Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami and Bhagavad Gita

[Bhakta of God]

Namaste all.
Now I will copy something from the book Living with Siva, Hinduism's Contemporary Culture
by Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami(1927-2001) who was a great guru of monistic Shaiva-Siddhanta.




What I will copy will show what this great hindu guru though about Bhagavad Gita.
By http://www.himalayanacademy.com/reso...lws_ch-40.html

Wednesday
LESSON 276
Justification For Conflict
One of the most famous of Hindu writings, the Bhagavad Gita, is often taken as Divine sanction for violence. It basically says that for the kshatriya, or soldier, war is dharma. Lord Krishna orders Arjuna to fight and do his kshatriya dharma in spite of his doubts and fears that what he is about to do is wrong, despite his dread of killing his own kinsmen. Arjuna says, "If they whose minds are depraved by the lust of power see no sin in the extirpation of their race, no crime in the murder of their friends, is that a reason why we should not resolve to turn away from such a crime -- we who abhor the sin of extirpating our own kindred? On the destruction of a tribe the ancient virtue of the tribe and family is lost; with the loss of virtue, vice and impiety overwhelm the whole of a race. ...Woe is me! What a great crime are we prepared to commit! Alas that from the desire for sovereignty and pleasure we stand here ready to slay our own kin! I would rather patiently suffer that the sons of Dhritarashtra, with their weapons in their hands, should come upon me and, unopposed, kill me unresisting in the field."

Krishna gradually convinces Arjuna to fight, beginning with the following argument. "Death is certain to all things which are born, and rebirth to all mortals; wherefore it doth not behoove thee to grieve about the inevitable. ...This spirit can never be destroyed in the mortal frame which it inhabiteth, hence it is unworthy for thee to be troubled for all these mortals. ...Thine enemies will speak of thee in words which are unworthy to be spoken, deprecating thy courage and abilities; what can be more dreadful than this! If thou art slain, thou shalt attain heaven; if victorious, the world shall be thy reward; wherefore, son of Kunti, arise with determination fixed for the battle. Make pleasure and pain, gain and loss, victory and defeat, the same to thee, and then prepare for battle, for thus and thus alone shalt thou in action still be free from sin" (from Chapter 1, Recension by W. Q. Judge, Theosophical University Press).

Hindus for a long time have taken this text as justification for war and conflicts of all kinds, including street riots and anarchy. It is indeed unfortunate that this particular composition has been championed to represent Hinduism rather than the four Vedas. At the turn of the twentieth century, the Bhagavad Gita was not yet a popular book in America and Europe, but the Upanishads and Vedas were. When I was growing up in Hinduism, at about fifteen years of age, the Gita was being slowly introduced in America and became an embarrassment in metaphysical circles throughout the country, as something to explain away. "How could a religion based on ahimsa and such high ideals promote as a major scripture a story based on ruthless internecine war and violence?" Arjuna could be considered history's first conscientious objector.

Mystical seers, both Hindus and Western teachers, at that time, in an attempt to justify the Gita as scripture, explained that Krishna represented Arjuna's higher self, and Arjuna himself was his lower self, or the external ego. Krishna encouraged Arjuna to kill out attachments to family, friends and foes, to become a yogi and realize Parabrahman. Teachers attempted to satisfy the minds of their followers that, in fact, the Bhagavad Gita was an allegory of man's struggle within himself toward the highest realizations. Unconvincingly, contemporary swamis and astute commentators tried to justify God Krishna's urging his devotee to kill his friends, his relatives and his guru, that all would be well in the end because the soul never dies. I was never satisfied with this and found no alternative but to reject the book altogether, despite its many lofty chapters. I agree fully with those awakened Indian swamis who have called it kolai nul, the "book of carnage," a book that gives divine sanction to violence.

The Bhagavad Gita was also known at that time as a historical poem, not a divinely revealed scripture at all. It is smriti, specifically Itihasa, meaning a man-made history, a poem excerpted from the Mahabharata epic. But all that aside, no matter how it is interpreted, whether it is revered by millions of Hindus or not, let us not be mistaken that the Bhagavad Gita gives permission for violence. The Mahabharata itself says, "Ahimsa is the highest dharma. It is the highest purification. It is also the highest truth from which all dharma proceeds" (18.1125.25). An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is definitely not a part of true Hindu doctrine.

[c.smith]

I've seen this argument before. A teaching that I have come to know is that Krishna is the higher self and the war that must be waged is against ones (lower) self. One must conquer lust, greed, envy, pride, etc if one is to move into the higher realms. When I take the Gita in this context, it makes it much more real and nonviolent. Again, the war that we are waging is against the ego. Just my thoughts on all of this.

Otherwise, I've found most other parts of the book agreeable. It is part of the trilogy - Dancing with Siva, Living with Siva and Merging with Siva. The Satguru's teachings can be found at Himalayanacademy.com

[TruthSeeker]

"I agree fully with those awakened Indian swamis who have called it kolai nul, the "book of carnage," a book that gives divine sanction to violence. "

This is a wrong claim. Mahabaratha is hardly a history book and no lectures on spirituality is ever given on a battle field, and hardly in a manner that promotes violence. The theme of Mahabaratha itself should be convincing proof of its mystic content.

Bhagavad Gita is the instruction given to Karma Yogi Arjuna, on whether to continue Karma Yoga or take to Jnana Yoga, after resolving the gross elements through the practice of Yoga. This choice is present only to the Yogi who has resolved the gross elements into their base akasa tattvam. If Chitta is purified at this point, one takes resort to Jnana Yoga presented in Ramayana or "fight the battle" at Kurukshetra and purify the Chitta. Kurukshetra is the Anja Chakra and is the mind tattvam - and Mahabaratha war deals with this indepth.

Mahabaratha deals with the case in which Chitta is not purified yet as indicated by the powerful enemies that has, and who have taken his kingdom of Kuru.(Manomaya kosha), so Arjuna is encouraged to fight the war, and not recourse to Jnana Yoga, which presumes purified Chitta.

[sarabhanga]

The Bhagavadgita teaches that righteous war is Dharma for the Kshatriya (that noble ruler of men, who is himself ruled by divine Law).

The Gita was NEVER intended to be read literally as straight prose (except to children and shudras, in order to inspire them to faithful and determined action). And it MUST be understood in the context of Sanatana Dharma, the very foundation of which is Ahimsa!

For those who have properly listened to the sublime Bhagavadgita, it is veritable Shruti (“that which is heard”) and, although not strictly Veda (i.e. revealed directly by God), this classic text of Vedanta philosophy has long shared an equal place with the Upanishads.

When I was growing up in Hinduism, at about fifteen years of age, the Gita was being slowly introduced in America and became an embarrassment in metaphysical circles throughout the country, as something to explain away. "How could a religion based on ahimsa and such high ideals promote as a major scripture a story based on ruthless internecine war and violence?"

I repeat: The Gita was NEVER intended to be read literally as straight prose (except to children and shudras, in order to inspire them to faithful and determined action). And it MUST be understood in the context of Sanatana Dharma, the very foundation of which is Ahimsa!

And I strongly disagree with Subramuniyaswami’s scathing assessment of the text and his derogatory comments about those wise Hindus and their “unconvincing attempts to justify the Gita as scripture”.

“kollai nUl” is Tamil for “sylvan yarn”, and Subramuniyaswami’s translation of this phrase as “the book of carnage, a book that gives divine sanction to violence” is an offensive misrepresentation of the truth!

Let us not be mistaken that the Bhagavad Gita gives permission for violence.

Once again, I repeat: The Gita was NEVER intended to be read literally as straight prose (except to children and shudras, in order to inspire them to faithful and determined action). And it MUST be understood in the context of Sanatana Dharma, the very foundation of which is Ahimsa!

The Gita is just one part of the Mahabharata, and the Mahabharata itself should NOT be ignored when interpreting its component parts.

The Mahabharata itself says, “Ahimsa is the highest dharma. It is the highest purification. It is also the highest truth from which all dharma proceeds” (18.1125.25).

[Sudarshan]

I agree..only kids interpret the Gita this way.( as a kolai nUl)
Wonder who the "awakened Indian swamis" are, and why they are called "awakened swamis".

[Bhakta of God]

Namaste all.
Shri Sharabhanga Giri told:

For those who have properly listened to the sublime Bhagavadgita, it is veritable Shruti (“that which is heard”) and, although not strictly Veda (i.e. revealed directly by God), this classic text of Vedanta philosophy has long shared an equal place with the Upanishads.

The Gita is just one part of the Mahabharata, and the Mahabharata itself should NOT be ignored when interpreting its component parts.

How can the Bhagavadgita to be consider Shruti?
Bhagavadgita is part of Mahabharata.Mahabharata is smriti.
By http://www.hinduism.it/zzinduismo.htm

The Veda is the heart of Hinduism, the supreme authority, pramana. It is the basic structure from which all the other sacred texts of the Hindu religion derive.
It is called anadi “without a beginning” in fact is eternal, it is always existed and has not been touched by man, apurusheya.

THE FOUR VEDA
Anantah vai vedah

It is impossible to establish a date of the Veda, because of the lack of historicity typical of the Indian thought, and also because of the fact that the transmission of this huge compendium of knowledge, for millenniums has been only by word of mouth.
It is believed that in origin the Veda was one, revealed by the Supreme Absolute to Brahma and really for this direct revelation from the divine knowledge, the Veda is defined apuresheya (“not revealed by man”) and shruti. The Sanskrit word shruti, that means “what is heard”, suggests not only the origin of the Veda, that was in fact “heard by the rishi”, but underlines also the method that used to be, and still is at present, used for the oral transmission, the correct chanting of the revealed truths. As already mentioned the compilation has been attributed to the rishi Vysa who divided it in four parts: Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda and Atharva Veda and the transmission to his four diciples: the Rig to Paila, the Yajur to Vaishampayana, the Sama to Jaimini, the Atharva to Jumanta.
The term veda does not refer only to the four collections (samhita), but includes also all the commentaries, the extensions, the collections, Brahmana, Aranyaka, Upanishad, Vedanga, Vedanta, that form a sort of epilogue of the Veda, and form that corpus (body) of vedic scriptures called shruti.

SMRITI "WHAT IS REMEMBERED"
The term smriti means “memory” or “remembrance” and refers to those books written by living authorities, by the light of their wisdom and the sacred scriptures, the Veda.The term smriti can be intended in a strict sense when we specifically refer to the normative systematic treaties, like the codes of law in harmony with the dharma, also called Dharmashastra, that deal with the social rules, the roles, the stages of life, the obligations towards the nation, the society, the family and the individuals. Broadly speaking , the smriti includes everything that has been written and is not included in the shruti. We find the Itihasa, historic tales, vedic poems that include the Ramayana, the epic of the Ramacandra avatara, and the Mahabharata, the narration of the story of Bharata-varsa, the Empire of the “Great India”, - works that includes a poem that will become one of the essential texts of Hinduism, of the philosophy and the yoga: the Bhagavad Gita – and the Purana, the historic texts, the kavya, all the poetic literature, the philosophic one of the sat darshana, the tantric literature and the folk one. the term smriti, is linked also to the development of the Indian thought, in fact it points out the period subsequent to the “vedic” one where the knowledge of the Veda rules the society, the religiousness and the speculative aspects.

Regards,
Orlando.

[sarabhanga]

koLai nUl indicates “holding the bow-string”, or “tale of determination”, “summary thread”, or simply “song-line”.

From Sanskrit (kolAya mUla or kolaiH mUla) the phrase would indicate the root of the Jujube, or production from Jujubes.

The Jujube is well known as badara or badarI, and bAdarAyaNa (another name for vyAsa) is thus credited as the composer of the Gita.