Warwick’s review of The Bhagavad Gita > Likes and Comments

You spoke of all the reasons why I gave this 2 stars as well (a very horrendous translation could also be partially responsible). Needs a re-read though.

Your rating of this work is understandable. I too have issues with the context but I still find it a worthy guide for practical living (keeping aside the emphasis on "param atman" and "moksha")

Heh, heh. oh, the gods are at it again. Can't quite understand why we listen to them at all, since we have to sift their resentments out of every major religions' texts. Help us? The Bible and the Koran are equally bloodthirsty.

Thanks, all, for the comments. Did you read it in English, Sam? There are presumably more modern versions; this 1962 one seems to be everywhere though.

What people do not realise is, I feel, is the fact that the Bhagavad Gita is a warrior's philosophy. It is not as though Arjuna was a pacifist from day one, and Krishna dragged him to war. All options for peace had been exhausted by that time, unless the Pandavas chose to live in the forest - the Prince Duryodhana had refused to give even "the space to stick a pin" for his cousins in the kingdom. (Interestingly, Krishna was the envoy of peace.)

Arjuna had asked Krishna, who functioned as his charioteer, to take him to the midst of the battlefield to see the armies arrayed facing one another: and had there developed cold feet when the enormity of what he had to do struck him. The philosophy Krishna feeds him is one any soldier (or anybody for that matter) can stomach - you are nothing but a cog in the wheel: you don't do anything, but accomplish your karma to the best of the way possible, without worrying about its fruits. That is the way to moksha (release).

I am a pacifist by nature, but the message of the Gita has helped me to plod ahead in mind-numbing situations, thinking only of my work. "Karma Yoga" has helped me in life.

Interesting comments. Thanks, Nandakishore.

It is interesting to hear from my Balinese friends the different interpretation from my Indian friends on the Hindu holy books.

Warwick wrote: "Did you read it in English, Sam? There are presumably more modern versions; this 1962 one seems to be everywhere though."

I read the English translation by Edwin Arnold (available in the public domain). Times like these I wish I had a review of this so I could recall why I found most of Krishna's reasoning unconvincing and I'll hold off on discussing till I've read a more modern translation.
The literal interpretation of Krishna's sayings seems to uphold the sanctity of the idea of retribution but as Nandakishore explained, Arjuna was being told that the Kauravas (bad guys) are already dead and Arjuna will merely be performing his designated duty of helping them reach their inevitable end. It's like Krishna's reasoning works on some levels (the notion of the infallibility of duty) but fails when analyzed from a strictly humanistic view point. (The soul is indestructible so it's okay to murder people?) But yes what I find most uplifting about Krishna's speech is its universality and its attempt to address humanity as a whole. This is exactly why I don't view the Bhagavad Gita as a religious book at all. And I'll probably do it a grave disservice by judging it based on a single reading of a mediocre translation.

Nandakishore wrote: "What people do not realise is, I feel, is the fact that the Bhagavad Gita is a warrior's philosophy. It is not as though Arjuna was a pacifist from day one, and Krishna dragged him to war. All op..."

Great observations. Thanks!

One of the things I loved about Lugalbanda is that it's one of the only ancient tales I can think of where the gods are against the war and suggest a peaceful solution.

Just out of curiosity, who's translation did you read?

Juan Mascaró, 1962 (as I said in the review).

Thanks. I very much enjoy the fact that the chapter on bhakti - yoga of love and devotion - is the next one after the famous chapter with the psychedelic imagery.

Yeah. I'd like to re-read this, in different translations. I can imagine the differences could be quite dramatic.

Warwick wrote: "Yeah. I'd like to re-read this, in different translations. I can imagine the differences could be quite dramatic."

The translation that I read and enjoyed after giving up on a couple was the one by Eknath Easwaran The Bhagavad Gita

Maybe some day , you give that a shot :)

Warwick wrote: "Yeah. I'd like to re-read this, in different translations. I can imagine the differences could be quite dramatic."

Here is my favorite commentary on the chapter psychedelic:
http://www.amazon.com/Krishna-Sky-Dia...

so well put- couldn't agree more!

Cheers Sean.

Love this review, and definitetly know your viewpoint would expand if you read the entire Mahabharata. Having read the full text I can't speak to reading the Bhagavad Gita apart from it, but the entirety of the epic brings more into focus relating to the philosophy expounded in this episode. I sense that reading this excerpt alone would be like watching the middle of a gangster movie where revenge is about to be sought (albeit a deeply philosophical gangster movie). I feel like if an abridged version of the Mahabharata existed sans eighty billion arrows, distilled to it's essence, it would be more widely read and understood. In the end though, when dealing with this text, I almost view it as we do in modern times of the Greek god system. They were flawed, selfish, spiteful, and everything in between. I find the lens we view ancient religions that have survived into today interesting in comparison to how we view the Greco Roman religions, especially as they're very comparable, but we analyse it so differently. Like one is real and the extinct is imginary. Thinking of it this way brings an interesting element to the Bhagavad Gita, no?

Yes, I suppose the question then is why this extract has been so important as an isolated piece of literature, and treasured by so many people of this religon and/or cultural tradition. I felt while I was reading it that I wasn't getting what I should out of the philosophising because I was too distracted by the context. But yeah, I would love to get around to the Mahabharata when I can – and I certainly agree with you that a world where the gods are full of human flaws and emotions (as in the Greco-Roman system) makes a lot more sense to me than monotheistic ideas.

A great question I'd love to know the answer to (but think I may already. The Mahabharata is a serious chore. And if I remember right, apparently if you read it in its entirety to the end you're cursed and/or die?) But it does make little sense to me why it is extracted as it serves the whole and may not in fact be able to stand fully alone without it. And ditto that to the multigodverse.

"To live is to fight " Seneca
"Even to live is an act of Courage " Seneca
The Gita is an immortal pearl of Great Price

"All of life is a type of Warfare; now soldiers glory in their wounds, and rejoice at lifting their breastplates to admire the blood that flows beneath their gashes" Seneca
Lets fight a brave fight, and not be afraid of the obstacles that lay at hand...…..

Read complete mahabaratha before reading Bagvadgita.

Too late!

"One must by all means care for the needs of one's afflicted relatives" The Mahabharata

Not something you should really need to read to understand.

You can know this and not do this...doing is what counts

You're still getting comments on this post wow!
btw if you still have not read the Mahabharata let me just summarize a small bit if it interests you still,

> arjuna's cousins, whom he was fighting against, had been evil since childhood really. They even tried to kill him and his 4 brothers repeatedly.

>If the kingdom of Hastinapur (biggest in Bharat) was ruled by Duryodhana(oldest of the 100 evil cousins) then the nation would fall apart. Innocents would die and corruption would take over.

>Krishna tried all he could for a peaceful settlement and let Yudhishthira be King because he was a just and merciful ruler. But Duryodhana didn't agree. He wanted to be king no matter what.

>Krishna was born to destroy evil and establish Dharma. He asked Arjuna to kill his family and friends because they were either pure evil or bound by some promise to stay on the evil side. These evil people laughed as a woman was stripped in front of everyone. That woman being Arjuna's wife.

>Killing them was inevitable if Dharma was to be established. And Arjuna must do his duty for the world.

Though I understand some philosophies don't appeal to a lot of people now probably because this text is ancient and was meant for a warrior. But Dharma is still valid and will always be.

have a good day!

Religion and unnecessary conflict, name a better duo! It does make me curious about the rest of the Mahabaratha, but it's just so huge I don't think I'll be taking it on any time soon.

Wonderful review! I had a similar experience reading the Gita, and was somewhat puzzled why it is so venerated - I suppose it goes back to reading as a religious person vs. reading as a seeker of knowledge. The whole 'it's just a metaphor for inner conflict' excuse just isn't supported by the text.

When I re-read it in a different translation, I plan on skipping the battlefield intro as well as the late chapters on the gunas.

Yes, a different translation might make a big difference in any case.

If you want a shortcut to the Mahabaratha, there's a reasonable abridgement (I believe from Penguin), and also the BBC did a decent ~6-hour miniseries fairly readily available (presuming one is not offput by typical BBC style).