MOKSHA SANYASA YOGA, VERSE MSY 67
GIST
You should not at any time, teach this (Gita) to a person who is not an ascetic, who is not my devotee, who does not serve me, and the person who always hates me.
INTERPRETATIONS, DEDUCTIONS AND COMMENTS
This is the opinion of Priests. The priests were afraid of criticism. The priests wanted the contents of Gita to be blindly believed.
MY OBSERVATION: A person who always worships Krishna, does not hate Krishna, who is a devotee of Krishna, --- has no need of Gita lessons. Reason: Such person is already yoked to Krishna. Listening to Gita distrcts his attention from the vision of Krishna. It is like this: A sugar candy need not be taught about sweetness.
A person who alwas hates Krishna may at least change his mind about Krishna and try to yoke himself to Krishna.
This verse is one of the best examples to show that Gita was a later period insertion by priests. If Krishna was a true God, he would not have restricted teaching Gita to X and denied it to Y.
MSY 67
Idam tee na atapaskaaya
na abhaktaaya kadaa ca na
Na ca as`us`ruushavee vaachyam
na ca maam yoo abhyasuuyati.
ybrao a donkey's additional comment:
While Christianity suffers from propaganda, Hinduism suffers from secretiveness.
2 comments:
Dear Yb,
I find that your stance in the matter of Ramayana and Gita are very different. I get the feeling that you are yourself hooked to Krishna. Just as Ramayana and Rama are just literary creations with characters who may show the nature and manners of one or more persons who actually lived (and died) on the face of this earth, Krishna ia also a literary character, nothing more than that, in my view.
While your view of Rama goes as per the above view, you seem to hold Krishna as God and only try to post mild criticisms here and there.
But Krishna was shaped as a capable king-maker and politician in the Mahabharatha whereas the priests worked further on that character to make the God Krishna do various acts of impiety (like stealing the clothes of ladies, kissing gopis in the mouth even when he was a child, doing rasaleela with the gopis and having 16,000 wives etc.) so that the priests' own licentiousness would go unnoticed or at least pardoned, if found out. Today's Godmen are also resorting to emulate Krishna!!
I have a strong feeling that the Gita as we now have it, is the result of many interpolations and revisions; once Brahma sutra, the major upanishads and the Gita became the "prastHaana thRayee" of Hindu philosophy, every philosophical viewpoint got depicted within the gita. That is how "saankhya" of Kapila - which does not have a 'god' concept - got into it! To overcome this today's gurus obfuscate and mislead the gullible "bhakta lok" by a cleverly connived argument that what sankhya means in the gita is different from the sankhya of the Indian philosophical darsanas!
There is also a concerted effort by forces- I could not so far find any clues about them - to unseat Rama and install Krishna and the Bhagavatha as the premier path to 'moksha'.
I shall reply to you in depth later.
provisional reply: I do not think that I have said anywhere that Krishna is God. One distinction between Rama and Krishna I observed: Rama did not discuss philosophy. Rama was a recipient of philosophy from Vasishta in the form of Yoga Vasistham which is a separate voluminous book.
I am now revising all the reviewd of the verses I analysed here. I shall correct them if I have mentioned anywhere that Krishna is a God.
Krishna is comparable to Christ. Krishna said that he himself was God. Jesus said that he was God's son.
I do not remember that Rama has claimed himself to be a God, in Ramayana. He made some super-human threats and boasts of his prowess. Anyway, all this needs elaborate analysis.
Thanks for your comment.
Post a Comment