ShauryaT wrote:devesh wrote:
Harbans ji, I'm sorry, but the above question of yours is really ignorant if you don't know the answer to that.
the CONTEXT of EVERYTHING that Sri Krishna says in the BG is the MAHABHARATA.
everything that he says has the broader context of MB. it has the lessons, history, and story of the Kaurava-Pandava conflict, and broader North-Indian power struggle of the period.
in short, the entire story of MB, including the social, political, military, and historical progression of events which led to BG, is ALL part of the context of whatever that Krishna says.
how can you, or anyone, say that Krishna's sayings in the BG don't have a context? that they stand independent and detached from the contextual viewpoint of the story in which it is said????
Hello....
BG has no dependency on MBH for context. Any mention of context is incidental and besides the key facts it presents for man kind for ALL time. It is treated as a fifth veda and considered a shruti, while the MBH is a context specific smriti. The fact that the author ved vyas situates BG in the midst of the great war is besides the point. The BG is and remains a Moksha shastra in its purpose. It has no lessons of history or anything to with the story of kaurava-pandava or the power struggle of the period. It is not a dharma shastra and neither it has secrets to management as is the fad in some circles. Neither the BG is the key to understanding political struggles as Tilak tried to do. The BG is what it is - a Moksha shastra.
MB is called Panchama-Veda(Fifth Veda). BG is thought as essence of Vedanta/Upanishad. Vedanta/Upanishad is part of Veda. BG is part of MB.
MB is a smriti, itihaasa and a purana. It contains the portions relevant to all the 4 purusharthas.
1) Dharma Shastra.
2) Artha Shastra
3) Kama Shastra
4) Moksha Shastra.
There is a famous claim of Vyasa, " yath iha asti tath anyatra, yath na iha asti na tath kvachit".(That which is here is found elsewhere. That which is not here is not present anywhere. i.e. in short, MB is comprehensive).
BG is considered to be part of Prasthana Trayi(3 scriptures on Moksha). The 3 scriptures are:
a) Upanishad/Vedanta which is part of Vedas.
b) Brahmasutra authored by Vyasa. These are sutras or short aphorisms to explain the essence of Upanishad/Vedanta.
c) BG which is also considered to be an essence of Upanishad/Vedanta.
Adi Shankara has written bhashyas(commentaries) on all the three of the above.
MB contains several other great works(of course, the whole of MB is great). But, some of the popular works within MB are:
a) Vishnu Sahasranama
b) Vidhura Niti
c) Sanat-Sujatiyam
d) Nala-Damayanti Upakhyana
e) Sati Savitri story
f) Dharma-vyadha story
MB contains several works that deal with Karma(rites and rituals or action), Bhakti(devotion), and Gyana(knowledge).
Each of those works is quite complete in itself. And as such, can be taken 'independently'. And these works are 'universal' in nature.
But, the words 'independent' and 'universal' do not have the same meaning when they are used by a Hindu and a non-Hindu.
When Hindus say that a particular Hindu work is 'universal', they mean that the work is beneficial to all mankind and can be followed by any person(after proper understanding of the work).
When non-Hindus say that a particular Hindu work is 'universal', the want to deny its Hindu-ness.
When Hindus say that a particular Hindu work is 'independent', they mean it is not bound by the constraints of time and place. That means, BG is not limited to Kurukshethra or Dwapara Yuga. BG is relevant even today and is relevant in any country.
When non-Hindus say that a particular work is 'independent', they mean that the work is independent of larger Hinduism.
The same pattern repeats whenever a particular Hindu concept becomes popular(particularly in west). Take Yoga for example.
Hindus are not saying that there is no context. There is always a context. There is a specific definition. There is are rules and regulations. Even if all these details are ignored, one must at least keep the basic context in the mind, to understand the work properly. The basic context of all Hindu works is elementary knowledge of Hinduism/Santana-Dharma/Vedic-Dharma(not just any dharma). The same applies to BG.
One can understand BG, only when one has some elementary knowledge about Hinduism. Otherwise, one is bound to end up with false understanding. Remember, BG is talking about the highest knowledge of Hinduism: Upanishads/Vedanta.
Is BG a Moksha shaastra or Artha shaastra or dharma shaastra?
BG is a Moksha shaastra, no doubt. But, it contains basic dharma upadeshas, especially in regard to performance of Karma: sva-dharma. So, BG can be treated as dharma shaastra.
But, if one wants to insist that BG is only and only a moksha shaastra, then there is no point in quoting a moksha shaastra in a discussion about state and society. In such a discussion, artha shaastra and dharma shaastra have relevance. Chanakya's artha shaastra is very useful in this regard because it is like a collection of all the previous works on this subject. Similarly, Chanakya niti is a collection of various dharma shaastras.
But, it is well-recognized that as much as BG is fundamentally a moksha shastra, it also has important teachings on karma and dharma, apart from bhakti. Vyasa Himself is supposed to have said
gita sugita kartavya
kim anyaih shastra vistaraih
ya svyam padama nabhaayasa
mukha padmad vinih srita (Gita-mahatmya 4)
(4) This Gita which has come forth from the lotus-like face of the Lord (He who has the lotus in His navel) and which is so melodious, should be studied. What is the need of other diverse scriptures?
About Harbans' stand:
So far, my impression is that he is not just opposing the 'term' Hinduism, he is actually denying the very existence of Hinduism. And if he acknowledges it, he considers it to be a narrow grouping that must be done away with. In short, he is against Hinduism/SD, not just the term. Instead, he is proposing a larger grouping under new label. Of course, the first step is for Hindus to give up Hinduism/SD. Do you agree with him?
---
Harbans is not just ignoring the Hindu context of all the Hindu works, but he is also ignoring the general context within the work. For example, he quotes a particular verse or word without taking the context into cognizance. So, he ends up with silly conclusions. Eg:
harbans wrote:johneeG wrote:
In my limited understanding, the primary axioms of Sanathana Dharma(Hinduism) is:
a) 'Veda(s) are the eternal truth.'
b) 'Veda(s) are divine. They are not man-made.'
c) 'Veda(s) are the authority on all things.'
d) 'All the experiences, words, customs and ideologies of the people that are in consonance with the Vedic teachings are acceptable. And all the experiences, words, customs and ideologies of the people contradictory to Vedic teachings are rejected.'
The word Veda refers to all the four Vedas along with Vedanta(Upanishads).
-------
Based on the above fundamental axioms, Indic philosophies have been categorised as Astika and Nastika.
Astika Philosophies are 6(Shat Darshanas). They accept the Vedic authority. They are:
a) Nyāyá, the school of logic (by Gautama)
b) Vaiśeṣika, the school that proposes atoms (by Kanada)
c) Sāṃkhya, the enumeration school (by Kapila)
d) Yoga, which assumes the metaphysics of Sāṃkhya (by Patanjali)
e) Mimāṃsā or Purva Mimāṃsā, the tradition of Vedic exegesis that stresses on the importance of Vedic rituals. (restored by Kumarilla Bhatta - who is disciple of Jaimini - who is disciple of Vyasa)
f) Vedanta or Uttara Mimāṃsā, the Upaniṣadic tradition.(restored by Adi Shankaracharya - who is disciple of Govinda Bhagavatpada - Gauda Bhagavatpada - Shuka - Vyasa)
Nastika philosophies. They reject the Vedic authority. They are:
a) Buddhism (supposedly by Siddhartha Gautama)
b) Jainism (supposedly by Rishabha, the first Tirthankara. Mahavira is the last of the 24 Tirthankaras.)
c) Cārvāka - Materialistic and hedonistic school of thought.
Johnee G i read that all and had even responded to you.
Even Upanishads and Shri Krishna rejectd Vedic authority. I posted the relevant verses to that effect too.
So are they (Upanishadic texts and BG) Nastika also?
Link
Now, the very post that he quotes, I clearly wrote that Veda means 4 Vedas along with the Vedanta/Upanishad. How can one part of Veda reject another part of Veda? Such self-contradictions arise when text is interpreted without taking the context into the cognizance. This leads to internal inconsistencies.
This is not even a new phenomenon. It is an old trick that people use or a trap that people fall into.
johneeG wrote:Upanishads are part of Vedas. Upanishads are called Vedanta(End portion of Veda). Sri Krishna's quotes where he allegedly rejects the Vedas are a misreading. What He is saying is that people can perform rituals as mentioned in Vedas and obtain the fruits(including heaven). But, those fruits are not everlasting(including the heaven). Vedas contain rites and rituals to satisfy all kinds of needs and desires(Sattva, Rajas and Tamas). But, one needs to go beyond these Gunas. For that, one needs to perform one's duty(Sva-dharma) without any desires and by dedicating it to the God.
Sri Krishna is showing the limitations of Karmas while explaining the truths in Vedanta(Upanishads).
Link
In the verses quoted by Harbans, the word 'Veda' means the Karma Khanda(ritual part) part of Veda. This is a good example of how a word can be used to mean different things based on different contexts.
Generally, in any discussion on Gyana, the limitation of Karma(and even bhakti) are brought out. Similarly, in any discussion on Karma, the difficulties and potholes in trying to achieve gyana(or bhakti) are brought out. This is a norm. Lord Sri Krishna is doing the same.
When He talks about Karma(action or ritual), He says that merely knowing(what to do) is not enough, one must act.
When He talks about Gyana(knowledge), He says that actions/rituals and their results are limited. Only the Gyana(of Brahma/Atma) can give ultimate and unlimited result.
When He talks of Bhakti(devotion), He says that mere devotion is enough.
Instead of understanding a work in its entirety, a single word, or verse or group of verses get quoted out of context to buttress a silly idea. Harbans is not only ignoring the Hindu context of BG, he is also ignoring the internal context within BG. And is making conclusions that are amateurish, inconsistent and self-contradictory.
---
Now, Harbans claims that the word satya(truth) is self-explanatory in itself and does not need any definition, context, exceptions...etc. He talks of Sri Krishna and Sri Rama adhering to truth. Ok. Let me illustrate situations where Sri Krishna and Sri Rama support untruth. But, it is still justified because it is 'Dharma'(according to Hinduism/Sanatana-Dharma).
Sri Rama:
Sri Rama was leaving Ayodhya for exile in forests for 14 years along with His dutiful wife Sita amma and obedient brother Lakshmana. The 3 were seated in a chariot and Sumantra was driving the chariot. As the chariot left to some distance, the people started wailing. Even the royal family were out on streets and making loud lamentations. The king Dasaratha along with Kaushalya were inconsolable. Kaushalya ran after the chariots crying loudly. Rama was unable to watch it and kept telling the charioteer, Sumantra, to drive the chariot faster. Finally, Dasaratha collapsed on the ground. He loudly told the chariot to stop. Meanwhile, Rama kept telling the charioteer to drive faster. The charioteer was confused on whose orders to follow. Dasaratha was still the king and the charioteer(who was also a minister) should follow Dasaratha's orders only. So, Sri Rama said to the charioteer," If the king scolds you afterwards for not listening to the order of stopping the chariot, then you can say that you did not hear the king's words in the noise of chariot." Here, Sri Rama is telling the charioteer to lie to the King Dasaratha.
Is it dharmic?
It is(according to Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma).
Similarly, in Sundara Kaanda:
Hanuman meets Sita amma and gives Her the ring. Later, Hanuman destroys the Ashoka vatika and scares away the guards. Seeing this the female rakshasi guards of Sita amma ask Her who is Hanuman because they vaguely remember Her talking to Him. Sita amma does not give a straight-forward answer. One can almost construe it as a lie.
Is it dharmic?
It is(according to Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma).
Sri Krishna explains:
johneeG wrote:
As for the 'half-truth' spoken by Yudhishtira: Below is the Lord Sri Krishna's view on telling truth and falsehood.
I will now tell thee, O son of Pandu, this mystery connected with morality, this mystery that was declared by Bhishma, by the righteous Yudhishthira, by Vidura otherwise called Kshatri, and by Kunti, of great celebrity. I will tell thee that mystery in all its details.
Listen to it, O Dhananjaya! One who speaks truth is righteous. There is nothing higher than truth.
Behold, however, truth as practised is exceedingly difficult to be understood as regards its essential
attributes. Truth may be unutterable, and even falsehood may be utterable where falsehood would
become truth and truth would become falsehood. In a situation of peril to life and in marriage, falsehood becomes utterable. In a situation involving the loss of one’s entire property, falsehood becomes utterable. On an occasion of marriage, or of enjoying a woman, or when life is in danger, or when one’s entire property is about to be taken away, or for the sake of a Brahmana, falsehood may be uttered.
These five kinds of falsehood have been declared to be sinless. On these occasions falsehood would become truth and truth would become falsehood. He is a fool that practises truth without knowing the difference between truth and falsehood. One is said to be conversant with morality when one is able to distinguish between truth and falsehood. What wonder then in this that a man of wisdom, by perpetrating even a cruel act, may obtain great merit like Valaka by the slaughter of the blind beast?
What wonder, again, in this that a foolish and ignorant person, from even the desire of winning merit, earns great sin like Kausika (living) among the rivers?"
Link
Sri Krishna is not making up new rules. He is simply repeating the Hindu view of Satya(truth) and Dharma. The same thing is said by Shukracharya to Bali:
RamaY wrote:^ that poem in Bhagavatam where Sukracharya tells Bali to go back on his vow to Vaamana
Varijakshulandu, vaivahikamulandu
Prana, witta, maana bhangamandu
Bonkavachu maghamu nonda dadhipa
Bali does not refute what is said by Shukracharya. Instead, he talks about the temporariness of the world(and rulers) and the permanence of the fame(good fame achieved through good deeds).
In Buddhism, as far as I understand, the 'pious fraud' is accepted and even recommended in works like Lotus Sutra(Sadh-dharma-pundarika-sutram), buddhist missionary manual.
Is it dharmic?
It is(according to that particular Buddhist school).
---
harbans wrote:BG messages context wrt MB:
SANJAYA:
Thus have I been an ear-witness of the miraculous astonishing dialogue, never heard before, between Vasudeva and the magnanimous son of Pritha. By the favor of Vydsa I heard this supreme mystery of Yoga -- devotion -- even as revealed from the mouth of Krishna himself who is the supreme Master
The sanskrit word is 'adbhut'. Now, anyone with a grounding in Indian languages will know that the word 'adbhut' can be translated as extra-ordinary or fantastic or wonderful and so on.
If one insists that the word must be translated as 'never before'(not 'never heard before'), even then it is merely opinion of Sanjaya. Lord Sri Krishna Himself clarifies in the beginning that He is going to tell what He had already told in the past(to Surya who taught it to Manu, who passed it down to Ikshvaku, and so on). So, the claim that its new knowledge is false.
Further, within BG, Lord explains Yoga, Sankhya, Bhakti, Karma,...etc. All these are already there.
harbans wrote:Lord Krishna in BG:
Fearlessness, sincerity, assiduity in devotion, generosity, self-restraint, piety, and alms-giving, study, mortification, and rectitude; harmlessness, veracity, and freedom from anger, resignation, equanimity, and not speaking of the faults of others, universal compassion, modesty, and mildness; patience, power, fortitude, and purity, discretion, dignity, unrevengefulness, and freedom from conceit -- these are the marks of him whose virtues are of a godlike character, O son of Bharata. Those, O son of Pritha, who are born with demoniacal dispositions are marked by hypocrisy, pride, anger, presumption, harshness of speech, and ignorance.
Lets take up 'study':
the word used in sanskrit is 'svadhyaya'. The correct translation is 'self-study'. Anyway, self-study of what?
Hotel menu? Harbans' posts? Hadith? Consitution? Newspaper? Sports Magazine?
Obviously, the word 'self-study' means a specific thing(which has been taken for granted). It has a context and definition. The basic context is Hinduism/SD. Similarly, other values also have their context in Hinduism/SD and they have specific definitions.
BTW, it would be better if you depend on Sanskrit originals than the translated ones. Translations introduce unnecessary quirks.
---
Pranav,
you are repeating what Harbans has already said. The same discussion is repeating. Here is a link of the previous posts on the same topic.
Link
There are 2 options:
a) Accept the present form in which a word is being used.
b) Insist that we should go back to the original context in which the word was coined(or first used).
(a)one is ready to accept the present form in which a word is being used regardless of who invented it:
Hinduism is presently used as a synonym of Sanatana Dharma. It does not matter what the original context or intention of the word was.
Synonyms of Sanatana Dharma are:
Arya Dharma, Arsha Dharma, Vedic Dharma, Sanatana Dharma, Hinduism,...etc.
Presently, Dharma is being used as a generic term. Generic term has no meaning unless the context is specified. That is the reason I kept asking,"Which Dharma are you talking about?"
The word 'Dharma' in itself has no meaning unless it is associated with a specific philosophy that defines the word. Just like the word 'law'. If I say, 'law' allows me to do something without specifying the context, then that statement has no meaning. The first question that would be asked is,"Which law are you talking about? Indian law? paki law? African law? Which law?..."
I asked the same question. You did not specify any single philosophy according to which you were referring to the word 'Dharma', instead you came up with some words(which are also generic) which you said sum up 'Dharma'. You provided your own definition of Dharma whixch you think should be enshrined in constitution. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism come up with their own unique definitions of Dharma. The followers of a particular religion would believe that the definition provided by their religion should be enshrined in constitution. The others' definitions of Dharma are acceptable only to the extent that they agree with the definition provided by one's own philosophy. I presume that your stance is same. You provided a definition and you are willing to accept the others definition of dharma as long as the others do not contradict your definition. Your original goal was to 'bringing different dharmic strands under one umbrella'. As you can see, you are not going to achieve that unless everyone(and all philosophies) give up their definitions of dharma and accept yours. In short, you are adding one more definition into the ring claiming that yours is best suited. In a way, you are starting a new a religion/philosophy with your own definitions of dharma. And moreover, anyone can come up with their own definitions that are convenient to them. Why should they accept your definition? Why should Dharma be defined as righteousness? Why not as faith in prophet X?
The original conundrum also started similarly. This is a good cue to our option (b):
Insist that we should go back to the original context in which the word was coined(or first used):
You have insisted that the word 'Hinduism' is unfit because of the original context in which it was coined. Actually, the original context seems unclear to me but lets assume that what you say is true. Then, one should also insist that the word 'Dharma' should also be used in the original context that it was first used or coined.
So, when was the word 'Dharma' first used?
Answer: Vedas.
So, by your own logic we should stop trying to redefine Dharma(just as we should not redefine the word Hinduism) and accept the definition provided by the first users. If that is the case, then Dharma would automatically mean Sanatana Dharma. Then, Dharma would not be generic anymore, therefore anyone who defines dharma in a way that deviates from the Sanatana Dharma would be wrong.
When Hindus use the word 'Dharma', then mean 'Dharma' as enshrined in Hindu scriptures only. Similarly, when Buddhists use the term 'Dharma', then mean it in a completely different manner. Just because both of them use the word 'Dharma' does not mean, they have same definition for that word.
Let me give an example:
Dharmo rakshati rakshitah...
Satyam Vada, Dharmam Chara... These are Hindu concepts of 'Dharma'.
Buddham Sharanam Gachami
Dharmam Sharanam Gachami
Sangam Sharanam Gachami... This is a Buddhist concept of 'Dharma'.
Both of the above differ completely from each other. Bhagavad Gita along with rest of Vyasa MB, Valmiki Ramayana and other Puranas are not just any Dharmic books, they are Hindu(or SD) books. These books are teaching Sanatana Dharma(Hinduism). They will not be acceptable in its totality to Buddhists or Jains, or other so-called 'dharmic strands'. Even Bhagavad Gita is a Hindu scripture and will not be acceptable in its totality to all these so-called 'dharmic strands'.
Sri Rama and Sri Krishna followed Vedic 'Dharma' or Sanatana 'Dharma' or Hinduism, not just any 'Dharma'... if you accept the portrayal of Vyasa MB and Valmiki Ramayana.
The point you are missing or ignoring is: 'Dharma' is a generic word. 'Dharma' broadly means 'rule'/'duty'/'religious law'. Without a context(that means an associated philosophy/creed, that word becomes meaningless).
If I keep parroting,"Lets uphold the 'law'...", but do not specify which 'law' I am talking about, then it becomes meaningless nonsense.
So, you want a definition that can cover all Indic religion and philosophies. Fine. I support your effort. But, why are you wasting your time in asking Hindus(or Buddhists or Jains) to remould their religion to suit your definition? Instead, you can simply create a definition based on the common traits of all Indic religions like belief in Karma, reincarnation and moksha(or nirvana).
no needs for the definition of Hinduism(or Sanatana Dharma) to be 'more encompassing' or 'all embracing'. Strictly, speaking no ideology can be 'all embracing'. If any ideology defines itself as 'all embracing' it leads to too much confusion especially if it faces threats from various directions.
Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism or any other Indic religion(or philosophy) can work with each other to collectively face the threat from Abrahamic religions without having to change their primary ethos. To work together one needs to have common interests, thats all.
Coming to the term 'Hindu', it seems to be a middle-eastern word for Sanatan Dharmics(not any dharmics). Similarly, the word 'India' seems to be a greek(or western) word. There seems to be a phonological similarity between the words 'Hindu' and 'India'(or 'Indica'). So, it is not a new term invented by the Brits. It was ancient term for Sanatana Dharmics.
Is the term 'Hindu' geographic? Why did you reach that conclusion? It is used for religious community. Anyway, the geography(India) and religion(Hinduism) are connected intimately. So, it may have been used for both.
Also, it is merely a speculation that the word is derived from Sindhu. One does not really know the etymology of 'Hindu'.
The converted indian muslims were never called Hindu muslims. If the word 'Hindu' was a geographic appellation, then surely the converted muslims would be called 'Hindu-muslims'. This is an indication that the word 'Hindu' is both a religious AND geographic term specifically denoting Hindus(Sanatana-Dharmics or Vaidika-Dharimiks).
If you have a problem with the term 'Hindu', then you can use its synonyms like:
Arya Dharma, Arsha Dharma, Vedic Dharma, Sanatana Dharma,...etc
But, it seems you have a problem with Hinduism itself. In which case, you can simply reject Hinduism. It seems you want to go one step further and urge everyone to reject Hinduism and re-define it. What you want to say is that Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma should be junked.
Anyway, you keep insisting about the original usage of 'Hinduism'. What about original usage of the term 'Dharma'? It was first used in Vedas.
Lastly, a straight-forward question:
Do you have a problem with the term 'Hinduism'? or
Do you have a problem with Hinduism itself?
---
RajeshA saar,
great work.
Thumbs up.
Maybe Hinduian is a good idea, instead of Hinduist. Hinduian also rhymes with Indian.