Shallow spiritual books

[Sirona]

Namaste,

let‘s say there is a guru who sells books one might consider “spiritual fastfood”, which is tasty and nice-looking, but actually doesn’t require a lot of knowledge or care for cooking, and isn’t very nourishing in the end. (In detail, I am asking about a Bhagavad Gita commentary.)

1.Based upon the lecture of several other books from the same author, is it a prejudice to read a Bhagavad Gita commentary with a reasonable presupposition that it would likely be superficial in content, constituting “spiritual fastfood”, so to say?

2. Is it okay to write / publish a review about the possibly shallow quality of said book (Bhagavad Gita commentary) or should I desist from this out of general considerations of “respect”?

Thanks for your replies.

 

[Vinayaka]

It's always okay to say what you think ... I think.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Namaste,

let‘s say there is a guru who sells books one might consider “spiritual fastfood”, which is tasty and nice-looking, but actually doesn’t require a lot of knowledge or care for cooking, and isn’t very nourishing in the end. (In detail, I am asking about a Bhagavad Gita commentary.)

1.Based upon the lecture of several other books from the same author, is it a prejudice to read a Bhagavad Gita commentary with a reasonable presupposition that it would likely be superficial in content, constituting “spiritual fastfood”, so to say?

2. Is it okay to write / publish a review about the possibly shallow quality of said book (Bhagavad Gita commentary) or should I desist from this out of general considerations of “respect”?

Thanks for your replies.

Namaste,
What interesting questions, Sirona! They look straight forward enough at first glance but there are layers of subtleties to consider.

The first layer to peel back is what or who is a guru?! Maybe the author is not truly a guru. Guru is not just "a teacher," and IMO, respect beyond the normal respect of one toward another is earned, not a gift. (Quoting myself from a post offered in 2016):

Guruji taught that there are three qualifications of a guru: shastravedha (sp? knowledge of the meaning of scripture); brahmanishta (100% established in awareness of God, the Reality) and the ability to transmit the Light or shakti into a deserving disciple. He also taught there are three qualifications of a disciple: a thirst after knowledge, perseverance, and obedience.

He laughingly continued with his comparisons of three. He said there are three types of fish: the guru fish, the disciple fish and a third type, i.e., one is freed from the net, the second is struggling to be free of the net and the third is content to be caught!
​

With respect to the "spiritual fast food" layer, if you or anyone is going to give up your time to read the stuff, do so with an open mind. Sometimes just one sentence of truth amongst chapters of drivel has the power to "Light up your intellect." If the ideas presented are not erroneous and though not its intended purpose (most likely fame and fortune are the motives, ugh), it still might have the effect of exciting a thirst in the reader to dig deeper. Babies eat baby food, toddlers advance to easily digested solids, adults chow down on more substantive foods.

And now on to the "is it OK to review?" layer. Reviews are opinion pieces and without a doubt, you are entitled to yours. Center yourself first, and then craft it so it does no harm but rather reveals your true motive which is to help a potential reader know what to expect. That allows the reader of the review to make up his or her own mind as to whether to pursue that particular avenue of instruction.

 

[stvdv]

let‘s say there is a guru who sells books one might consider “spiritual fastfood”, which is tasty and nice-looking, but actually doesn’t require a lot of knowledge or care for cooking, and isn’t very nourishing in the end. (In detail, I am asking about a Bhagavad Gita commentary.)

Many people like fastfood, so it's a Law in Economics that fastfood will be produced when there are people who want to buy it

1.Based upon the lecture of several other books from the same author, is it a prejudice to read a Bhagavad Gita commentary with a reasonable presupposition that it would likely be superficial in content, constituting “spiritual fastfood”, so to say?

Most people do not change a lot, so it might be reality that the BG might also be superficial like the other books
On the other hand, people learn, especially when writing books, so probably the BG might be less superficial than the others
Even if I read something that others see as superficial, I always read between the lines and get plenty of insights anyway
And maybe categorizing things as non-superficial+superficial is maybe superficial also, when seen from another level

2. Is it okay to write / publish a review about the possibly shallow quality of said book (Bhagavad Gita commentary) or should I desist from this out of general considerations of “respect”?

Reviews are useful for others to get an idea about the book. if you think the book is shallow, then you should also mention your level. Because something that is shallow for Einstein will be very deep for someone else (with a lower IQ). Same with GQ.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Namaste,

let‘s say there is a guru who sells books one might consider “spiritual fastfood”, which is tasty and nice-looking, but actually doesn’t require a lot of knowledge or care for cooking, and isn’t very nourishing in the end. (In detail, I am asking about a Bhagavad Gita commentary.)

1.Based upon the lecture of several other books from the same author, is it a prejudice to read a Bhagavad Gita commentary with a reasonable presupposition that it would likely be superficial in content, constituting “spiritual fastfood”, so to say?

2. Is it okay to write / publish a review about the possibly shallow quality of said book (Bhagavad Gita commentary) or should I desist from this out of general considerations of “respect”?

Thanks for your replies.

The fact that you are asking these questions show that you will be a responsible reviewer. Go for it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

1.Based upon the lecture of several other books from the same author, is it a prejudice to read a Bhagavad Gita commentary with a reasonable presupposition that it would likely be superficial in content, constituting “spiritual fastfood”, so to say?

2. Is it okay to write / publish a review about the possibly shallow quality of said book (Bhagavad Gita commentary) or should I desist from this out of general considerations of “respect”?

Thanks for your replies.

A huge number of Indians and foreigners are doing it for Hindu and Buddhist philosophy - 'spiritual fastfood' as you say.
1. It is sure a prejudice but who are we to complain? We are free to have our take on BhagawadGita. I take BhagawadGita to be a mix. Would agree with many things, would not agree with many other things.
2. It should not be done, but again, it is a free world. How can you stop some one else to lecture, write an article or a book? It may really mislead people. That is why what gurus and scriptures say should not be taken at face value. One must think on his/her own.

That is where Buddha's 'Kesamutti Sutta' comes in handy (formerly known as Kalama Sutta in Wikipedia and the original Ockham's Razor). 'Kesamutti is "Kesha + Mukti" (Hair + Free - Getting free from religious and scriptural hold on our hair). Question. question and question, that has been my way and conviction.

Excellent, Swamini (@Sw. Vandana Jyothi) , the three kind of fish.

 

[Martin]

Namaste,

let‘s say there is a guru who sells books one might consider “spiritual fastfood”, which is tasty and nice-looking, but actually doesn’t require a lot of knowledge or care for cooking, and isn’t very nourishing in the end. (In detail, I am asking about a Bhagavad Gita commentary.)

1.Based upon the lecture of several other books from the same author, is it a prejudice to read a Bhagavad Gita commentary with a reasonable presupposition that it would likely be superficial in content, constituting “spiritual fastfood”, so to say?

2. Is it okay to write / publish a review about the possibly shallow quality of said book (Bhagavad Gita commentary) or should I desist from this out of general considerations of “respect”?

Thanks for your replies.

Given the enormous diversity and plurality of Hinduism, is there actually a "correct" interpretation of a text like the 'Gita? Or is it more about which teacher/guru one has faith in?

In response to your question, I imagine the intention behind your review would be a significant factor.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There can be a literal translation, adding nothing from the translator's side. But who is interested in that? Gurus will always insert their own bias.
When I want an unbiased translation I do this:

"dhṛtarāṣṭra uvāca:
dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre, samavetā yuyutsavaḥ;
māmakāḥ pāṇḍavāś caiva, kim akurvata sañjaya." BG 1.1
Synonyms
dhṛtarāṣṭraḥ uvāca - King Dhṛtarāṣṭra said; dharma-kṣetre - in the place of pilgrimage; kuru-kṣetre - in the place named Kurukṣetra; samavetāḥ - assembled; yuyutsavaḥ - desiring to fight; māmakāḥ - my party (sons); pāṇḍavāḥ - the sons of Pāṇḍu; ca - and; eva - certainly; kim - what; akurvata - did they do; sañjaya - O Sañjaya.
Aup.: King Dhṛtarāṣṭra said, in the place of pilgrimage, in the place named Kurukṣetra, assembled, desiring to fight, my party (sons), the sons of Pāṇḍu, and, certainly, what, did they do, O Sañjaya.
Now make something intelligible with that.
Translation in the book: Dhṛtarāṣṭra said: O Sañjaya, after my sons and the sons of Pāṇḍu assembled in the place of pilgrimage at Kurukṣetra, desiring to fight, what did they do?
Not different, but many a time they would change the whole meaning.
Aup's translation: Dhritarashtra said, in the holy field of Kurukshetra, the belligerents have assembled, mine as also the sons of Pandu. O Sanjay, what did they do?