. I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly) that the translation and transliteration is as faithful to the original as is possible. But liberties are taken, and sometimes translations are too liberal.

One example of an inconsistency is J. Robert Oppenheimer's translation of B.G. 11.32.

Oppenheimer (who learned Sanskrit and read B.G. in the original Sanskrit) translated
kālo'smi lokakṣayakṛtpravṛddho
lokānsamāhartumiha pravṛttaḥ
as "...I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

Bhagavad Gita As It Is has
"...Time I am, the great destroyer of the worlds..."

This version The BHAGAVAD-GITA in English has
"...I am terrible time, destroyer of all beings in all worlds..."

I don't read Sanskrit (all I got was 'loka' for world and 'kālo' for time), but I think there is a great difference between the words "Time" and "Death" in this context. It seems Oppenheimer changed kālo to death, which I think is mṛtyor (or an inflection thereof).

Srila Prabhupada, Sridhara Swami, Madhvacarya, Ramanujacarya, and Kesava Kasmiri all have the same commentary about 'time', not 'death'.

 

[Vinayaka]

You're right... the translator sees what he sees. I thought about the translation thing after I posted. I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly) that the translation and transliteration is as faithful to the original as is possible. But liberties are taken, and sometimes translations are too liberal.

One example of an inconsistency is J. Robert Oppenheimer's translation of B.G. 11.32.

Oppenheimer (who learned Sanskrit and read B.G. in the original Sanskrit) translated
kālo'smi lokakṣayakṛtpravṛddho
lokānsamāhartumiha pravṛttaḥ
as "...I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

Bhagavad Gita As It Is has
"...Time I am, the great destroyer of the worlds..."

This version The BHAGAVAD-GITA in English has
"...I am terrible time, destroyer of all beings in all worlds..."

I don't read Sanskrit (all I got was 'loka' for world and 'kālo' for time), but I think there is a great difference between the words "Time" and "Death" in this context. It seems Oppenheimer changed kālo to death, which I think is mṛtyor (or an inflection thereof).

Srila Prabhupada, Sridhara Swami, Madhvacarya, Ramanujacarya, and Kesava Kasmiri all have the same commentary about 'time', not 'death'.

Proof of my thesis, indeed. I once went to hear the Swami from Artha Vidya Gurukulam. he tool great exception to the words, "as it Is" because it is in Sanskrit, so the only way it could be 'as it is' is to leave it in Sanskrit. Now, to think how other books have been mangled.

 

[Jainarayan]

Well, I want to be credited when you are published.

Let me understand... I've seen the As It Is translation and commentaries soundly trashed, but is it that bad? I don't have enough experience with different versions and commentaries to know.

Btw I see your point in [not] using As It Is because by definition it should be 'as it is', in Sanskrit. Unless Srila Prabhupada is saying that he translated it without deviation (as much as possible) from Sanskrit.

 

[xkatz]

Although I am not Hindu, I feel like the BG is worthy of being considered holy IMHO. It's one of the best pieces of ancient literature/religious scripture I've read to date.

 

[Jainarayan]

Everything in it is positive, imo, not negative and talking about suffering and punishment. Rather, about devotion and duty in the face of adversity. It's quite uplifting, really.

 

[DreadFish]

I agree with others when they say that translation makes the book. I have read Stephen Mitchell's translation of the Tao Te Ching, and very much liked it, therefore I imagine that his translation of the Gita would also be good. The translation I have has been highly praised by various people, but it is in my car right now and I cant for the life of me remember the translators name. I just remember it was translated by a woman.
I also have "As It Is" and dont particularly like it. I find the commentary to be opinionated.

Anyway, my own opinion is that, it has great teachings, but should not be considered as a definitive teaching on God. While some regard Krishna in the Gita as God, I regard Krishna in the Gita and a manifestation or representation of God. Thusly, it is not that Krishna is the Supreme, but that the Supreme was Krishna.

Likewise though, I have not felt a connection to Krishna. I also have always felt a pull towards Shiva, and also Ganesh.

EDIT: On a side note, it is interesting and cool to note that in a direct translation, there is a verse (I dont remember which) where Krishna says "Of the Rudras, I am Shiva."

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Well, I want to be credited when you are published.

Let me understand... I've seen the As It Is translation and commentaries soundly trashed, but is it that bad? I don't have enough experience with different versions and commentaries to know.

Btw I see your point in [not] using As It Is because by definition it should be 'as it is', in Sanskrit. Unless Srila Prabhupada is saying that he translated it without deviation (as much as possible) from Sanskrit.

The translation by Srila Prabhupada is way different then all the other translation that I have read. I have read translations from a Shakta Swami, two swamis from the Ramakrishna order, Smarta Swami, a Western Indianologist, and Western Yogi. All of them for the most part are the same and differ from Srila Prabhupada version of it. I am not familiar enough with the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition to know if he is on the mark from there point of view. I would not trash it but I will say I prefer other translations of this scripture.

 

[themo]

What do you think about Sivananda`s translation? is it accurate?

Bhagavad Gita

And what is the most accurate online gita translation? I too don`t like Prabhupada`s translation and especially commentary on the Gita.