Talk:Bhagavad Gita

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] Removing sectarian biases

The following is going to go out:

"In modern day world there are tons of interpretation of Gita, none of them are quite authentic or have any indepth philosophical meaning. Reason behind is insufficient grasp of the same by authors."

This sounds like a comment by someone who thinks his guru's version is the only authoritative version, and the rest are the work of mental speculators and all sorts of "unauthorized" folk. While people are entitled to the opinion, it really has no place in an encyclopaedia entry. Vide "Bhagavad Gita AS IT IS". Raga 19:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

And more in the same vein. Oh joy. I'm submitting this article for improvement, it really needs to be reworked thoroughly both with regards to its structure, the facts featured as well as its language. Typos, anyone? Some of the stuff was written and never even read through once by the writer! This precious book deserves an entry reflecting its merits. Raga 19:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous

I think that it would be a good idea to give a detailed description of each and every shloka of The Bhagavad Gita, it's translation(in Hindi as well as English), it's description(both, Short and a more Detailed one)it's significance, the main characters, their description, etc. The same is there for the Bible. We should do the same thing for the Gita. After all, it's a holy text. User:Rushtome

Yes, there should be someting like this...The Gita is a great source of info for people everywhere, and hopefully someone will do this..

To give an accuracte and detailed description of all 700 slokas is a bit beyond the scope of a Wikipedia article in my opinion. ;-) Complete versions are already available online on other websites if interested? See Bhagavad Gita Online for example. GourangaUK 07:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Traditionally, the Mahabharata (and the Ramayana) are considered not Purana, but Itihasa, which is Sanskrit for 'history' (and literally translates to approximately 'and thus it happened'). Although, to be honest, I don't know enough to distinguish between the two. Gokul 19:39, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

So, ah... where the khell did the years 1316 and 1424 come from? Eh? Eh? This seems totally bogus and made-up to me. Cite? Graft

Good question - but note it's 1424 BC, not 1424. Astronomical measurements can be pinpointed in time with amazing accuracy. (Astronomy is one of the major subjects covered in Mahabharata, so there was plenty of precise astronomical data for historians to go by.) Mkweise 23:22 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

Fair enough. Graft

I fail to see what makes these extlinks relevant here:

Mkweise 20:40 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Okay, so now we have 2nd century BCE as the composition date. Anyone want to cite this? Also the claim that the gita is a syncretic text that brings together strains amongst which is Buddhism does not seem credible, since Buddhism developed after the Gita was written, yes? Some links/resources discussing this? Graft 21:30 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The gita has jackall to do with Buddhism. Its entire concept of God-Being is at odds with Buddhism, and it clearly draws purely from the Hindu strains of Yoga and Samkhya, notwithstanding all the Upanishadic philosophy that easily predates Buddhadev. Much of what some people term 'Buddhist' thinking was already to be found pre-Buddhism in Vedic philosophy.

The gita was sort of a hindu answer to buddhism. Karma yoga is much more grounded in "reality" than many of the other yogas, and this was a buddhist criticism of hinduism, that it was two concerned with its multitude of gods.

The composition date has been changed, and a note put in there about its uncertainty. I think it's best if we leave in a few dates (as suggested by whatever evidence) rather than claim to KNOW the correct date - because nobody really does. Personally I think 2nd century BC was a downright absurd date to put in there. And yes, of course Buddhism came much after the Gita was written. It was actually a reaction to the degradation of Hinduism at the time, with the decline of the caste system, the animal sacrifices and the opulence and materialism that had seeped in. But even so, some scholars maintain that Lord Buddha's teachings fall within the folds of Hinduism and that it was Hindu philosophy which was only revealed in a very minimal and stripped down form, to cleanse it of the dirt that had been gathering on it.

[edit] doesn't sound right.

This is a great article, informative and everything... but it doesn't sound like an encyclopedia. "For its religious depth, quintessential Upanishadic and Yogic philosophy and beauty of verse, the Bhagavad Gita is one of the most compelling and important texts to come out of the Hindu tradition. Indeed, it stands tall among the world's greatest religious and spiritual scriptures." That sounds good and dramatic, but a bit too dramatic for an encyclopedia. I'm not sure how to appropriatly fix this problem, or if it's a problem at all; but maybe someone could alter it a bit?

why

It didn't seem excessive to me. Is any of it controversial? 24.10.180.127 07:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Biases?

The Bhagavad Gita seems to take contradictory positions from time to time, and a Hindu friend suggested that some parts were added/modified in order to satisfy particular rulers (eg., to justify the caste system). I'm sure a definitive answer would be hard to come by, but can anyone comment (preferably in the article itself) on the biases that have been frequently suggested? 24.10.180.127 07:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

One might respond to this supposed justification of caste by saying that the Gita does not view caste the way we do. Caste is not hereditary, and indeed is not a term known to Hindus of that time. Rather, the word was varna (shade) and no, it was not based on skin color. It emphasized that people of certain mentalities and habits were of one specific varna. For instance, someone with a violent temper, who eats lots of meat and drinks alcohol, who is intemperant, and has no respect for moral laws, would be a low-caste fellow, whereas someone who was God-loving, moral, temperant, and observant of social norms to a reasonable extent, would be a high-caste person. Someone born of (a) Brahman (parent) parents may not necessarily be a Brahmin. One has to live the life of a Brahmin to be a brahmin, and likewise live the life of a Kshatriya (royal warrior), Vaishya (merchant, general laity) and shudra (lower-class) to live such lives. It has been frequently argued that there was no Hindu scriptural sanction (from the Vedas) enjoining human intervention and coercion for determining caste.

Furthermore, if one persists in employing the occupational-caste analogy, one can abandon the 'character' model above and argue that there still is no Hindu sanction for enforced caste (such as in abominations like the Dharmashastras). In that sense, any modern society (say, the USA) can be broadly divided into different 'varnas' (or castes) that naturally emerge because of the simple fact of economic stratification. Thus, clergy, evangelists, priests and professors/teachers might generally be categorized as Brahmins, preserving and propagating the rites and knowlege of the community at large. Politicians, army men, government workers and intelligence officers might be Kshatriyas, or warriors and court subjects, attending to the welfare of society. White-collar workers, small-business owners and supervisors would be Vaishyas, and people below the poverty line, forced to do menial work (janitors, etc.) are shudras. Thus, the caste system is mere nomenclature, ideal classifications, not a feudal system controlled by a minority and enforced on people. Caste in today's sense, under either of the two foregoing readings, would indeed be quite contrary to the message and content of the Gita.

Secondly, there were not separate rulers who presided over the writing of the Gita. I'm not saying this from a theological perspective. Scholars from the East and West who have conducted scriptural and formal studies of the makeup and writing of the Gita have confirmed that it is quite consistent in style of its written Sanskrit and that it is highly unlikely that any more than one person authored it. What the 'conflicting' influences were, which were brought together, were the Hindu philosophical schools of Yoga and Samkhya, though the former and latter are respectively viewed much more abstractly in the Gita (as mystic, or rational spiritualism, and the way of knowledge or discriminatory thought). You should read Radhakrishnan's breakdown of the Gita, which is authoratative in any circle (outsider and insider).

Essentially, there are not really any biases, in the sense that the Gita does not really 'take sides' with one prevailing mode of thought to the exclusion of another. In fact, that is why it is a seminal text to philosophical schools that are often wildly opposed to one another. Dualists and nondualists alike refer to the text and draw largely different conclusions about metaphysics and Godhead (or ultimate lack thereof); Gandhi, who was anti-caste system, easily reconciled the teachings of the Gita with his satyagraha philosophy, especially since much of his thought derived from the Gita, in much the same way as I described the caste system as we know it and how it may be viewed in the Gita. I, and most scholars in the field, would have problems with your friend's comments for 1) factually incorrect assumptions, such as that of multiple writers and patrons (there in fact is no evidence that this was a 'patron-presided work) and 2) fallacious a priori definitions of the caste system and what a bias is.

--LordSuryaofShropshire 19:47, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for explaining it in such clear detail. If my confusion is a common one, perhaps your discussion could be included in the article (or a pointer included to separate discussion). I'll have to go through the Gita again with that understanding. Lunkwill 17:44, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] About: The only text spoken by God.

"It is the only religious text known to have been spoken by God or an incarnation/avatar of God and not by a messenger or Messiah of God."

Shouldn't that be "the only Hindu text", since Jesus' words are considered those of God by Christians? And I'm not sure that the distinction between God and Messiah makes sense in a inter-religious context, if it does at all. --Goethean 15:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe Jesus is supposed to be the son of God. Spundun 05:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I dropped by to read about this sublime book, and I too, think a small attribution or qualification is needed here. "It is considered to be the only known religious text to have been spoken by God or an incarnation/ avatar of God directly." Considered by Hindus? Thanks for the clarification. Just finished it yesterday; wonderful book! Tom Haws 23:14, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

It's speaking in the context of Hinduism. If the article doesn't make it clear that it's about Hinduism then it should be made clear somewhere in the beginning, not in this particular sentence. An article about Christianity would certainly say that Jesus is the only god (or son of god or whatever) and an article about scientology would say something similar about itself. Rightfully so.

The fact that it is the only Hindu scripture to have been dictated by an avatar is not very notable, and quite possibly false. I have therefore removed the sentence. --goethean ॐ 20:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Bhagavad gita is a gift to HumanKind. It never says it is for Hindus. None of ancient books in India mentions the word "Hindu". The word is foreign to Hindus themselves. What a pity

The article quotes the BG extensively without mentioning which translation is used. I hope that this information can be added soon, because I notices that the different translation differ quite much. Thanks. Andries 21:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I declare the following to wikipedia in the context of my posting relating to Bhagavad Gita:

I owe an apology to all the Hindus because I posted to wikipedia a misleading interpretation (I have not read the Gita commpletely or even partially to any appreciable extent), that used sofware terminology, misinterpreting the shlokas or the content therein, and offending to Hindus and misleading to any reader. I admit that I am not a competent in such matters, therefore I declare my posting as invalid and should be ignored; I herehenceforth shall not entertain any kind of misbehaviour or misinterpretations based on my misinterpretation and for any such misinterpretations I will not be responsible in any way.

[edit] This screams bias

I've removed the following text for now.

"The most authoritative English translation of the Bhagavad Gita is regarded by many to have been written by AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, who claimed that previous English translations were contaminated by individual interpretations. A literal reading of the Bhagavad Gita, according to Prabhupada, clearly establishes bhakti, or devotion to Krishna, as the highest path enunciated by Krishna."

"By many?" That's pretty weasel-ly. By extension, the second sentence is untrustworthy.

I agree. It's bias. deeptrivia (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Considering that he's part of the Parampara, a system described in the Gita for passing down such knowledge, that does give him a higher autority over 'individual interpretations', don't you think? Dwayne Kirkwood

To my knowledge, the removed text is false. Bhaktivedanta's translation is not considered the most accurate or literal. — goethean ॐ 20:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Source? Dwayne Kirkwood 02:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me put the question like this: What is the source for the claim that Bhaktivedanta's translation of the Gita is the most accurate? --Deepak|वार्ता 08:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Any source is unreliable depending on what angle you look at it from. However, as stated Bhaktivedanta is part of the Parmpara, a system described in the Gita. It states that (according to Bhaktivedanta's translation) "This supreme science was thus recieved through the chain of disiplic sucession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the sucession was broken, therefore the science as it appears to be lost". I would argue that any teacher in the parmpara system is equally authentic, but according to the book itself, those who are not, are unable to understand the Gita for what it is. Dwayne Kirkwood 18:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any mention in Gita stating that the translations/interpretations done by people in parampara are more authoritative than the rest. Also Gita is open to everyone for interpretation and does not have to follow the parampara route for the interpretations to be accurate. Hence, I tend to disagree that Bhaktivedanta's translation is the most authoritative. --Krishnaaz 13:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is mentioned in verse 4.2: 'evam parampara-praptam...' as quoted above by Dwayne. However, although I personally believe Srila Prabhupada's version to be the most authoritative I've ever read, I still don't think it is correct that this PERSONAL view should be portrayed in the article. To show this view as a generally accepted fact would definitely be against Wikipedia's NPOV policy. So I advise keeping it 'neutral' where possible.

That bhakti is the central focus of the Gita, should be mentioned however, as quite clearly it is a fact. 9.34: 'man-mana bhava mad-bhakto...'

"Engage your mind always in thinking of Me, become My devotee, offer obeisances to Me and worship Me. Being completely absorbed in Me, surely you will come to Me." GourangaUK 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement Drive

Meditation is currently a nominee on WP:IDRIVE. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it on WP:IDRIVE.--Fenice 15:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GourangaUK's edits

I have modified the changes by GouranaUK. The ref to the Hindu Bible is unwarranted since this is not an article on comparative religion. I think the Gita can stand on its own even in the Western world, without support from the Bible. The ref. to the basic gist of the conversation btw Krishna and Arjun is very important from an introductory contextual viewpoint. Hence reintroduced

Pizzadeliveryboy 18:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I take your point on the 'Hindu Bible' reference. I was trying to give a feeling for the Gita's significance to anyone unfamiliar with it, but it's not essential. I've changed the line about Krishna's Divine form to be more in line with the events in chapter 11.

GourangaUK 16:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] meaning of the word

please see Grammatical meaning of the word Bhāgvad Gitā for details.

Pizzadeliveryboy 13:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

A few points: 1) In this instance Bhagavan=Supreme Lord & Gita=Song/poem. I think 'Song of God' is a clear enough translation without getting too complicated and missing the point? 2) Arjuna requests Krishna to show His Universal form, it's not that He has to proove Himself to him. 3) Krishna is referred as Bhagavan (The Supreme Person) throughout the Gita, 'sri bhagavan uvaca' not as one of many 'bhagavats'. Although I realise both words are often used in the same context. Any thoughts on this? GourangaUK 16:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stating the Bhagavad-gita translation

I think it's important that each quote on the page from the Bhagavad-gita, should state what translation it is from. If someone came and read the page, they could get a weird idea of the philisophy explained if it isn't clear that certain quotes come from certain versions of the Bhagavad-gita.. thoughts? Dwayne Kirkwood 23:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added the exact details of the book, author for few quotes, few of them are taken from the net, and can be easily verified by the links provided next to them. --vineeth 16:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed link to pirate site

The external link for "Bhagavad-gita Commentaries" led to a site, www.bhagavad-gita.us, that knowingly and persistently bootlegs copyrighted artwork and book-length copyrighted text.

The lion's share of the material on the site, beginning with the opening graphic, continuing with all the artwork in the "Gita in Pictures" section, and culminating in the entire book-length text of "The Bhagavad-gita online," is bootlegged.

The legitimate copyright holder is the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (BBT).

Further information is available from the BBT's rights and permissions department at www.bbt.info.

The relevant Wikipedia policy appears in Wikipedia:Copyrights, in Section 4.3, "Linking to copyrighted works."

Cordially,

J. Swami

Trustee, The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust

17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] implying that Jihad is an unjust war

in Section 1 Background, It would't be right to say that "Gita's war theory is a just war comparable to St. Augustine theory of just war, but different from Jihad or Crusade or other politically aggressive wars". Implying Jihad to be an unjust war can only be a personal opinion.

yes you are right, i am deleting those lines. --vineeth 05:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely the war imagery in the Gita is metaphorical - its about the battlefield of life, isn't it? ThePeg 4.8.2006

[edit] Move?

I wonder why the page was moved from Bhagavad Gita to The Bhagavad Gita. The articles Bible and Qur'an don't have a definite article in their titles. Therefore I suggest to move the page back to its original location. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 18:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's called Bhagavad Gita not "The Bhagavad Gita". Move it back... Dwayne Kirkwood 18:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel the same way - otherwise we'll have loads of wiki articles all starting with 'The'. It makes no sense. GourangaUK 19:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it back but the history didn't come across - any ideas? GourangaUK 19:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you please also move the talk page? --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 20:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why the history didn't move, you might want to get an admin to repair this Dwayne Kirkwood 22:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Song of Bhagwan vs.Song of God

I'm tempted to agree with Dwayne. - Cribananda 22:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Merriam Webster definition. Bhagavan = God is not only oversimplistic, but wrong and misleading in opinion of many. deeptrivia (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't considering Merriam Webster Dictionary the leading dictionary in translating sanskrit to English. Why? Because it doesn't even have words like "Bhagavan" in there. Infact, it doesn't have Bhagavad or Gita either - only Bhagavad-gita. The most common and accepted translation of Bhagavad-gita is 'Song of God'. A more sensible solution perhaps is if you made "Bhagavad" redirect to Bhagavan, and add "Bhagavad" to "See Also" Dwayne Kirkwood 23:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is simple, forgive me for putting it in blunt words: "name 'Bhagavad Gita', when translated into English, literally means 'Song of God'" isn't really correct. I agree that's how it is popularly translated in English (other translations being "Lord's song", "Divine song", "Song of the blessed one", etc. I guess for now we can at least remove the "literally" part, because it doesn't give a favorable impression about the Sanskrit competence of wikipedia editors. In the mean time, let me discuss this with some other wikipedians who are good at Sanskrit. deeptrivia (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, here are several Sanskrit dictionaries to play with. deeptrivia (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the word 'literally' should be removed. Dwayne Kirkwood 23:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a definition from a Sanskrit dictionary: [1] deeptrivia (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see how "Song of God" or "Song of the blessed one" or "Lord's Song" are so different in meaning that saying one over the other would reflect the translator's Sanskrit incompetence. After all, the essence is about the same and that is what counts. I would go with:

It is loosely translated into English as "Song of God" or "Song of the Divine"

without a huge loss in meaning. - Cribananda 00:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What about:

 It is loosely translated into English as "Song of God" or "Song of the blessed one"

"Blessed one", apart from being the real translation of bhagavat, is far from meaning "God." Gautama Buddha or Heliodorus, for example, are not considered Gods, but still is considered "the blessed ones" (bhagavat.) IMHO, letting the readers decide whether these different translations vary much in meaning or not will be more appropriate than deciding for them. deeptrivia (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Heliodorus is bhagavata, that's different. Sorry about that. deeptrivia (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"of the divine/holy one" is fair; according to MW, [2] bhagavant- means "glorious, illustrious, divine, adorable, venerable", or "holy" (applied to gods, demigods, and saints), or "the divine or adorable one", a name of Vishnu-Krishna. We are clearly looking at the latter case, i.e. the term is here an epitheton, not a simple adjective. dab (ᛏ) 05:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr Bachmann, I am in total agreement with you. ;-) GourangaUK 15:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move talk page

I added a move template to this talk page. The article itself was moved a little while ago, but the talk page wasn't. ----Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 23:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misquote?

The article currently states that Oppenheimer misquoted the Bhagavad Gita. I won't argue over whether he said "I have become death, the shatterer of worlds" or something else (e.g. "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"), but I will argue that what he said isn't a misquote. The original was in Sanskrit. Anything in English will be a translation. It is not self-evident that "have/shatterer" is a better translation than "am/destroyer," though it may be more literal. Unless there is some official translation recognized as the one and true translation, I don't think Oppenheimer's synonymous phrase can be described as a "misquote." I'm going to be bold and change it, but if I am misinformed and there are grounds for labelling that a misquote, please do change it back. ^L_Wizard @ 07:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello LW - You have a point that there is no 'one official translation' ofthe Bhagavad-Gita that everyone accepts - but I've never read a translation wherein Krishna says 'I am become Death'. I'm not sure how it could really be translated that way as 'kala' usually translates to 'time'? Thus it's generally taken as a famous mis-quote within 'Bhagavad-Gita circles'. See the below for an alternative translation giving details of the Sanskrit :

Chapter 11, Text 32

Best Wishes, GourangaUK 10:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The phrase kSaya-kRt is not under debate – "destroyer" and "shatterer" are both suitable translations, as is "terminator" and many other synonymous words. The phrase kAlo'smi is the focus here. While the word kAla has two meanings, (1) black or dark blue, and (2) time, season etc. the latter is obviously the correct choice. Neither of the two have "death" as a synonym in Monier-Williams, and the context of the statement in the complete verse (bhaviSyanti sarve ye avasthitAH prati-anIkeSu yodhAH - "Shall be in the future, of all who are stationed in both armies, the soldiers.") The word kAla also means "a worm or animalcule generated in the acetous fermentation of milk". Why not add a footnote and explain why it's a misquote. —Raga 16:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dating

I removed the dating paragraph altogether. Reasons:

this article is about the "essence of the Gita", i.e its contents
Dating is controversial owing to verbal/oral traditions, authorship & attribution traits in Ancient India, etc.
- there are multiple controversies within controversies here
- e.g. date of Mahabharata War, the composition of the epic by Vyasa, date when first "written down" or systematized, whether Gita existed independently of the Mahabharata epic, etc.
For believers, it is indeed the Song of the Lord
Other similar articles (e.g. "Bible") avoid dates altogether

-- Savyasaachi, 20060709

Hello Savyasaachi - Surely the dating of the Bhagavad Gita is controversial, but doesn't this also make it an important issue to cover in the article, regardless of what happens on other pages?

Maybe there is too much information on this for the introduction and it could be moves elsewhere with a short mention only? What does anyone else think? Best Wishes, GourangaUK 09:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi GourangaUK - Good point. Perhaps we can introduce a section, with links to other related Date sections as well as a general page about Indian timelines. Regards. --Savyasaachi, 20060710

~~ Great. Now I'll have to go elsewhere to read about the dates, (controversial or not). Thanks for removing that info, otherwise I might have actually learned something...purists and pedants all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.31.244.227 (talk • contribs).

The dating should not be eliminated. This article is not about "the essence of Bhagavad-gita", it's about everything Bhagavad-gita. The introduction should note that dating is disagreed on, and there should be a separate, well-referenced section on dating. (Take advantage of footnotes.)

On dating in articles such as Bible, you'll find that there is, as a matter of fact, a whole separate long article on Dating_the_Bible! It's definitely not a taboo in an encyclopedia. I am recreating a section for dating.

Savyasaachi, your endeavors to edit are appreciated, but please try to avoing removing valid information that has been added. (I notice that, for example, in your "crispening the intro" you did that.)

--Raga 09:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Raga - I did agree that moving the date into a separate section was a good idea, apologies - didn't get around to do it. BTW< the information wasn't really lost - it is in the revision history, and having a champion such as you brought it back, better than before. THe magic of Wikis :-) --Savyasaachi 20060821

Hello Raga, in my opinion the article reads much better now you have added the seperate dating section. The information is important to the text. Regards, ys GourangaUK 10:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. :) The article could also use some actual information on commentaries (instead of just a link). There should also be chapter summaries, and the section on different yogas (especially Karma-yoga) could stick more closely to Gita's views on the theme, and other discussion and description should be in an article of its own. --Raga 17:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the date info. Very helpful. I would love some further info on it's relationship to Buddhism. One can't help but doubt it was written anytime before 500 BC(E), though. Do people literally think it was written around 5561? It would mean that the concepts that are nearly identical to Buddhism survived intact over 3000 years? Highly questionable. A more recent date of 500-50 BC(E) really makes more sense to this humble outsider. It's so much more believable that it was contemporaneous to the Buddha and merely injected into earlier events. Happens in all the other religions, why not this one? ;) (Doesn't alter the writing's important messages any, btw) Quantumbuddha 06:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Quantumbuddha, although your above POV would probably sound very attractive to a follower of Buddha, the fact is that the Bhagavad-Gita promotes bhakti: love of Krishna (God) as the essence of all religion. That's hardly identical to Buddhism which claims there is no external saviour. Regards, GourangaUK 08:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, GourangaUK. I do understand the important differences between the two. What I'm saying is that the things they share in common (a tremendous amount of key points) suggest contemporaneous development, for when in human history has anything remained so intact from the alleged ~5561BC(E) to Buddhism's ~500BC(E)? Note, I know full well it is "merely" a point of view, hence my not stating anything on the main page in this vein. Besides, I'm not expert enough to comment, hence my "asking" and not "telling". One big fat IMHO back at ya. ;) BTW, I'm not a "religious" Buddhist, so my aim is not to claim one is better than the other or so-and-so "invented" such-and-such concept first. However, coming from a Buddhism-interested background, reading the Bhagavad Gita just now, hit me like a ton of bricks, because I read it not knowing the historical details (the time when it was written). If anything, I was suddenly "worried" Buddhism wasn't as "original" as I had thought it was (of course, always knowing it was developed amidst Hindu culture and merely adopting and recrafting certain themes and concepts that were then prevalent). But later I saw that it's time of writing is in dispute, with one estimate being right around the time of Siddhārtha Gautama, which immediately "clicks", IMHO. But again, I'd love more info, one way or another, on the interrelationship (when applicable) between the two topics. ;) - peace and love, Quantumbuddha 09:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed link to "Real Bhagavad Gita" site

I've removed the link to "Sowmya's Real Bhagavad Gita Site" because of its use of copyrighted artwork on its "Home" and "Discourses" page. (See the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works.)

If you're the owner of the page and you want to keep using that artwork, please get in touch with the copyright owner, the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, and work something out.

Respectfully, O Govinda 12:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening sentence not clear

Per standards, the opening sentence needs to be reworked. It doesn't say what it is, whether it be a sacred book of scripture or a handbook of somekind. Right now it reads:

The Bhagavad Gita (Sanskrit: भगवद् गीता - Bhagavad Gītā) comprises eighteen chapters totaling 701 ...

I'm sure it's clear to those familiar with the subject, but mysterious to those outside "the know." The information currently in the first sentence can go in the new second sentence. I'd do it myself, but I'm not in "the know." — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool, much better. Thanks to whoever did the edit(s). :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Oppenheimer sentence is misquoted. It should be "I have become death. The destroyer of worlds"

[edit] The word nirvana should not be used

In the section entitled "Scripture of Yoga" there is this sentence: "Yoga's aim (nirvana or moksha) is to escape from the cycle of reincarnation through realization of the ultimate reality." Nirvana is not a vedic or hindu or yogic concept, it is a buddhist concept. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana. So I am removing it. Shiva das 23:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raj Yoga

I am trying to change the Raja Yoga description under Bhagvad Geeta to read as "origin of the nose" instead of "tip of the nose". I believe the word from Bhagvad Geeta is 'Nasikagram'. Which means the beginning of the nose (i.e. its origin) and incorrectly translated by many as the tip of the nose. The origin of the nose is the location of the Ajna chakra (third eye). I have developed this understanding from the following extract from Autobiography of a Yogi - Paramhamsa Yogaananda chapter 16

"Fix one's vision on the end of the nose." This inaccurate interpretation of a Bhagavad Gita stanza,7 widely accepted by Eastern pundits and Western translators, used to arouse Master's droll criticism.

"The path of a yogi is singular enough as it is," he remarked. "Why counsel him that he must also make himself cross-eyed? The true meaning of nasikagram is 'origin of the nose, not 'end of the nose.' The nose begins at the point between the two eyebrows, the seat of spiritual vision."

I believe it would be a great error to mis-translate a text of such immense stature. Many people will be misled by an incorrect translation and would be led astray on their quest. I too had followed the translation most popularly made, which requires the concentration on the tip of the nose. But under my Guru's guidance I learnt that the attention should be fixed at the Ajna chakra (the seat of Soul Wisdom) or the third eye. If you are averse to changing the translation, in the interest of allowing all views to be expressed, we should mutually agree to post it as an alternate translation in parenthesis alongside the original.

Gyanesh75

Hello Gyanesh and thankyou for your input. Please feel free to add this alternate translation into the article if you wish, but without changing the quotation that is already there. Wikipedia is not here to decide which translation is an 'error' and which is 'correct' - It's an encyclopedia. Best Wishes, ys GourangaUK 08:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've since added the reference and link to the article. Regards, GourangaUK 12:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Gouranga, Thanks for allowing the alternate version. Regards Gyanesh.

[edit] Are Bibliographic Entries OK?

Some material on the Gita are not available online and have copyrights associated with them. Any objection (or Wikipedia policy) about adding a section of bibliography entries? For instance I would like to add the Title, Author, ISBN#, publisher of the Barbara Stoller-Miller translation as well as the Sargent Sanscrit/English interliner translation among others. What say?

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. If you're asking about adding a section for a list of translations of the Gita that don't appear online, I'm all for the idea. Sayvandelay 01:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Four Varnas

In regards to recent edits, yes Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita "the four divisions of human society are created by Me" B-Gita 4.13, but then as the creator, surely Krishna is beyond such divisions himself, being "transcendental to this system of the four divisions of human society". It seems largely irrelevant to mention this in the introduction, although Arjun's role as a warrior is obviously essential to the understanding of the situation on the battlefield. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 11:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Since then I have added "Krishna explains to Arjuna his duties as a famous warrior and Prince" in order to explain Arjuna's social position. It seems irrelevant to identify Krishna and Arjuna with specific caste labels in the introduction. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 16:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Krishna born is a Yadava Kula so he also took birth as per our holy Hindu texts. Caste is a wrong interpretation of Varnas Hindushudra 18:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Arjuna was a warrior so Kshtriya and Krishna a Shudra Hindushudra 18:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the Mahabharata and Bhagavata Purana Krishna took birth in a Vaisya family (cow-herds). But either way, how is that of relevance to introductory discussions of the Bhagavad Gita? Ys, Gouranga(UK) 13:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Background is lacking

Currently the background section reads more like an overview, so much so that i'm tempted to change the title. A real background should explain more on the events before hand, the relationship between Krishna and Arjun, some background on the war, etc. Can someone more knowledgable perhaps expand on this idea? Chopper Dave 21:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point - I'll see if I can put something together as a start point. Have made a few general alterations today, but the background section will take some brain time. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 16:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where to put this on the mainpage?

It is about Robert Oppenheimer and the influence of Bhagavad-Gita The Gita of J. Robert Oppenheimer, Proceedings of American Philosophical Society, Published 2000

Austerlitz 88.72.24.8 12:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This is from Mahatma Gandhi, where to put it? GITA ACCORDING TO GANDHI

Austerlitz 88.72.14.143 18:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just found it, it is already there in External links.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/h/a/Talk%7EBhagavad_Gita_7cd6.html"