Bhagavad Gita /discussion, thoughts

[raw_thought]

I find the Hare Krisha movement to be a very mundane understanding of BG. Obey the boss,( Krishna) and kiss his feet and you will be rewarded.

 

[Desert Snake]

This should answer your questions
Atman & Brahman
And yes, there are less sophisticated Hindus that treat their religion as worshiping an authority figure. However, devotions are honoring the divine within.
The search for God within is spiritual. It is not about ego ( individualism). Realizing that deep down all is God is not about having the ego thrill of throwing thunderbolts. Spirituality is not anthropomorphic.

Wherever you find this reasoning, I believe it is from contact with pantheistic groups, who use(d) reasoning as opposed to real religion, and interjected their ideas into various religions. The same type of reasoning allows people to call themselves Christians while at the same time denying divinity to Jesus. Ultimately, it has no place in real religion.

 

[raw_thought]

As per Hindu tradition:

The translation of various scriptures follows differing approaches. For example:

adhyatmika (spiritual interpretation)
adhiyajna (ritualistic interpretation)
aitihasika (specific tradition/sect-related)

In other words, there is no overriding, correct translation of any scripture in
the Hindu conglomeration, including the Bhagavad Gita. To suggest otherwise
is intellectually careless. Plus, even the mere suggestion of one translation
being more correct is unheard of in the Dharmic tradition & its related paradigms.​

The spiritual interpretation is the foundation. Brahman is Atman is the foundation. In a sense Hinduism is monotheistic. The various Gods ( and individual souls) are manifestations of Brahman.
Rituals may vary and yes different cultures may add to Hinduism. I am talking about what defines Hinduism.

 

[Desert Snake]

I find the Hare Krisha movement to be a very mundane understanding of BG. Obey the boss,( Krishna) and kiss his feet and you will be rewarded.

Your own logic is self defeating. You are essentially contradicting yourself at this point.

 

[Poeticus]

Explain. Are you saying that Brahman is Atman is not part of Hindu philosophy?

I'm simply reiterating that your knowledge of the Hindu conglomeration is very poor.

I find the Hare Krisha movement to be a very mundane understanding of BG. Obey the boss,( Krishna) and kiss his feet and you will be rewarded.

That's utterly a hopeless misunderstanding of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

The spiritual interpretation is the foundation.

The "foundation" are the Vedas, RT.​

 

[raw_thought]

Wherever you find this reasoning, I believe it is from contact with pantheistic groups, who use(d) reasoning as opposed to real religion, and interjected their ideas into various religions. The same type of reasoning allows people to call themselves Christians while at the same time denying divinity to Jesus. Ultimately, it has no place in real religion.

So you are saying that Brahman is Atman is not part of Hinduism? The texts prove otherwise.
Actually Jesus said something similar, Luke 17;21.* Unfortunately Constantine corrupted Christ's message and made it all about worshiping and obeying authority figures.
* Neither shall they say, ‘Lo, it is here!' or ‘Lo, it is there!' For behold, the Kingdom of God is within you.”
Also, http://biblehub.com/john/10-34.htm
There are many more references but my time is limited.

 

[Desert Snake]

Explain. Are you saying that Brahman is Atman is not part of Hindu philosophy?

Hindu Philosophy is varied, I'm not referring to Hindu philosophy, I'm bringing up the fact that as soon as we ask for devotion to Gods or Demigods, it is directly opposed to your reasoning. Where we find any individuality, is opposed to your reasoning. That might be the point that you are confused about.

If you say, 'Devotion to (_____--) is mundane, but worship of 'atman' is good', It is contradictory unless you accept division- (non-pantheism).

 

[raw_thought]

I'm simply reiterating that your knowledge of the Hindu conglomeration is very poor.



That's utterly a hopeless misunderstanding of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.



​

I have given quotes and evidence. Your whole "argument" is " your wrong."
Once again, so you think "Brahman is Atman" is not part of Hinduism?

 

[raw_thought]

Hindu Philosophy is varied, I'm not referring to Hindu philosophy, I'm bringing up the fact that as soon as we ask for devotion to Gods or Demigods, it is directly opposed to your reasoning. Where we find any individuality, is opposed to your reasoning. That might be the point that you are confused about.

If you say, 'Devotion to (_____--) is mundane, but worship of 'atman' is good', It is contradictory unless you accept division- (non-pantheism).

So if I say "be true to yourself" or "respect yourself" I am saying that you have two selves?"

 

[Jainarayan]

That's utterly a hopeless misunderstanding of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.
​

No to mention Vaishnavism as a whole, with a tone of condescension. I presume we're speaking about BG 18.65. I've seen it translated variously, but it seems the idea is the same. I don't know enough Sanskrit to know if these are the correct translations.

man-mana bhava mad-bhakto
mad-yaji mam namaskuru
mam evaisyasi satyam te
pratijane priyo 'si me​

"Always think of Me and become My devotee. Worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend." - As It Is.

"Let your mind be engrossed in Me. Offer worship to Me. Be resigned to Me. Beloved as you are of me, I pledge in truth you shall come to Me alone." - Swami Tapasyananda.

Bhagavad-Gita: Chapter 18, Verse 65

 

[raw_thought]

Selections from the Bhagavad-Gita: [1] The Atman | Darkmoon
In other words our ego is like an article of clothing. Beneath it is our true self, Atman and that is one with Brahman.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram deciple ji

Eh..where's the 'message'? What the heck does "ultimate reality" mean?

I canot guarantee that R_T uses Ultimate reality in the same way I understand it but the trem is used in translation of some Buddhist thought , .....

where by one realises that there is an ultimate reality and a conventional reality .

now even in Buddhist circles there are many inturpretations as to the true nature of ultimate reality just as there are form and formless schools of thought within hinduism , ...

in the context of this conversation ...

quote Raw_thought , ...
Prabhupada's interpretation is too literal and misses the metaphorical spiritual message of the BG. The spiritual message of the BG is Atman = Brahman.* The story of Arjuna should be seen philosophically/spiritually and not literally.
See http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...ml#post3796489
* In other words our individuality is an illusion and ultimate reality is the only reality.

leaving aside form or formless schools , ...

agreed that the message of the gita is to awaken the aspirant to understanding their true nature , therefore one is raising the bodily consciousness to the level of god consciousness.

however in regards to Srila Prabhupadas translation and purports to the text of the gita , ..I dont think he misses the metaphorical (if we must call it metaphorical) message in the least , some may see only a literal inturpretation but that does not nececarily mean that litteral is all that there is .

Personaly I feel that the account of this historical event gives both the worldly and the supermundane inturpretation symultaniously .
to refer to the message of the Gita as a metaphor implies that it is a literary devise composed to illustrate some thing of analogous nature , ....where as for those that regard the conversation between Sri Krsna and Arjuna to be an actual event , it takes on a very different nature .

so to return to conventional and ultimate realities , ....conventional reality is this bodily conception we hold whilst under the influence of maya , a reality conditioned by illusion ...and ultimate reality is the realisation that as prabhupada explains it ....we are spirit soul .

P.S. my appologies I havent yet read your link , ...I will go read it now .

 

[Desert Snake]

Explain. Are you saying that Brahman is Atman is not part of Hindu philosophy?

If Brahman IS Atman, then why are two terms being used?
It's off-topic, but to address your comment about Jesus' words,
"within", doesn't mean IS.
There is a separation.

(not to mention the fact that this most likely referring to "mans law", which Jesus said we are not beholden to i.e. cultural Jewish law outside of Belief)

 

[Poeticus]

Selections from the Bhagavad-Gita: [1] The Atman | Darkmoon

You are linking an article from an anti-Semitic website as being credible ?​

 

[raw_thought]

I'll put it more elegantly:

It is a simple matter of adhikāra. As a non-Hindu, you have no authority
to converse about Hindu topics with such fervor, especially when you are
utterly incorrect about various things. It would be more profitable to tell
you that you are wrong, than to detail how and why you are wrong.​

OK, no evidence only accusations that I am ignorant. Or that only Hindus can discuss Hinduism knowledgeably.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
True, I am not a Hindu, but I have given sources from Hindus. To say that I cannot discuss Hinduism because I am not a Hindu is to commit the fallacy just given. However, to quote from primary sources ( which is what I did)is not to commit the fallacy. .

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram poeticus ji

That's utterly a hopeless misunderstanding of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

​

I am most appologetic for the fact that I canot find enough frubal worty posts to allow me to frubal you again , ....

but as far as your above coment goes I must whole heartedly agree :yes:

​

 

[raw_thought]

Are you insane ? You are linking an article from an anti-semitic website as being credible ?​

More insults. OK
Admittedly, I did not read who quoted the BG. However, that does not alter what the BG says.

 

[Desert Snake]

So if I say "be true to yourself" or "respect yourself" I am saying that you have two selves?"

Huh? I have no idea what you are saying here.
The fact of the matter is, you are contradicting yourself variously in your statements because you don't seem to realize that your own logic defeats your argument.

Again, you are using non-religious pantheistic reasoning which is outside of devotion to Deity or Deities. It is a rationalistic argument that fails ultimately if you would like to keep any ideas of 'good & bad' etc.

 

[raw_thought]

For someone who suggests that the spiritual translations are the foundation and the true defining characteristics of Hinduism ... why, yes, I would vehemently argue that you are ignorant. But I'm not even upset, just hopelessly amused with your [mis]appropriation. ​

So you are saying that rituals and what other cultures add to Hinduism are more important than its spiritual message. Thats like saying there is no unifying principle behind Christianity because some Christians believe that the wine is actual blood and some do not.

 

[raw_thought]

Huh? I have no idea what you are saying here.
The fact of the matter is, you are contradicting yourself variously in your statements because you don't seem to realize that your own logic defeats your argument.

Again, you are using non-religious pantheistic reasoning which is outside of devotion to Deity or Deities. It is a rationalistic argument that fails ultimately if you would like to keep any ideas of 'good & bad' etc.

I really am confused by your confusion. One can say," respect yourself" just as one can say, " respect and honor ( perhaps even thru ritual) the Atman within that is identical to Brahman.