Anyone who understands- Vedas and Gita (reject, tradition, contradiction, myth)

[Don Penguinoini]

WHat is more authorative? They say the Gita is but then the vedas is older, but then the Upanishads are the oldest.

[Hema]

Originally Posted by hallo

WHat is more authorative? They say the Gita is but then the vedas is older, but then the Upanishads are the oldest.

Vedas because they are Shruti texts. Even Manusmriti says that if anything in a Smriti text contradicts the Shruti, the Smriti is to be rejected and the Shruti accepted.

[Don Penguinoini]

Hmm, fair enough

[Seyorni]

I agree with Hema. Gita, however illustrative of Hindu theology, is just an excerpt from an epic poem. It's not Shruti.

[Pariah]

Seyorni -
I don't believe many people would agree with you. The Gita, to many, is the word of God, dictated directly to Arjuna from Lord Krishna himself. If that's not Shruti, I don't know what is, personally.

Originally Posted by hallo

WHat is more authorative? They say the Gita is but then the vedas is older, but then the Upanishads are the oldest.

The Vedas are the most authoritative.
The Upanishads are not older than the Vedas.

The Vedas could be simple stories of mythology, but for whatever reason, sages did not think so. The Upanishads are technically commentary on the Vedas, expounding on the abstract ideas that the Vedas apparently tried to communicate.

Some scholars believe that the ideas may have been there (in the Vedas), but the sages did not have the large vocabulary to express those ideas.

It should be noted that most Vedic traditions of Hinduism consider their personal philosophies to be extrapolations of the Vedas, with no contradictions. In light of this, many different texts could be considered comparitively authoritative.

Personally, I don't know any Hindus who have even touched the Vedas since they are pretty devoid of any usefulness. Only the Upanishads are of any use to Hindus today, in my experience.

[Seyorni]

Originally Posted by Pariah

Seyorni -
I don't believe many people would agree with you. The Gita, to many, is the word of God, dictated directly to Arjuna from Lord Krishna himself. If that's not Shruti, I don't know what is, personally.

The Gita is excerpted directly from the Mahabharata, an epic poem, a story written by people who had no inkling that one day several chapters would be pulled out and published as a separate work.

[Don Penguinoini]

The Upanishands (in my view) are the true essence of hindusim. The vds were written by god, Ved Vyas rushi was an avtar of Vishnu bhagwan

[Pariah]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

The Gita is excerpted directly from the Mahabharata, an epic poem, a story written by people who had no inkling that one day several chapters would be pulled out and published as a separate work.

No doubt, but that doesn't negate the idea of shruti since the message was still from Krishna himself.

I believe current archeology, however, asserts that the Bhagavad Gita was a later insertion, rather than simply emphasized later on. However, there are points on both sides about the chronology of the Mahabharata versus the Bhagavad Gita.

[Seyorni]

Originally Posted by penguin

The Upanishands (in my view) are the true essence of hindusim. The vds were written by god, Ved Vyas rushi was an avtar of Vishnu bhagwan

I agree. Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma is a crazy-quilt of disparate ideas and theologies, but the features that most people identify as distinctly Hindu; those you'll find in books on comparative religion or encyclopedic articles are those propounded in the Upanishads.

[Seyorni]

Originally Posted by Pariah

No doubt, but that doesn't negate the idea of shruti since the message was still from Krishna himself.

Shruti? When was the Gita ever considered Shruti? Gita is Smriti. I've never heard of it considred Shruti, even among those who hold it at the center of their faith.

The message was from the author, put into the words of The Charioteer.