Upanishads VS Bhagavath Gita

[Metempsychosis]

Upanishads form the Jnana Kanda of the Vedas.The Bhagavath Gita is an important scripture coming from Lord Krishna written by Veda Vyasa.It is known that both of them are important as they form prasantreyi.

Which of these two is most authoritative?If there is a contradiction between these two,which will be considered correct.I am creating this thread after reading some the views of groups who base their philosophy on the Gita and some puranas.

I see something from here from BHAKTIVINODA THAKURA:

The dry empirical philosophers are more advanced than the karmis, for they understand the material existence to be a condition of suffering and so strive for liberation. The Lord is kind to them also: He has given them the jnana-kanda section of the Vedas so they can pursue impersonal knowledge of the Absolute.

While I agree that Shaiva and Advaita groups place more importance to Jnana,they dont consider Gita to be inferior.

What is your opinion?Is Vedas inferior to Bhagavath Gita?

 

[dharma_seeker]

Gita is also considered an Upanishad. After every chapter, Veda Vyasa ji concluded it calling Gitaupanishad.

ACTUAL REAL VEDAS are without beginning and end. They are the abosolute knowledge and without them there would not be any creation either. All other scriptures find their basis in VEDAS. Thus VEDAS are most authorative.

About contradicions, do we even have any?

 

[Riverwolf]

I believe the Bhagavad-Gita to be an Upanishad, as the situation follows the etymology of the word (which connotates receiving a lesson from a teacher.) Hence, though the BG is not part of the four traditional Vedic texts, I don't consider it any more or less authoritative than any other Upanishad.

The Brahma Sutra is supposed to have reconciled the various contradictions found in the Vedic Upanishads, but I haven't read it yet, so I don't know how well it does.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Upanishads form the Jnana Kanda of the Vedas.The Bhagavath Gita is an important scripture coming from Lord Krishna written by Veda Vyasa.It is known that both of them are important as they form prasantreyi.

Which of these two is most authoritative?If there is a contradiction between these two,which will be considered correct.I am creating this thread after reading some the views of groups who base their philosophy on the Gita and some puranas.

They see this here from BHAKTIVINODA THAKURA:


While I agree that Shaiva and Advaita groups place more importance to Jnana,they dont consider Gita to be inferior.

What is your opinion?Is Vedas inferior to Bhagavath Gita?

No! I do not believe that the Gita is equal with the Vedas. It is said that that the Lord Krishna milks the truth out of the Vedas so the truth is easy for all to understand. Many sects have scriptures that they call a Upanishad it just a sign of respect.

Not all sects see the Gita as Upanishad or as a sruti or "revealed" text. Gita is drawn from the Mahabharata, it is classified as a Smṛti text.

With the Vedas the ancient Hindus were very careful to pass on the scripture with no interpolations. The same can not be said of the Gita. It seems that at one time there was 745 verses now there are 700.

It must be said that that the Gita, Upanishad and the Brahma Sutras make up the most important Vedantic texts.

 

[Satsangi]

I do not think there are any "contradictions" between Bhagvad Gita and Upanishads except the interpretation by some.

Regards,

 

[Valjean]

The Gita is a much clearer exegesis of modern Hindu ideas (yes, I said 'Hindu', what of it?), it is, however, just an exerpt from a poem.
:run:

 

[Satsangi]

There are very few Hindus, if at all, who do not take Lord Krishna as God Avatar. Right from Adi Shankara who said "Bhaj Govindam...." to Vaishnavas, Shaivas, and other sects - all accept BG as the Prasthantreyi-- on par with Upanishads and Brahmsutras. BTW, Bhramsutras are not "Shruti" either; they are thought to have been composed by Badrayana (Veda Vyasji).

Although technically a "Smriti", I do consider BG in par with "Shrutis" as it comes from God Himself; just like the "Shruti".

Regards,

 

[Onkara]

Hi
I read once that the the Gita was basically the ideas of the Upanishads communicated directly by Lord Krishna.

What exactly is prasthantreyi? If you put this word into google we come back to this post and this one below. Nice claim to fame perhaps

Absolutely agree. BG is among the three primary Shashtras of Hinduism (prasthantreyi)- other two being the Upanishads and the Bhram Sutras.

Regards,

I understood these were the three core areas recognised by Adi Sankararcharya but other Vedantis recognise Srimad Bhagavatam, and perhaps others sources too. I am not sure of this, how can we be more sure, any ideas, links please?

 

[Metempsychosis]

Hi
I read once that the the Gita was basically the ideas of the Upanishads communicated directly by Lord Krishna.

Gita is not upanishadic in strict sense.Upanishad is more of philosophical work dealing with states of consciousness IMHO.

Devotion to God' (bhakti) is foreshadowed in Upanishadic literature, and was later realized by texts such as the Bhagavad Gita.BTW.the Gita is written by lord Ganesha(Shaivite -- Son of God ) dictated by Ved Vyas.

What exactly is prasthantreyi? If you put this word into google we come back to this post and this one below. Nice claim to fame perhaps

I found RF through Google.I searched for reincarnation and found a thread on it here.Info on Prasthana treyi is here

I understood these were the three core areas recognised by Adi Sankararcharya but other Vedantis recognise Srimad Bhagavatam, and perhaps others sources too. I am not sure of this, how can we be more sure, any ideas, links please?

Srimad Bhagavatam(alias Bhagavata Purana which is obviously a smriti) is specially favored by Vaishnava group.It is The scripture of Krishna.Advaitins may not accept this,just as how Krishna folks may not agree with Yoga Vasistha or Shiva Agamas.It is for people with great devotional mindset

 

[Riverwolf]

BTW.the Gita is written by lord Ganesha(Shaivite -- Son of God ) dictated by Ved Vyas.

I never heard that. Where is that stated?

 

[Satsangi]

I would not put Upanishads as "philosophical" only; they ARE "Shrutis"- the Knowledge from God Himself.

The Adi Acharya is Ved Vyasji; he is the one who classified Vedas in four parts, Bhramasutras are attributed to him, all 18 puranas are attributed to him, Mahabharat (BG is a part of it) is also written by him. He single handedly has some contribution to the basic Scriptures of any sect of Hinduism- be it Advaitins or Bhakti path people. All the other Acharyas- Adi Shankara, Ramanujacharya, Vallabhacharya etc .. all of them .....they have commentaries on Ved Vyasji's scripture and that is how they became "Acharyas"; Ved Vyasji's scripture stand on their own merit alone. Even today Ved Vyasji is celebrated all over through Guru Purnima day, I believe, as an Adi Acharya.

In order to be an "Acharya", one needs to have original and authoritative commentaries on the Prasthantreyi- Upanishads, Bhramasutras and Bhagvad Gita- all attributed to Ved Vyasji. All the Acharyas have these commentaries.

It would be wrong to classify Srimad Bhagvatam as "Krishna Scripture" only. Srimad Bhagvatam although mainly a Vaishnava Scripture is considered as "Maha Purana" by all. Only the 10th Canto of Bhagvatam is devoted to Lord Krishna's leelas. The rest of the Scripture has stories on Dashavatar too (10 main Avatars). It clearly depicts the Dharma, Jnana, Vairagya and Bhakti as it is based on the Vedas (and Upanishads).

The main scripture not authored by Ved Vyasji is Ramayana. But, in Bhagvatam, he has covered it in the Ramavatar part.

Upanishads are not meant to be devotional in nature- they are from the Jnana Kanda of the Vedas. But, the concept of Bhakti is primarily rooted in the Vedas and not later propounded by other scriptures. The BG also has only one chapter on Bhakti Yoga; the rest is on others. Bhakti may have been mentioned in one form or other elsewhere in BG.

Adi Shankara, who is the Acharya for all Advaitins- he also had BG as his core principle and Dharmas, Vairagya and Bhakti are reflected in his life together with his core principle of Jnana. Bhakti is also reflected in "Bhaj Govindam...", "Achyutam Keshavam...." and multiple other Stotras composed by him. The later on "smarter advaitins" may have frowned on Bhakti or Krishna; Adi Shankara never did and none of the later Shankaracharyas did either.

Regards,

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I never heard that. Where is that stated?

Lord Ganesha wrote the Mahabhrata as it was being dictated by Ved Vyasa. It is right in the beginning of the Mahabhrata. It is part of the story.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I understood these were the three core areas recognised by Adi Sankararcharya but other Vedantis recognise Srimad Bhagavatam, and perhaps others sources too. I am not sure of this, how can we be more sure, any ideas, links please?

Adi Sankara recognised all 18 Maha Puranas as scripture. He went all over India setting up shrines. He Installed the Sri Yantra in more then one temple and worshiped it him self. His writings are seen as scripture by many Hindu's.

He also wrote a commentary on The Vishnu sahasranama (the 1000 names of vishnu) This Vishnu sahasranama as found in the Mahabharata.

If you want to create a new philosophical school you should write commentaries on the Upanishads, Brahma sutras and the Gita.

 

[Satsangi]

The answer as to why Ved Vyasji composed the Bhagvatam is in Bhagvatam itself. After compiling the Vedas, still he had a feeling of ?"emptiness" or "not satisfied". Sage Narada asked him to compose a Scripture with divine leelas of Pragat God's Avatar in its center. After composing the leelas of Lord Krishna he gets that feeling of "fullness" spiritually. Meaning, knowing Pragat God Himself in a human form is the end of all Sadhanas.

The Bhagvatam is told as if it is being recited by Shukdevji (son of Ved Vyasji) to King Parik**** (the Pandava King) as he faced the curse of a Sage that he will die in 7 days and the King wanted Moksha before the death. He called a gathering of Rishis and in that Shukdevji was the one who guareenteed the liberation in 7 days. Shukdevji was an Atma Nistha saint who had attained oneness with the Brahman. He himself said that although having "Samyak AtmaNIshtha", his chitta was attracted by the divine leelas and divine form of Lord Krishna. The whole meaning is that the Pragat God and Pragat Saint can liberate you with least effort on your part. But it requires a BrahmaNishtha Guru like Shukdevji. The gnostic knowledge of Shashtras can only be obtained from such a BrahmNishtha Guru or God HImself and THAT is the cause of liberation.

In Bhagvatam, Ved Vyasji actually details the inherent qualities of BhramaNistha Saint and also qualities manifested by God's Avatar when the Avatar is in the role of a King and also when the Avatar is as a Rishi. Once you recognize the Avatar or the BrahmNIshtha Guru, then only thing remains is to surrender to them.

Regards,

 

[Riverwolf]

Lord Ganesha wrote the Mahabhrata as it was being dictated by Ved Vyasa. It is right in the beginning of the Mahabhrata. It is part of the story.

Oh, well I haven't actually tried reading the whole thing, yet, as the only unabridged translation that's free is written in a very difficult form of English that I haven't quite figured out how to follow, yet.

Thanks.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Oh, well I haven't actually tried reading the whole thing, yet, as the only unabridged translation that's free is written in a very difficult form of English that I haven't quite figured out how to follow, yet.

Thanks.

I remember the first time I tried to read the mahabharata. There were just so many characters it was so hard to follow. It took me twice. I read the Buck Version first, I was glad at least it was short.

 

[Riverwolf]

I remember the first time I tried to read the mahabharata. There were just so many characters it was so hard to follow. It took me twice. I read the Buck Version first, I was glad at least it was short.

I started reading that version, but it really didn't feel like I was reading a story, but rather a long synopsis to a story. I didn't really "see" anything; Buck just told the story rather than showed it. I didn't actually finish it; I read up to the part where Krishna and Balarama enter.

But, considering the complexity (not to mention the sheer length) of the original story, such a synopsis is probably the best way to get it, first.

You know, considering the length of the Mahabharata, I kinda doubt it was really written with "less intelligent" people in mind so they could better understand Vedic truths.

Personally, I prefer the Ramayana. (I prefer the good ol' classic Hero Rescues Princess From Monster adventure to the gritty war tale.)

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I started reading that version, but it really didn't feel like I was reading a story, but rather a long synopsis to a story. I didn't really "see" anything; Buck just told the story rather than showed it. I didn't actually finish it; I read up to the part where Krishna and Balarama enter.

But, considering the complexity (not to mention the sheer length) of the original story, such a synopsis is probably the best way to get it, first.

You know, considering the length of the Mahabharata, I kinda doubt it was really written with "less intelligent" people in mind so they could better understand Vedic truths.

Personally, I prefer the Ramayana. (I prefer the good ol' classic Hero Rescues Princess From Monster adventure to the gritty war tale.)

Two books that I just love :
- The Song of Rama: Visions of the Ramayana
-The Play of God: Visions of the Life of Krishna

both are by Devi Vanamali She writes well. They are not scripture but you can tell her books are steeped in love. She gives her take on the the lives of Krishna and Rama. It's a real fun read. She seems like someone who has made a lot of progress on the path. Next time I go to India I want to go to her Ashram.

 

[Metempsychosis]

Personally, I prefer the Ramayana. (I prefer the good ol' classic Hero Rescues Princess From Monster adventure to the gritty war tale.)

Dont forget Maha Ramyana from Valmiki.

No! I do not believe that the Gita is equal with the Vedas. It is said that that the Lord Krishna milks the truth out of the Vedas so the truth is easy for all to understand. Many sects have scriptures that they call a Upanishad it just a sign of respect.

Not all sects see the Gita as Upanishad or as a sruti or "revealed" text. Gita is drawn from the Mahabharata, it is classified as a Smṛti text.

I second this.


BTW,this question has already been asked here

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Dont forget Maha Ramyana from Valmiki

Have you read the Adhyathma Ramayan it was given to Parvati by the lord Shiva. This sacred text is taken from the Brahmanda Purana. The scripture is a dialogue between Lord Shiva and Divine Mother. The Adhyathma Ramayan perfectly harmonizes devotion and Advaita Vedanta while telling the story of the Lord Rama.