Talk:Bhagavad Gita/Archive 2

Thank you GaurangaUK

For restoring all the carefully created useful research links that TheRingess wiped out. She has been going from topic to topic wiping out all links and replacing them with an often weak and outdated DMOZ link. Can anything be done to stop her rampage? Ganesham 00:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the link list is too long. I would agree with putting the standard antispam message back in, which is one of the things those of us who support WikiProject Spam often do as a standard antispam measure. While the DMOZ link is a standard suggestion as well, I do not think it should be used here because we do have some good sites. But the number could be cut back, and multiple links to the same web site should be avoided. Currently some of the sites have a very large number of links going to them, both as WP:EL and as reference links. For example, why do we have multiple links to the same site under the section for "Selections"? I would start by cutting those. Buddhipriya 08:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't see a problem with the list being quite long for an article of this type. Any spam links have already been weeded out in the past and it is watched quite diligently for new additions by a number of editors. I don't think it will improve the article if we remove links - I believe they help anyone who wants some further details on the subject from a wide range of sources. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 13:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that some links are appropriate. However according to WP:EL "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." I think the article has too many links and that reduction of the number would benefit the readers. For example, why is there a section for "selections"? This is in effect an editorial comment that those passages or translators are notable. What is the evidence for that notability? I think all of these links should be cut:

• 1985 translation by Eknath Easwaran: ch. 2 beg., mid, end, ch. 9, and ch. 18
• 2007 translation by John Timpane of Canto 11

• Here is an example of what looks like blatant linkspam to me: [1].

Also, the article seems to be to be over-relying on links to the ISKCON web site, which presents a very distinct view of the meaning of the Gita. This has the effect of putting a sectarian spin on the article that is not appropriate. Let's see what other editors think about these issues. Buddhipriya 18:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Buddhipriya - I couldn't find the spiritual-happiness.com website you give above as a blantant linkspam in the external links section? I agree one's such as that should be removed. I don't see too much of a problem with the other two, Eknath Easwaran's translation is fairly widespread within Europe. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 10:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a copy of Easwaran's translation in book form myself. My question is why we are including links to specific passages, and to a partial translation, when we have so many other complete translations listed already. It is overkill and there is no clear reason why those passages are being highlighted in the EL section. Buddhipriya 19:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Since we agree that spiritual-happiness.com is spam, I removed it: [2] Buddhipriya 19:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Easwaran's translation

Easwaran's translation of the Bhagavad Gita is well-renowned and used by many academics as well as individuals. It deserves to be listed along with the other translations - otherwise the list of translations is a bit unrepresentative. It's ISBN is 978-158638-019-9. Similarly his Bhagavad Gita for Daily Living would be a welcome addition to the Commentaries listing. The ISBNs of this 3-volume set are: 0-915132-17-6, 0-915132-18-4, 0-915132-19-2

thank you! DuncanCraig1949 16:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

How Srimad Bhagavad-Gita Was Written

Source http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Articles/vyasa.html In Brahma's birth 1044 trillion and 160 billion years previous to the birth of our present day Brahma and before the Brahma manifesting from Vishnu's ear, Brahma then appeared from the speech of Vishnu. The supreme science of the Bhagavad-Gita again manifested itself as well. At that time a rishi named Suparna received it from him. Suparna would recite the supreme science of the Bhagavad-Gita during the three sandhyas everyday. Knowledge of this supreme science is referred to in the Rig Veda. From the sage Suparna it was obtained by Vayu the wind god who communicated it to those rishis who subsist upon what remains from sacrificial yagna after feeding all the guests. From these rishis the supreme science was obtained by Varuna the god of the ocean. After this knowledge of the supreme science of the Bhagavad-Gita disappeared from this world.

The Bhagavad-Gita is passed on many stages till it reaches the current Brahma. BalanceRestored 14:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

For the present article, this history is needlessly complex. Better to give the history found in the Gita itself (4.1).

Cordially,

O Govinda 10:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that the history section could be significantly expanded, including details on the development of the various content strata within the Gita itself. I have not made an effort to expand that type of material because there have been religious objections to changes that would make the article more encyclopedic in tone and more balanced in its coverage of what is in the Gita. I would be happy to add more citations related to the dating of the writing of the work if desired. These will support what the article says now, that it was an incremental addition to the Mahabharata at the time mentioned in the article, and that it specifically addresses certain issues that were topical at that time. Buddhipriya 20:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

MR Yardi and BORI

All this loving detail about "shloaks" in the Mahabharata is off-topic for this article. Further, Yardi is not at BORI, and BORI publishing his research on the basis of having used BORI materials is not an unqualified endorsement of his work. Even if it were, his research has not been published in peer-reviewed journals, nor has it been cited widely. As such his research simply counts as a data point. One rather topical place where he has been cited -- indeed, as just a data point in a spectrum of views -- is this paper by John Brockington. Yardi is far from the last word on the subject. rudra (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• Indeed, it is quite the opposite: one's life on earth must be lived in accordance with greater laws and truths, one must embrace one's temporal duties whilst remaining mindful of a more timeless reality, acting for the sake of action without consideration for the results thereof.

IMO (moved this from GAR as it is an opinion)....Perhaps this should be reworded but more for content rather than grammar. It is the realised or attained spiritual master who may act without consideration for the results. The one who lives life on earth who not only must consider the karma, and also receives the karma. The acquirement of Dharma gives one a transcendental view of karma - of action and reaction or results. I am just thinking the part action without consideration for the results would only be available for those who have achieved Dharma.SriMesh | talk 16:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Could someone please put a phonetic code of how one is supposed to read the name? I know i'm confused :) Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.246.224.63 (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

bhaktivedanta

Hey, wouldn't it be fair to use a more neutral translation considering prabhupada's bias...Domsta333 (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Would Sarvapalli Radhakrishan's translation be ok?--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey,Domsta...You are ABSOLUTELY correct! Almost ALL of the articles conserning Vaishnavism are slanted towards the ISKON/Gaudiya "group". It is incredible! I have spend the last week studying every article about vaishnavism and their all slanted and bias towards the ISKON/Gaudiya group, in some way. Either overtly or in a subtle way. They all have ONLY quotes from Prabhupada...and no one else. All these articles have the mindset, flavor, and intentions of the ISKON/Gaudiya group. Every where you go on Wikipedia, it seems that these ISKON/Gaudiya people have created the articles and have a strangle hold on the articles and they are use it as a spring-board for their group. I agree we need to use non-denominational/group qoutes and translations from other sources. I really believe that ALL of the articles need to have a Non-bias slant to them. If we can,...can we work together with ONLY Rudra and redtigerxyz to do this...go through all the articles and make them non-bias....Govinda Ramanuja dasaUSA (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Domsta's original point is valid, but we should ideally quote from a range of Bhagavad-Gita translations, not just one or two. Please add more translations. In reply to Zeuspitar, if this page has a lot of quotations from one Gita it is because only a very small handful of editors have been bothered to add references. It's much easier to complain than it is to actually improve and work on something. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Gouranga(UK) - multiple translations should be used, in the interest of WP:NPOV and a more comprehensive view of the Gita. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. And, I will be actually helping and improving ALL of the ISKON slanted articles. But, the fact remains...it's NOT complaining, this is an issue that must be addressed first and then the need changes can occur. Govinda Ramanuja dasaUSA (talk) 09:20, 03 March 2008 (UTC)

Dating of Mahabharata

I see the traditional dating of the Bhagavad-Gita and Mahabharata as being relevant to this article, because otherwise we are only giving the modern academic belief. Many thousands of people within India believe that both were events that actually happened together, significantly earlier than 150 BC. Surely we should at least include this for the sake of reporting it as a popular belief (if not the most popular?) amongst followers of the text within Hinduism? Gouranga(UK) (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no "traditional dating" of the BG or the MB as texts. All "dating" concerns pertain to the events of the MB itself, a subject that's treated at Mahabharata. rudra (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The article states in the beginning that the Bhagavad-Gita "...was originally written around 3000 BCE." however later (Bhagavad_Gita#Dates) in the article it explains it being written around 500-150BCE, the events which it describes dates around 3000BCE; but not the document itself. I propose a change that actually reflects the contents of the article, "...was originally written around 500-150BCE however the Mahabharata in which it describes dates 3000BCE." Currently, the article contradicts itself and lead to confusion on Talk:Aryan_race#Noteworthy. Keithieopia (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Did Krishna really mean surrender to me or surrender to the Atman

Hi

I only want to raise this point for discussion as in the introduction of the chapters it is mentioned that Krishna claimed that he was the Supreme Being and Arjuna should surrender to him and words to that effect.

I would like to know from knowledgeable people whether Krishna was using the terms Aham/Atman/Brahman etc. synonymously to refer to the Supreme Being?

If above is true, should the related text be changed?

I am sorry but I could not find any previous discussion on this topic (maybe I dont know how to search for it correctly)

Shreekar (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Shreekar, there are different opinions available on this point. For example, within Vaishnavism, when Krishna says 'mam ekam saranam vraja' (surrender unto Me) it is understood that Krishna is referring to Himself directly, either as Krishna or as Vishnu. Within monist schools, such as Advaita Vedanta on the other hand, the same statement (and similar) is generally interpreted to be referring to the formless absolute. It largely depends on which philosophical background you approach the text from, although the first perspective is more literal according to the text itself. Both atman and Brahman are discussed in more detail in other articles. We can explain the variety of point of views within the article, as long as they are referenced from appropriate sources. Best Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - the interpretation of the statement(s) is largely dependent upon the philosophical school that a Hindu is from, and an attempt is being made at making the article more comprehensive in the viewpoints and interpretations of these statement(s) in the article. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Trivia section

Should this article have one? rudra (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:TRIV states that trivial material is only worthy enough to be included in an article if the information can be incorporated into the other sections. From my experience, items relating to pop culture can never be integrated while statistical facts such as the chapter containing the greatest number of shlokas may be significant enough to be included somewhere other than a trivia section. See Template:Trivia. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 06:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Trivia sections are inherently unmanageable grab bags, not to mention that the typical addition (in good faith, of course) is often unsourced or sourced to some random website. Enough material for a separate Subject X in popular culture article might work, maybe. rudra (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The info can be added in Influence section.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You have asked me to justify my Trivia input on this page. I'm not sure why I must justify a fact. Surely the idea of this site is to spread knowledge and fact to further inform the user's knowledge and expand their horizons. When has fact needed justification? What is not interesting fact to you may very well be enlightening to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpinemonkey (talk • contribs) 13:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC) (copied from user talk page) rudra (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"In popular culture" sections are generally problematic. Nowhere more so than for major works of literature or scripture, which will have been referenced hundreds of times. If we want to create an article called The Gita in the Arts or something, we can do that, but it should be kept out of this article as far as possible. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What's a Bhishma Parva??

This article currently starts with, "The Bhagavad Gita is a Sanskrit text from the Bhishma Parva of the Mahabharata epic, comprising 700 verses."

There is no link for Bhishma Parva.

What's a Bhishma Parva???

What I'm really asking is, can this first sentence be clarified, linked better, use terms that are actually in Wikipedia, etc....

Well, it seems Redtigerxyz has since changed the text to now read:

"...from the chapter Bhishma Parva of the Mahabharata epic..."

It is simply the name of one of the parvan ( = "chapters" or "sections" or "books") of the Mahabharata;

Bhishma is the central character of that "book" or "chapter".

See the "Textual history and organization" section of the Mahābhārata article for more information about the other parvan, too.

—Wikiscient— 21:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Bible of Hinduism

Removed: "and is called sometimes the "Bible of Hinduism""

The "Bible of Hinduism" is title given to numerous books from Vedas, Agamas, Mahabharata and Ramayana, also the "Gita" being one depending on the author. the epics as biblefor others. Since one book is not given the title unanimously, I think the term should be removed.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ramakrishna section seems out of context

Congratulations to the folks who have worked on this page! I can see that a lot of care and attention has gone into it and it is very well done. However, I would like to suggest that the two sentences below, which appear in the opening section of the page, are extraneous and are not appropriate point in the opening summary and overview of the Bhagavad Gita and it's place in Vedic Literature.

I am new to Wiki and don't know what is the proper etiquette for getting something removed or relocated to a more appropriate section. Comments or advice anyone? Keithbob --Keithbob (talk) 03:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ramakrishna said that the essential message of the Gita can be obtained by repeating the word several times[9]—

"Gita, Gita, Gita", you begin, but then find yourself saying "ta-Gi, ta-Gi, ta-Gi". Tagi means one who has renounced everything for God.

Agree, yes it is out of context, probably suites well in the "views on Gita" section, where it can be added with other views by Gandhi, Ramakrishna, Aurobindo, Isherwood., etc. -- vineeth (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Nvineeth. I see that someone has removed the text in question from the Summary/Overview section. I'm not sure if it was deleted or moved. Keep up the good work! Keithbob--Keithbob (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of well referenced material and images?

How can the image and well referenced material be removed.? If required add it to the existing well referenced material, and dont remove it blindly. The sentence, "The Bhagavad-Gita was written in 3138 B.C." is itself unreferenced. — Nvineeth ^talk 07:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Nvineeth's comments and suggest also that this material is not removed without discussion and consensus reached.--VS ^talk 07:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Few Original research, failed ref checks.

The following paragraph,

However, it is interesting to note that the entire Mahabharata (of which Bhagavad Gita is a part of), has no references to Buddhism at all. Whereas the Buddhist scripture Niddesa written in 4 B.C. in the Pali Canon clearly refers to the worship of Vasudeva (Krishna) and Baladeva (Balarama). This itself might strongly suggest that the Bhagavad Gita is pre-Buddhistic. In fact, it is more likely that the Buddhists received the concept of Nirvana from earlier Vedic scriptures in Sanskrit.[original research?] Based on claims of arbitrary differences in the poetic styles and supposed external influences such as Patanjali's Yoga Sutra,[citation needed] some scholars have argued that the Bhagavad Gita was added to the Mahabharata at a later date.[14][15]

has original research, and even false information. The first para definitely looks like original research, and in the second para, none of the citations provided talk about patanjali's yoga sutra. (even checked in the radhakrishnan book, the page nos are perfect, but nowhere Yoga sutra is mentioned) I will be removing the first para, and make a few amendments to the second para.

Thanks. — Nvineeth ^talk 15:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

More Original Research

The Para,

A traditional religious dating for the events of the Mahabharata War according to the chronology established in Gupta times by Aryabhata on grounds of archaeoastronomical calculations places the Mahabharata (including the Bhagavad Gita) in the late 4th millennium BC (3138 BC or 3102 BC[16]). Many religious groups hold this date to be accurate in reference to the Gita.[17]

Is also original research. The part referring to Aryabhata and Gupta is unreferenced. Moreover keay like other scholars says that the date is around 500 B.C ^{India p.43} and also the name of the book for the reference 3102 B.C is not provided. Moreover, the sentence, "Many religious groups hold this date to be accurate in reference to the Gita" has a very vague reference, and no where in the reference is this mentioned. I will be removing this. — Nvineeth ^talk 16:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the "setting the scene" that is mentioned in ref#17 is also incorrect., see the actual page. — Nvineeth ^talk 17:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added materials from other books (radhakrishnan, Vivekananda, Swarupananda) and move the quote to the ref. There is also another POV supported by several scholars, that the date of work does not matter and what really matters is the contents, which needs to be added from a WP:RS. Thanks. — Nvineeth ^talk 17:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture

The current picture,IMO is not required .(pls see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images#Image_choice_and_placement).-Bharatveer (talk) 06:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• I understand you are wanting to adjust the image or have it disappear but some actual discussion here rather than your reversion and suggestion that there has been a discussion (when there hasn't), would be more conducive to forming a consensus on this specific image. Yes?--VS ^talk 10:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO, a picture is required., but a slightly clear and better image / painting will be good., until we find one, there is no harm in keeping the existing picture. Thanks. — Nvineeth ^talk 11:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nvineeth's comment. By all means find a better image but for now this one is not harmful.--VS ^talk 11:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded a cropped image, looks like didn't work out. Re uploading. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better now! thanks. — Nvineeth ^talk 12:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

War as an Allegory

To the section, "War as a allegory", recently material claiming to be from Aurobindo's book was added, when I cross checked, this text is not present, so I will be removing this text. --Nvineeth (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The edition you referred is the American Edition (look at page 17 - 18 for the referenced text). I referenced from the Birth Centenary Library Edition. You can find the online copy of the edition in www.aurobindo.ru. I am restoring the text. Pjnkumar (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This section presents two interpretations of the Gita: one states that it is an allegory, the other states that it is meant to be interpreted literally. However, it is rather narrow-minded to assume that both of these interpretations are somehow mutually exclusive and that the Gita does not contain multiple levels of interpretation. Especially considering there are two sourced quotes already demonstrating that there are two different ways to interpret it. If someone can produce a scholar who can present a case stating why this impossible, then by all means, please feel free to add another quote. But there is no reason to delete a logical conclusion based on facts already presented. The more information, the better. That way the reader can make up there own mind. In addition, if anyone is unaware that parables are both allegorical and literal, the word is now linked to the parable entry. tcob44 6:13 in the pm. (EST)

I reverted your edit here, not because I necessarily I disagree with your sentiment, but because it was unencyclopedic (use of "of course") and unsourced synthesis. You need to either provide a specific inline citation, or let the readers arrive at their own "logical conclusions". Abecedare (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like the "of course", then why delete the entire passage? Especially if you don't even disagree with it. Can't you simply change it to "however" or whatever you think sounds "encyclopedic"?!? As you have left it, this section is still (incorrectly) framed in a way which suggests that there are only two ways of interpreting the Gita: literally and allegorically. Since they are not mutually exclusive, this is not accurate. (FYI- That's why I linked it to 'parable' as an example.) Of course, if you want to rewrite the whole section in a way that corrects this problem, be my guest. And as for synthesis, sorry, but it appears that you are misunderstanding what this is. I am not taking two different pieces of information and coming up with a new piece of information, I am simply illustrating that these two pieces of information are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with spiritual and philosophical texts, but they frequently contain multiple levels of interpretation. Regardless, if you still think this constitutes "synthesis", feel free get someone at wikipedia to weigh in on this issue, as I'd prefer to avoid starting an "edit war". Thanks in advance. tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.34.7.234 (talk) 09:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello tcob44, whatever you add should be published in a reliable source. Pls see WP:RS, or else it will be treated as original research. Pls go thru these guidelines. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I sourced it for you. And in case you are unaware, it's not original research as there are already two sourced interpretations are which are currently featured on this article, as the Gita can obviously be both interpreted on an allegorical level and a literal level at the same time. However, they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, if you don't think this is possible, perhaps you should actually try reading the Gita yourself. (Don't worry, it's not very long. Juan Mascaro has a good translation.) BTW- Have you even read it? tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.231.10 (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

---

I have reworded the section (diff) to clarify that Swami Nikhilananda is summarizing the allegorical view and not expressing his own preference. More importantly, the original version failed to capture the nuance of Sri Aurobindo's views, which didn't in fact reject symbolic/allegorical readings of Gita, but argued against reading Gita or Mahabharata as only an allegorical description of the struggles of the soul, disconnected with human actions. Hope this revision addresses both the sourcing issues and tcob44's concerns.
Tcob44, I would recommend that you create an wikipedia account that would make communication much easier. As I stated above, I didn't object to the point you were trying to make, but the way you went about it by edit-warring and challenging the knowledge of other editors here was far from exemplary and didn't reflect well on you. Anyway, I hope that bygones-are-bygones, and we all can edit cooperative and courteously in the future. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the fixes, I had another issue to raise, is this quote "...That is a view which the general character and the actual language of the epic does not justify and, if pressed, would turn the straightforward philosophical language of the Gita into a constant, laborious and somewhat puerile mystification....the Gita is written in plain terms and professes to solve the great ethical and spiritual difficulties which the life of man raises, and it will not do to go behind this plain language and thought and wrest them to the service of our fancy. But there is this much of truth in the view, that the setting of the doctrine though not symbolical, is certainly typical..." strictly required? The para before this is very clearly written. Others pls check. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I see that the quote is pretty lengthy and largely redundant now. I think its ok to remove it, but lets wait for a day to see if any of the other discussants have an objection. Abecedare (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice work Abecedare..the section has come out well after your edits..
What I would like clearly emphasized is Sri Aurobindo's line throughout his Essays - he identified the "typical" in the episode of the Gita with the rest of humanity: he did not interpret it as an allegory (the current version seems to suggest that he interpreted Gita not only as a true incident but also as an allegory: "..he rejects the interpretation...as only "an allegory.."). I think the quote clarifies it (the last two lines can be retained if the whole quote seems lengthy). Further, on the same lines, it is my opinion that "only" in the previously referenced line be removed as it suggests he interpreted it as an allegory. .Pjnkumar (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right that the "only" perhaps ended up misrepresenting SA's views; so I have removed it.

SA draws a nuanced distinction between allegorical, symbolic and typical and has the luxury of having unlimited space to explain his views; we on the other hand have to do it in 10 words or fewer (ok, I exaggerate). Hopefully the current text at least captures the rough essence, while the reference points the interested reader to the source. Any suggestions for further improvement are welcome.

As for the quote: I have mixed feelings about it. The first part explains why SA didn't think that the Gita can be considered allegorical; while the last bit explains the idea of "typical". So it may be worth retaining; on the other hand, it is pretty lengthy and possibly undue. So, I'll leave the decision of retaining/removing/culling it to the other editors here.

Hopefully we can also work together to improve the rest of the article! Abecedare (talk) 06:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

External links - new proposed link

woops! sorry! I realize now I should not add this link as an "external link" but instead in the section immediately below it. Please therefore ignore this proposal (below)DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(sorry again - am not an experienced wikipedia editor)

---

I would like to add a link to the Bhagavad Gita page and I understand that I have to propose that link here. The link is to http://www.easwaran.org/page/46 which is the Introduction from the translation of the Bhagavad Gita by Eknath Easwaran. Easwaran is recognized as a leading scholar of the Gita ("No one in modern times is more qualified - no, make that 'as qualified' - to translate the epochal Classics of Indian Spirituality than Eknath Easwaran" - Huston Smith, author of "The World's Religions". The introduction makes very clear to a modern reader why the Gita is relevant today. DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

External links

I propose to add an entry to the external links. It is a website which summarizes the main teachings of the Gita from a Christian point of view. Every point is referenced with proper quotations from the Gita and thus it provides a compact survey. It can be helpful for Christian readers and for those who want to know how Christians see this text. The link would be: "Teaching of the Bhagavad Gita - seen from a Christian point of view" - http://christiansinindia.in/Christians_in_India/Bhagavad_Gita.html - Nikil44 (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be original research. I'd say it's irrelevant.TheRingess (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Support TheRingess, yes it seems like a WP:OR, to give a example, from the article link, "Interestingly Krishna never argues with the fact that this war is a righteous fight against evil people." seems completely false. The verse 2.31 in fact clearly addresses this : "Looking at thine own Dharma, also, thou oughtest not to waver, for there is nothing higher for a Kshatriya than a righteous war."[3]. So including this link is out of question. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem of translation of the Gita. Other translators do not write anything like 'righteous war' but refer it to the caste-duty like R.C.Zaehner with 'fight prescribed by law'. The tension between fulfilling his caste-duty and acting righteously is shown in the person Duryodhana in that article. - Nikil44 (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As per, WP:EL, 'Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research"' should be avoided. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Very good!

I think I understand some, after reading this article. Well done! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As good as it is to give/get praise, rather unnecessary/irrelevant here... Armuk (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not!! I praised the editors making a good job, because I thought I understood something. The reason for praising editors doing a good job is of course to make them keep on editing. Apart from that I only care about understanding the content of the article – not believing in it. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 12:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation. Project Hinduism will try to develop more such articles.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Again: thank you! And keep your spirits up for doing an excellent job! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 16:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This is one of he best articles I have read on Wikipedia. While I can never confess to knowledge of Hinduism at the depth it deserves, articles such as this help me understand more of the breadth and depth of Hindu culture!! 74.132.221.191 (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Upanishad

Does the term "Gītopaniṣad" and the interpretation of the Gita as an Upanishad have any notabilitly outside of Hare Krishna, i.e. are the alternative names Gitopanisad/Yogopanisad lead-worthy? --dab (𒁳) 14:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the names, but the view does seem to have to have some notability. See e.g. Easwaran's introduction. (He is not associated with Hare Krishna.) The bit about 'the "tag" found at the end of each chapter' refers to the traditional "here ends the chapter titled..." phrase. (For a source before Prabhupada was born, see e.g this from 1882.) Shreevatsa (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

ok, we need more information on the point of the Gita being considered an Upanishad (by whom exactly? Earliest evidence?). I note that the point is made in the lead but is entirely absent from the article body. We are also lacking background on the shruti classification. It is true that the Gita has aspects of an Upanisad. Upanisads are by definition within the shruti corpus. For some reason, however, the Gita has not been transmitted as a standalone Upanisad but has been "smuggled" into the epic, only to be extracted as a standalone text once again at a later date. When and in what context?

Your Easwaran reference is valuable here, already for his explanation of the "tags" thing. Apparently the "Gītopaniṣad" title is found in manuscripts, then. Is it possible that this is associated with the Mughal period Bhakti movement in Central/Northern India? --dab (𒁳) 13:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, really. I'd imagine the Thomas Coburn reference that is currently cited for the shruti classification would have something about this. Easwaran's "for as back as anyone can trace" seems to suggest that the "tag" identification as as Upanishad is part of the oral tradition, with no clear dates. Of course, there is also tradition of the Gita as smṛti or not exactly an Upanishad, e.g. Vedanta philosophy's prasthāna trayī which calls the Gita the "smṛti prasthāna", and one Gita invocation that calls it the "milk" extracted from the cows that are Upanishads (also mentioned in Müller's footnote above). "Some people consider it an Upanishad" might really be the best one can say about it. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

at least we could in principle find out more about the "tags". I do not think they are part of oral tradition, but part of manuscript tradition. After all, the printed editions of these texts aren't based on interviews with pundits reciting from memory, but on manuscripts that were collected by various orientalists during the 19th century. I understand Easwaran's "for as back as anyone can trace" as implying that the tags are found in all known manuscripts. So the date of the oldest known manuscript with such a "tag" will also be a terminus ante quem for the term "Gitopanisad". --dab (𒁳) 15:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the oldest manuscript would be a terminus ante quem, but it would probably be a crude one (if we can find it). As I'm sure you know, there is no real manuscript tradition in Hindu scholarship, only oral tradition: the Gita is not its manuscripts. And every manuscript was written down probably based on the equivalent of interviews with pundits reciting them from memory anyway. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 04:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How about locking the article

The three main religions in the world are: Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. The primary teachings, respectively, are the Bible, the Qur'an, and the Bhagvad Gita. The first two articles are locked, so that people don't screw it up. It is wrong that this one is not, in my opinion. I don't want people who do not actually know about this teaching to mess up the article.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.30.15 (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Couldnt verify

That is not a viable excuse for "I cannot find it". I'm not here to dispute the dating of the Gita, however the scholarly range is much wider than the three centuries claimed on the page.Pectore^talk 16:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked at both books and couldn't find the claims; I said "couldn't verify" in my edit-summary only because we may possibly be looking at different editions. Can you provide quotes from Stanley Wolpert's India and Easwaran's BG translation attesting to the 11th century BCE dating ? Abecedare (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now I have looked through all three citations and unfortunately, as far as I can tell, all three are being misread (hopefully, not misrepresented!). Here are the closest relevant quotes I found in the books:

Reflecting as it does post-Christian era concepts rather than ideas current in 1000 B.C., the message of the Gita will be considered later.

— Stanley Wolpert (2005). India. University of California Press. p. 30.

The findings outlined above, when combined with internal evidence of ancient Sanskrit texts like the Upanishads and the Bhagvada Gita, which are generally assigned the period 1000-500BC...

— Anantharaman, T.R (2001). "The Hindu view of suffering, rebirth and the overcoming of evil". In Peter Koslowski (ed.). The origin and the overcoming of evil and suffering in the world religions. Springer. p. 101.

Historian surmise that like the Iliad the Mahabharata might well be based on actual events, culminating in a war that took place sometime between 1000 and 700 B.C. ...

— Eknath Easwaran (2004). The Bhagavad Gita. Nilgiri Press. p. 4.

Note too that later in the book, Easwaran argues that Gita is not an integral part of the Mahabharata and is a later addition.

Based on the above quotes, none of which support the 11th century BC dating (Wolpert and Easwaran, specifically contradict it, in fact!), I am reverting the changes to the article by User:Pectore. I am open to adding other dating ranges to the article but, lets use authoritative academic sources by scholars who have written extensively on the topic (like Zaehner or Radhakrishnan), instead of using self-published popular translations (like Easwaran's), or picking up isolated lines from texts on other topics (like Wolpert's book). Of course, whatever the source used, representing what it says correctly is paramount! It may be best to discuss any new source on the talk page before adding it to the article. Abecedare (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I misread Easwaran and Wolpert, and am sorry about that. However, the Anantharaman/Koslowski quote backs up the 11th century assertion, by giving a range of 1000BC (aka 11 century using amazing mathematical powers of counting). However, here are more quotes:

“ The findings above, when combined with the internal evidence of ancient Sanskrit texts like the Upanishads and and the Bhagavada-Gita which are generally assigned the period 1000-500 BC, but whose thought content goes back to an earlier period ”

-Peter Koslowski

“ Sanskrit during the early period of its growth in India changed from a relatively simple structure....to the considerable technical and philosophical sophistication we see in the Upanishad and the Gita (1000B.C.) ”

-P. Lal

“ One of the earliest theories of freedom to clearly emphasize the spiritual dates from around 1000BC in the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita ”

-Paulin J. Hountondji

“ The Bhagavada Gita is the mythicized account of the Kurukshetra War, believed to have taken place during the 10th century BC ”

-Barbara Stoller Miller Pectore^talk 02:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are misreading the sources again; the quotations above do not date Gita to the 11th century BC. Also please read my previous comment about quality of sourcing. Abecedare (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No I am not misreading the sources I have just quoted, which support the claim of my edits that the Gita has been dated by many (I have never claimed anything absolute) to around 1000BC. Now onto your patronizing lectures about quality; Miller is an expert on Indian philosophy and one of the first Americans to study Indian and Hindu literature in-depth. Houdtonji and Koslowski are both experts in the field of philosophy and the history and context of thoughts. Either way, I am not pressing judgment, or imposing a date, I am merely parroting a scholarly extension of the possible range of compilation.Pectore^talk 04:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let me explain in more detail picking Miller as an example since she, unlike the other authors you cite, did have specific expertise in the Gita (aside I have no idea why you think she was "one of the first Americans to study Indian and Hindu literature in-depth". Several American scholars preceded her, including one of her PhD advisers at U. Penn, W. Norman Brown - one of the pioneering and renowned American Indologists).

Anyway, in the quote you provide from Miller above, she is talking about the believed 1000BC dating of the Kurukshetra War, and not the composition of the Gita; this should be clear from the words "taken place" (as opposed to "written in") in the quote. Let me quote from the Introduction of her translation of The Bhagavad-Gita (page 3), to make this case unarguably clear:

Most scholars agree that the Mahabharata was composed over the centuries between 400 B.C. and A.D. 400. ... As the tradition was taken over by storytellers and intellectuals, many sorts of legends myths and speculative thoughts were absorbed, including the Bhagavad Gita, which belongs to that layer of the epic which took form around the first century AD.

So yes, there is a case for extending the dating range for the Gita but based on Miller (and Wolpert) it would be more in the direction of 1st c AD rather than 11th c BC. PS You shouldn't misattribute the quote by T.R. Anantharaman to Peter Koslowski. Abecedare (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead image

I was planning to replace the current lead image with this one: File:Arjuna and His Charioteer Krishna Confront Karna.jpg ; IMO, this image looks more vibrant, and encyclopedia. I have included the 2 images below for comparison:

Krishna, Arjuna at Kurukshetra, 18-19 th century painting. ( Current painting )

Arjuna and Krishna confront Karna ..... ( New painting )

I would like others' opinions before making this change. Thanks --Nvineeth (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the new image but am neutral to its use in this article lead because, (1) it is a better depiction for the Kurukshetra war than BG, (2) it should ideally be displayed at a 300+ pixel size since it's many figures are hard to see at default size, and this is not a real possibility in the lede. Ideally we want a lead image specifically showing Krishna explaining the BG lessons to Arjuna - such images are pretty common in Indian art, but I haven't found any in PD yet. Abecedare (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The new image shows Arjuna and His Charioteer Krishna Confront Karna, a later event. The current image shows Krishna sounding the Shankha and declaring war, an event at the end of/ just after the Gita when Arjuna is ready for war. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There are File:Bhagvad Gita.jpg and File:FeteVarkala.jpg, but they are not 2-dimensional. There are also File:GitaUpadeshTirumala.jpg and File:Hitopadesha.jpg which are similar (one of them is used in the article), so not sure if we can use the other as well. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with abecedares' and redtiger's analysis above; But I still feel that the current painting does not do justice to the glory of the Gita , will continue to look for better ones! --Nvineeth (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

On closer scrutiny, not only the the lead painting but also the others - 1. Arjuna choosing Krishna and 2. Krishna displaying his Vishvarupa - seem to be inappropriate for the Bhagvad-Gita page for the following reasons: 1.The characters in all these 18th-19th Century paintings but for Krishna are depicted in the Muslim attire, an offshoot of the prevalent Islamic art patronized in the Mugal/Muslim rule then. 2.In the Vishvarupa painting there is no room for a female as Krishna shows his divine form only to Arjuna in the battlefield of Kurukshetra. Moreover, the predominant face painted in the red, as well as the third one in the row of four, is the form of Kali, the goddess of destruction, not an appropriate depiction. Besides,I notice that in the lead painting, Arjuna's chariot is drawn by two horses while it should be drawn by four. I wish to submit a dynamic line drawing of Krishna and Arjuna in their chariot drawn by four horses with the opposing armies in the background. Perhaps, the setting is what you have in mind of it 'specifically showing Krishna explaining the BG lessons to Arjuna'. The sketch was drawn by Gopi, a well-known artist from Andhra Pradesh, India, on commission for my self-published work Bhagvad-Gita: treatise of self-help. If interested in perusing it, please let me know how to upload it. BS Murthy (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC) BS Murthy

Few Suggestions for Improvements

This is a nice article and excellent effort. Following are some improvement suggestions, offered for your consideration.

1. Many people also spell Gita as Geeta. 2. Bhakti -- There are several quotes from Gita on Lord Krishna emphasizing "devotion," but only one from Chapter 12 -- The Yoga of Devotion. It is in this chapter the "type of devotion" and the "signs of a devotee" are summarized. I suggest including some additional translated verses from this chapter in the article. 3. It should be emphasized that the knowledge in Gita must be lived to truly understand the the meaning of its verses. Bhagavad Gita is more than a book of philosophy -- It gives a way to see and unite with God. For example, "Yo maam pashyati sarvatra, sarvam cha mayi pashyati; tasyaham na padishyami .." 4. Additional quotes from prominent scientists, leaders, and scholars (Gandhi, Eienstein, Aurobindo, etc.) would be helpful. 5. There is also a school that claims that in the text form Bhagavad Gita/Mahabharata took place around 500 to 2000BC. This is grounded on the fact that Buddha appeared at the time of the decline of Hinduism, and Buddha himself is 200-500BC. While fixing the actual date is not critical (as said in the article), it is important for our children to know that that knowledge of Gita in all liklihood pre-dates works in most major religions of the world. 6. Most translations come from Prabhupada's works. It might be more balanced to include some translations from Aurobindo, Tilak, Vinoba Bhave, Jyaneshwari (which is thought as a translation of Gita), etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.16.50 (talk) 05:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the 'imbalance' cited above, truly, it is a case of repetitive references to the same author or source all over. Under the head of 'Notes', A.C. Bhakthivedanta Swamy Prabhupada's Gita figures 17 times while Nikhilananda Swamy's 4 times, Sri Aurobindo's 2 times etc. Under the 'references' section, Eswaran Eknath's Gita is referred to 4 times. These are but samples of the repetitive character of the page construct. BS Murthy (talk) 04:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC) BS Murthy

BS Murthy, It very clear that few of the sources have been overused, we can bring more balance, Larson's article[4] can be a good reference point to begin with and achieve balanced use of sources. --TheMandarin (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a welcome move, BS Murthy (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC) BS Murthy

Interpolations in BG

As User:BS Murthy and I discussed on his take page, this article is missing any discussion of opinions that BG was composed in stages, and/or has interpolated verses added to the "Ur" version. A quick survey finds that (as expected) there are several different models for the development of BG, and identification of the later verses. Some references on the topic (in roughly chronological order):

• Humboldt, On the episode of the Mahabharata known by the name Bhagavad-Gitā, 1825
• Otto, Rudolf, The original Gita: the song of the supreme exalted one, 1939
• Khair, G.S, Quest for the original Gita, 1969
• Sinha, Phulgenda, The Gita as it was: Rediscovering the original Bhagavadgita, 1987
• Yardi, M.R., The Bhagavadgītā, as a synthesis, 1991 (Issue 25 of Bhandarkar oriental series)

Haven't looked up these works yet, and for now am just listing references that may be useful. I think a sentence or two on this topic can be added to the Date and text section of the article; will make a concrete proposal once I have read some more on the topic. In the meantime, comments and suggestions are welcome. Abecedare (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It's may also worth noting that there is diversity of scholarly opinion about related issues. For example, in Larson's (1982) paper in Philosophy East and West (see full citation in article), he notes that Van Buitenen, whose translation he says "will be appreciated by the most accomplished Sanskritist and will be intelligible even to beginning students" (p. 520), believed that the Gita emerged out of the Mahabharata. I reproduce Larson's full paragraph below, not to imply that it deserves that much space in the article, but as a resource in case others lack access to the journal article:

Though [his Gita translation is] being published separately from the larger epic project, van Buitenen asserts that the Gita is best construed as an integral part of the epic. He challenges the traditional view that the Gita is an interpolation in the epic, arguing instead, that the text was composed by the original epic author(s) as a meditation on the deeper implications of the epic narrative. Moreover, he argues that the Gita emerges naturally within the larger narrative of the Bhisma-parvan, and documents his view by including several chapters in the epic that precede the usual eighteen Gita chapters. He also includes the chapter that follows the Gita narrative in the epic. When stylistically presented in this larger environment, van Buitenen's contention that the Gita is an authentic part of the original epic becomes quite convincing. More than that, the reader begins to understand that the Gita is much more than a religious dialogue between two remarkable characters. One begins to realize that the Gita is a broad cultural discussion involving the fundamental values and basic identity of an entire civilization. (Larson, p. 528)

(JSTOR link to Larson's article is HERE) -- Health Researcher (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

Brokington (The Sanskrit epics, Part 2 pp. 267-70) provides a good review of the various opinions in the field. He doesn't cite Buitenen per se, but Buitenen viewpoint is represented (see discussion on Paul Oltaramare's views). This may be good single source to cite for our article, but I'll look around/wait to see if something better is found. Abecedare (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It may be noted that while postulating nishkaama karma, the theory of disinterested action, Krishna is critical of the ritualistic aspects of and expectations from the Vedas (s42 - 45 and s53 of ch.2.). Indeed, the guiding philosophy of the Gita is all about action, pure and simple, to tend one on the path of duty without attachment. As against this in an apparent U-turn in s9-s16 of ch.3 that formulate the procedural aspects of the rituals and the divine backing they enjoy.

What about the first of the caste-oriented precepts in the Gita - chaatur varnyam mayaa srustam s13,ch.4? The plain reading of this sloka would have us believe that the Lord Himself created the four-caste system, of Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Sudra, to suit the inclinations of a given soul towards certain earmarked calling of social and spiritual life in this world. And then, as a rider that is vague at the very best; Lord Krishna supposedly said that though He is the author of it all, He should not be deemed as the doer.

It is imperative that we try to see whether these solkas belong to the original text, or are mere later day insertions, meant to sanctify the Aryan caste credo with the underpinning of 'exclusivity of duties' through the venerated Gita. It should not be lost on one that s11’s return of favour by the Lord is juxtaposing to the stated detachment of His as espoused in s14. On the other hand, s12 that is akin to s20, ch.7, itself an interpolation, and s13 do not jell with the spirit of the philosophy.

One school of thought tends to view chaatur varnyam as a way of general differentiation amongst men. However, this would not cut much ice since common sense suggests that Lord Krishna would have been aware that this turn of phrase is likely to be viewed in caste colours rather than in general terms. That being the case, the Lord would have been circumspect in his word choices to convey his scheme of things governing man’s birth if they aren’t as narrow as the Aryan caste system propounds. Or is the chaatur varnyam His real will, whether one likes it or not? The answer could be found in the Lord's averments as one reads on. The four types of beings the Lord identifies by their nature and disposition are - the virtuous, the vile, the passionate and the deluded. Isn’t the proposition that people of a given nature and disposition could be bracketed into one single caste so absurd? After all, even a given family provides many shades of human nature in its members, won’t it? That being the case, could Krishna be so naive as not to know about it! Above all, hasn't He declared in s 29 ch.9, ‘None I favour, slight I none / Devout Mine all gain Me true’.

In s 32,ch.7, it is stated that women, Vaisyas and Sudras could win His favour through devotion, sounding as if they are all in an inferior league. Leave aside the Lord's averment in many a context in this text that the Supreme Spirit lies in all beings, it is specifically stated in s34 of ch.10 that He symbolizes all that is glorious in woman. Given this, and the background of the interpolations, s32 surely is a case of trespass. S33 of this chapter is but a jointing medium of the said obnoxious verse and in itself is patronizing in nature towards the virtuous Brahmans and thus is an interpolation. BS Murthy (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC) BS Murthy

The original Bhagvad-Gita, according to Otto Rudolf, is a ‘fragment of the most magnificent epic narrated’ and comprised of the entire ch1; ch.2. 1-13, 20, 22, 29-37; ch10. 1-8; c.h11. 1-6,8-12,14,17,19-36,41-51 and Ch.18 58-61,66,72-73. The reminder of the current version of the text, he argued, was the result of a series of interpolations, identified as such by their failure to address Arjuna’s immediate situation and by their doctrinal nature, included in order to accord divine authority to various ideas. [pages 46 and 47 of Catherine A. Robinson’s ‘Interpretations of the Bhagavad-Gita and Images of Hindu Tradition – The song of the Lord’ accessible by Google’s Book Search’ BS Murthy (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC) BS Murthy

Phulgenda Sinha in his ‘the Gita as it was – rediscovering the Original Bhagvadgita’, (accessible by Google’s Book search) opined that while ch.4 – 18 were later day additions to the original Gita, 36 verses out of 47 in ch.1, 30 out of 72 in ch.2 and 12 out of 43 in ch.3 were but interpolations (details on pages 131 -138).

In the same book, at page 64, it is stated that ‘since Gandhi considered himself a devout follower of the Gita and called it My Mother, his observation about it are very significant. Gandhi said, ‘there are many things in that poem that my poor understanding cannot fathom. There are in it many things which are obvious interpolations. It is not a treasure chest. It is a mine which needs to be explored, which needs to be dug deep from which diamonds have to be extracted after removing much foreign matter.’ BS Murthy (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC) BS Murthy

Gandhi was talking about the Mahabharata, not the Gita. I appreciate with and agree with the sentiments of BS Murthy that we should make sure to give WP:DUE coverage to scholarly questioning of the Gita's apparent acceptance of the caste system. Perhaps there will also be other interesting quotes from Gandhi that can be appropriately brought in, to that effect (e.g., his wholehearted rejection and opposition to the caste system in the latter part of his life -- surely he must have found ways to interpret his Gita consistent with that). However, the above quote from Gandhi does not seem to serve the purpose, because it is referring to the Mahabharata rather than the Gita. More specifically, the above quote from Gandhi can be found in volume 31, page 373 of his collected works (electronic version), and is from Young India, May 21, 1925. However, looking at the full quote shows clearly that he is talking about the Mahabharata, and therefore there is no reason to believe his statement about "interpolations" is referring to material from the Gita, rather than some other part of the Mahabharata:

Krishna failed to do nothing he wished to do, so says the author of the Mahabharata. He was omnipotent. It is futile to drag Krishna from His heights. If he has to be judged as a mere mortal, I fear He will fare badly and will have to take a back seat. Mahabharata is neither fiction nor history commonly so called. It is the history of the human soul in which God as Krishna is the chief actor. There are many things in that poem that my poor understanding cannot fathom. There are in it many things which are obvious interpolations. It is not a treasure chest. It is a mine which needs to be explored, which needs to be dug deep and from which diamonds have to be extracted after removing much foreign matter. (CW, v31, p. 373; YI, 21 May 1925)

Perhaps Phulgenda Sinha did not do his scholarship carefully enough on this matter. Regards -- Health Researcher (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support for space in WP to highlight the interpolations in the Gita. It may be noted that in ‘the Gita as it was – rediscovering the Original Bhagvadgita’ by Phulgenda Sinha at page 65, the origin of the said Gandhi quote is referred to as – M.K. Gandhi The Teaching of the Gita ( Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1962) p.6, the original appears in Young India: May 21,1928 under the heading Neither Fiction nor History” BS Murthy (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC) BS Murthy

Well, the amount of space that is appropriate to describe theories of interpolation depends on many factors, and may be larger or smaller. If there are indeed serious scholars (e.g., van Buitenen and/or others) who argue against interpolations, then WP's role is not to state the existence of interpolations as a fact, but rather to describe different points of view according to WP:DUE. With regard to Gandhi quotes, his collected works may be viewed online HERE. The search function doesn't always work very well, but one can look at particular dates, e.g., 1925 in vols 30-33, or 1928 in vols 41-43). Health Researcher (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The argument is not against Van Buitenen's assertion that the Gita is best construed as an integral part of Mahabharata and not as an interpolation in the epic. It is about the interpolations in the Gita per se as propounded by many a scholarly work referenced for discussion at the beginning and highlighted by me in the foregoing. All the works on the Gita accessible through Wikipedia are the ones that carry all the 700 verses and if only the body of work highlighting the interpolations finds its due place in it with appropriate references, it might help the discerning readers to take their own call on the same. My article ‘Mundane distortions in the Divine discourse' available in two parts at advaita.org.uk is intended to take the dormant issue forward. BS Murthy (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC) BS Murthy

Wish it is taken forward to its logical conclusion BS Murthy (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)BS Murthy

Wiki lede policy WP:LS

The recent addition of the following text to the lede in not in line with Wiki lede policy WP:LS "...as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article."

"The direct audience to Lord Krishna’s discourse of the Bhagawata Gita included Arjuna (addressee), Sanjay (using Divya Drishti gifted by Rishi Veda Vyasa) and Lord Hanuman (perched atop Arjuna’s chariot) and Barbarika, son of Ghatotghaj who also witnessed the complete 18 days of action at Kurukhsetra."

It just makes points that are not expanded in the body of the article. Perhaps it could be moved to another section where it is relevant? --BwB (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No quotes by converts please.

How can you add a quote from a Buddhist convert about the Bhagavad Gita, a Hindu Text? Ofcourse they will say bad things about their previous beliefs. This is 100% unfair. Wikipedia should not allow this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knewace (talk • contribs) 23:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Where? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of the Gita

My changes regarding criticism of the Gita were altered and removed from the lead under WP:Fringe [5] I'll have to disagree about WP:Fringe since there are many sources talking about the caste system in the Gita. In order to maintain an NPOV, we need a paragraph about this in the article body and a couple of brief lines in the lead mentioning this. I'll wait for responses before I add any further content. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Please quote other references, which document others who criticize the Gita on this front. Only 1 man's views were stated in the lead, which is an WP:UNDUE to the fringe theory. Note that it is moved to a later section, not entirely removed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no criticism section in this article. The lede should summarize the article. Add the criticism to the article fitrst. If it becomes a stable, consensus addition, eventually a mention could be added to the lede. Not now though. I agree with Redtigerxyz's edit. If you want to add well-sourced criticism to the article, we can change the 'influence' section to 'reception' maybe. — goethean ॐ 19:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The contents of 'interpolations in BG' in the preceding columns may be relevant to the discussion. The caste-oriented interpolative verses in the Gita were identified in my Bhagbvad-Gita: treatise of self-help'sans 110 interpolations, which can be found at Vedanta Spiritual Library on their website. BS Murthy (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC) BS Murthy

It's disappointing that Abecedare's initiative to put the Gita text in its proper perspective finds itself in the cold-storage. BS Murthy BS Murthy (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Plagairized Lede

The entire lede of this article is plagairized, word for word, from the Amazon.com product description. [http://www.amazon.com/Bhagavadgita-Madhusudana-Sarasvati/dp/8175051949] Fladrif (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It may be the other way round. If go through the history of the article, the lead is constructed by many editors - each adding a sentence or two with a reference, not 1 editor copy-pasting the whole lead. How is it possible so many editors copy-pasted single sentences from the site and searched for references for that sentence in other books?? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You might be right Red. --BwB (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We should bring this to the attention of Amazon staff. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yoga section contains spurious material

This is incorrect as no stages are mentioned in the Gita. This implies Brahma Nirvanam (mentioned in several locations) is just a stage and requires two other levels of realization for Moksha! It soulds very Hare Krishna like, and plese remove such unsubstantiated material.

There are three stages to self-realization enunciated from the Bhagavad Gita:

1.Brahman - The impersonal universal energy 2.Paramatma - The Supreme Soul sitting in the heart of every living entity. 3.Bhagavan - God as a personality, with a transcendental form.

Earlier on in the article, there is a mention of Krishna calling himself Swayam Bhagavan, which is incorrect too. That text is from the Bhagavatam and not the Gita. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.237.205 (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Is Krishna 'Swayam Bhagwan' or an avatar of Vishnu (Para Brahman)?

The Wikipedia article says that in the Gita, Krishna reveals himself to be 'Swayam Bhagwan'. But Chapter 16 of the Mahabharata (of which 'Bhagwad Gita' is an integral part) is called Mausala Parva, that is infighting between members of the Yadava clan with maces, which leads to their destruction. On seeing this, Krishna knew that the purpose of his birth was accomplished (the reason for which He had entered the mortal world in a mortal form). And Krishna departed the mortal world in Chapter 16 of the Mahabharata (following which the Pandavas also began their ascension towards the heavens). If Krishna really is the Supreme Being (Swayam Bhagwan), and not an avatar of Vishnu (as is popularly perceived), doesn't the Mahabharata contradict itself? I mean, how can 'Swayam Bhagwan' depart the world? Isn't He supposed to be immortal? Thanks. 59.184.181.84 (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggest checking at the reference desk... or your local temple. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

We're missing Paramanhansa Yogananda's text

I've read dozens of translations and renditions. Yogananda's reveals what the Sanskrit names mean. It's not unique, but it is comprehensive and -- to me -- the most easily understood. 68.81.75.171 (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC) i think the geetha can lead kindly for human biengs but lot of thems are not understood deeply why? we know the lot of other religions like muslim and cristians have good knowledge from thier holy books why geetha is not like this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.97.92.37 (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Reads like a promotional

The following is from the article introduction:

"It's philosophies and insights are intended to reach beyond the scope of religion and to humanity as a whole . It is at times referred to as the "manual for mankind" and has been highly praised by not only prominent Indians such as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi but also Aldous Huxley, Albert Einstein, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Carl Jung and Herman Hesse.[1][2] It is considered among the most important texts in the history of literature and philosophy."

This reads like a promotional that belongs in the dust jacket or a book review rather than in an encyclopedia. I checked the Bible and Qu'ran & Torah and didn't find anything similar. Perhaps this belongs in a praises section? Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr gavin (talk • contribs) 19:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Nazis

How about the fact that Himmler, widely thought of as principal architect of the Holocaust, is said to have carried the Gita with him at all times, and that the text has elsewhere too had direct influence on the Nazi movement? These facts seem to me of primary interest. Of course, one is free to dispute their interpretations, etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.79.144 (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If you are proposing an addition to this article, the guidelines linked to at the top of this page will need to be meet. Including verifiable citations from reliable sources. This information might be better presented in one of the articles about the Nazis, or Himmler, with links in the /* See Also */ sections of this and related articles. This encyclopedia tries not to duplicate information across articles. Lentower (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)