More Truths About the Bhagavad Gita
Editor’s note: Prof. Kumar’s article continues exposing the BG for what it is, as Dr. Kamath has done here on Nirmukta.
Let me assume hypothetically that Mahabharat is real history and Krishna was a god in human form :
Gitopadesh and Reality check
When we discuss the Gita, the thing that strikes us at the outset is that the occasion and place for preaching of the Gita was highly inappropriate for such a philosophical discourse. When armies are standing in array on the battlefield with the chariot horses and elephants straining at their reins, we cannot believe that anyone could think of preaching deep philosophy, and that too at such length.
The Gita consists of about 700 stanzas which are difficult to understand without suitable explanation. Let us assume that the recitation and explanation of each stanza took at least one minute ( Chinmayananda took 30 minutes for this), which is by no means an estimate on the high side. In that case, it would have taken 700 minutes or more than 11 hours for a complete exposition of the entire text, by which time the entire battle would have been lost.
One can believe that Krishna gave some advice to convince Arjuna to fight, but preaching on the battlefield a philosophy extending over eighteen chapters strains our credulity to the limit.
Validity of Krishna’s arguments
Let us look at the arguments advanced by Krishna to convince Arjuna to wage war against his cousins and elders, and take a look at the logical and moral disputations.
In the first argument, Krishna explains the nature of Atman (soul). He says that atman is neither born nor does it die– it is unborn, everlasting, immutable and primeval. It is not killed, though the body is killed. Just as a man casts off old clothes and puts on new ones, so does atman cast off an old body and becomes united with a new one. As for the body, Krishna says that it is inherently mortal, non-permanent, destructible, and will come to an end if not today, then tomorrow or after a 100 years. As atman definitely acquires another body in accordance with its previous actions (reincarnation theory), it is not proper to lament the loss of the old body. In other words, since Bhishma’s (or for that matter anyone else’s) soul cannot be killed, there is absolutely no harm in killing him.
Disputation : If this be so, then a muder should no longer be considered a crime–it is only an act of liberating the soul from the clutches of the vile body. If atman is immortal and the body comes to an end sooner or later, does it justify our killing other persons ? It is true that the Kauravas would have died their natural deaths some day, but that could not be a justification for Arjuna to kill them today.
His second argument is that Arjuna is a Kshatriya and it is his caste duty to fight, in keeping with the principle of Karmayoga.
Disputation : Does this mean that a kshatriya should necessarily fight even when there is no valid cause for doing so ? Unless the fighting is justified, a kshatriya is certainly not required to fight other people, especially his kith & kin.
The third argument given in sloka 35 of chapter 11 is : ” All masters of the great chariots will think that you withdrew from the battle on account of fear and those by whom you are highly thought of today, will hold you in less esteem. Also your enemies, seeing your weakness will speak much about you that should not be spoken. What can be more painful than that ?”
Disputation : The opinion of other people is not a valid reason for a man to fight. Moral courage lies in defying such opinions if they are wrong. If the soul is everything and the rest is ‘maya’ , why is it that such an illusionary thing as a warrior’s reputation becomes the only real thing worth saving !
The fourth argument is that ” If you get killed you will go to heaven, if victorious, you will enjoy on earth. Therefore, arise, o ! Arjuna and determine to do battle”.
Disputation : This kind of argument is an encouragement for adventurers and soldiers of fortune to kill other people for the sake of land and property, but not an encouragement for just and honest people to fight.
Conclusion : Thus we see that none of the above arguments are logically valid or morally sound. Arjuna should not have yielded for the sake of worldly pleasures, to commit the heinous sin of killing his kinsmen.
Battle of Kurukshetra. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kurukshetra.jpg
Did Krishna & Pandava brothers practice the principle of desireless action themselves ?
Everybody talks about the stanza no. 47 in chapter 2 :
Karmanye vadhikarasthe ma phaleshu kadachana
Ma karma phala heturbhu mathe sangosova akarmani
Meaning : To action alone you have a right, and never at all to its fruits ; Let not the fruits of action be your motive, Neither let there be in you any attachment to inaction.
Let us see how far the Pandavas and Krishna himself acted on this principle of desireless action. Did not the Pandavas, with the help of Krishna, fight with the desire to vanquish and kill their enemies ?
1. If they did not desire ardently to kill Dronacharya, why did they ask Yudhishtir to lie about the death of Dronacharya’s son “Ashwathama” ?
2. Why did Krishna by deceit make Jayadrath think that the sun had set and thus put him off his guard, and then shoot him with an arrow ?
3. Bhishma was killed because he would not fight Shikandi, who was born a female and later became a man and Arjuna sheltering himself behind Shikandi shot Bhishma in such an unchivalrous manner.
Were all these actions performed in a desireless manner regardless of the fruit of their actions ? Did practice follow precept ? Or, is it that Gods and the people blessed by Gods can do whatever they want with impunity, and do not have to practice what they themselves preach ?
So you can all see why the BG is immoral even if it is history and just BS !!!
Conclusion :
Then there is the small matter of the truth of it all. Was there a god in the shape of Krishna and was there a Mahabharat war and were all those people real people ? Very doubtful. It belongs to the genre of Panchatantra/Jataka tales, Aesop’s fables, Anderson’s fairy tales or Harry Porter’s escapades. Fun to read may be, but not to be taken seriously. I say this although I belong to a family of priestly brahmins who believe that Gita is a holy scripture and is infallible.
Related posts:
This post was written by:
V.N.K. Kumar - who has written 4 posts on Nirmukta.
He is a Management Trainer & consultant. Has degrees in Engineering & Management. He is a Secular Humanist. Born 1938.
Subscribe to RSS
Follow us on twitter
Follow us on facebook
Flickr
Youtube
here, we can’t consider any physical unit to measure anythng like how mch time they took for conversation.. Because this all are relative unit… We only can measure through comparison..
Krsna is absolute.. It doesnt affect by dis relative units..
And dis was on transindental platform..
Krsna says ”’bhaktyama’m abhijanati” only devotee can understand me,, through devotional sevice…
Hare krsna..!
Here is on of the best Sufi story: The philosophers, logicians and doctors of law were drawn up at court to examine Mulla Nasrudin. This was a serious case, because he had admitted going from village to village saying: ”The so-called wise men are ignorant, irresolute and confused.” He was charged with undermining the security of the state.
”You may speak first,” said the King.
”Have paper and pens brought,” said the Mulla.
Paper and pens were brought.
”Give some to each of the first seven savants.”
They were distributed.
”Have them write separately an answer to this question:
’What is bread?’”
This was done. The papers were handed to the King, who read them out:
The first said: ”Bread is a food.”
The second: ”It is flour and water.”
The third: ”A gift of God.”
The fourth: ”Baked dough.”
The fifth: ”Changeable, according to how you mean ’bread’.”
The sixth: ”A nutritious substance.”
The seventh: ”Nobody really knows.”
”When they decide what bread is,” said Nasruddin, ”It will be possible for them to decide other things.
Such stories are a perfect example of religious/mystical thinking. They almost always involve parables which seem plausible at first, but upon close examination are really playing upon the human mind’s tendency to quickly form conclusions. When such stories are closely examined, it becomes lucid that it was really just an argument over definitions. Those who know better will dissolve definitions instead of wasting time over “profound” questions like If a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it, does it make a sound?
So, the proper response to the mulla would have been – If bread is X1, then Y1. If bread is X2, then Y2 and so on. You can’t ask a loaded question and then expect a single answer. That is being intellectually dishonest.
Your Sufi story reminds me of the 19th century poet John Godfrey Saxe’s “Six blind men of Hindustan”, a parable to mock theological dispute. Are you by any chance alluding that Bhagavad Gita is like the “Bread” in the sufi tale which everyone can see but still cannot arrive at one opinion about it or it is like an “elephant” which nobody has seen and people appraising the truth of it are like the six blind men, who are not able to see the composite whole ? Or is it that everybody have their own idea of God whom nobody has seen but even then try to concoct their own philosophy of God, who is basically incomprehensible to humans. I am perplexed.
Gita should be seen in the right perspective. Why not consider that as a psychological counselling to a person deluded by a mind full of confusion. Gita invariably stress more on duty and advice us to be away from infallible worship which makes no sense. The Bhakti yoga is only to initiate the common man into the philosophical plane of logical reasoning and elevating the mind to a rationl plane where you and me can transcend beyond images, and the chaturvarnas. Let us not be pseudo intellectuals.
1. If you are assuming Krishna as God, then the principles of time & space would be different while Gitopadesh was taking place. Hence, your argument about 11 hours can be refuted.
2. ‘Dharma’ is peaceful co-existence of all ‘Jivas’ with justice to all. Mahabharat was fought to establish Dharma. Pandavas & Kauravas were warriors. Murderers are not warriors. Hence, Gita does not justify murder.
3. Krishna convinces Arjuna through Gita that this fight is for Dharma. Arjuna found the right reason to fight after Gitopadesh.
4. The desire with which Gitopadesh took place was justice. Krishna seeked justice. He resort to unfair means (sam-dam-dand-bhed) only because the opponents were equally powerful.
I think Gita is a highly philosophical text & till now many interpretations have evolved. But none can claim that they have understood the true essence of Gita. Hence, one cannot call this scripture moral/immoral if you do not know the ultimate answer. I do not justify caste system or superstitions, but that is just one part. Please do not come to a conclusion by judging a part of it.
That is a deepity. You can never get ‘all’ to agree to the same meaning of justice. That is the greatest fraud that religion pulls. Based on scriptural/’revealed’/'enlightened’ authority, it dictates what is justice for all. A rational moral system makes its assumptions known upfront and then builds arguments upon them. It accepts that the assumptions can be wrong and has provisions to handle cases where assumptions are found to be wrong. Since your points 2, 3, and 4 build on faulty premises, they are not valid.
The true essence of Gita is what an authority figure(s) who hold sway over a large number of people can dictate to the people. Assuming that there some objective true essence that can be known by knowing the ultimate answer is ridiculous because it involves the same fraud as I mentioned above.
Well, I do not believe in God. But I do believe that all Hindu scriptures were written with a deeper meaning. I respect that and do not oppose believers.
Atheism is when you believe that God does not exist. It does not mean attacking those who believe in God. As a person who stumbled upon your site for the first time, I was disappointed to find that there is no content on your site ‘Promoting Science and Freethought’, all content is attacking Hindu religion. If that is your agenda, kindly do not mislead people with your tagline. As highly educated and experienced people, you all should give serious thought to what you really want to achieve with this website.
Thanks.
Ah, concern trolling. We’ve seen that before.
//As a person who stumbled upon your site for the first time, I was disappointed to find that there is no content on your site ‘Promoting Science and Freethought’//
If it is Science you are looking for, do check out the following:
http://nirmukta.com/complexity-explained-the-complete-series-by-dr-vinod-wadhawan/
http://nirmukta.com/minds-matter-the-neurobiological-basis-of-behavior/
Satish ji why it is assumed that 700 stranzas can take 11hrs?? reading gita takes 1-2hrs hardly..
You are free to speed-read. However, 1-2 hours seem hardly sufficient if you listen to the verses chanted in a fairly orthodox style as they are here (Check out the section ‘Audio Bhagavad-Gita in SANSKRIT’). In a couple of hours, you would be barely past Chapter 9, unless of course you are sounding the words to yourselfbreathlessly.
He’s a troll. Ignore him.
Arvind ji
700 stranzas are written by Vyasa so its clear that he has expanded them and divided them in chapters. (that is why name of chapter at the end) So Krishna may have finished his advice in 1-2 hrs.
out of 700 stranza– total 650 are by Krishna and Arjuna so even if they are as it is they can be finished in 2-3 hrs
Satish ji
Please give me name of or list of books criticizing Gita only.
Nirupam,
Assuming that you genuinely want to know the counter-argument for Bhagavad Gita, I am giving you the details of just one book which might be of interest to you.
“The truth about the Gita” by V.R.Narla, published by Prometheus Books, Paperback, Aug 2010.
Kumar ji,
Thank you.
would like to know if there are other book as such also.
Nirupam,
There might be many books which I am unaware of. But one book which I liked was this :
” The Bhagavad Gita : A Rational Enquiry” by Prof. B.V. Veerabhadrappa, Navakarnataka Publications private limited, Embassy Centre, Crescent Road, Bangalore 560001. 192 pp, paperback, 2004.
Incidentally, Mahatma Gandhi was an admirer of BG. But while having philosophical debates with intellectuals like GORA ( G. Ramachandra Rao, an atheist from Vijayawada whom Gandhi loved very much) he would admit that Gita was composed and incorporated into the epic to depict not the war that was fought in the outside world, but to dwell on the inner moral conflict that goes on in the deeper consciousness of every man at all times between the good and the bad, in a metaphorical form, against the backdrop of the war.
Ambedkar has shown that these are stories purposefully woven to spread and put a official stamp on chaturvarna.
I agree with you. Though born into a Brahmin family, I have outgrown long ago all those prejudices in favour of Religion and against the caste system.
I believe that everyone in the human society should have all the attributes of all the 4 broad categories of castes, as defined by Manu. We should have the interest to achieve & maintain physical fitness through proper diet & exercise and feel duty bound and have the courage to physically protect the people who are dependent on us, just like the Kshatriyas of earlier times. We should have the entrepreneurial skills of producing food and other requirements of mankind and marketing it like the Vysyas. These days it would mean holding a job and earning a livelihood for oneself and ones family. We should have a commitment to learning & teaching like the Brahmins, which nowadays would mean teaching professional skills to our subordinates as a mentor in an organization or teaching proper values to our children. We should have the service mentality of the shudras doing our alloted duties without a grouse. These days it would mean identifying with the superordinate goals of your organization and doing your mite to fulfill them.
In other words all of us should have the attributes of all the chaturvarnas. This is my definition of a complete and balanced personality.
Sorry for the syntactic error. In my above comment, the first line should read as ” …. I have outgrown long ago all those prejudices in favour of Religion and against the so-called lower castes”.
Historically seen, Gita clearly antedates Mahabharata by several centuries. It was inserted into the story perhaps during 1 – 2 century AD and composed by at least 3 different authors, primarily to counter the rapidly spreading Buddhism in India. Buddhism attracted the depressed sections of the society and debunked the vedic karma kanda. It contains all the philosophies prevalent at that time including the Buddhist, but only to debunk them at the end and asks for total surrender to the almighty as the best path. It also clearly authorizes the vexed Caste system for all time to come. It is sad that millions of Indians believe in its teachings without understanding its background.
It is gratifying to see that there are concordant sane voices like yours over and above the discordant cacophonies. Perhaps you could, in your free time, write a brief essay on this for this site, to supplement & complement Dr. Kamath’s articles.
Come on!!
See, BG is an epic poem written over a period of time, actually extending over more than 100 years. Its a religious philosophy with full of metaphors. Other than that, I do not know who would believe those poem was actual description of an incident ?
I think people just believe in belief that it was actual story, but majority never ever thought how, and where it was happened.
But you are making more ridicule by explaining what if’s and disputation.
These are easy disputation, anyone can argue at high school level.
I suggest Nirmuktha should concentrate on disputing the philosophy itself. Dispute the philosophy on its face values.
Or may be these are big thing for lot, but not for me.
This is how I think, first I try to argue for their side, then I can understand what they are telling, then I will dispute them. One eg is, the concept of Atma, I try to substantiate it, then I understood what they really mean by Atma is Consciousness.
But, Psychology and Neuroscience has lot of good findings and explanation for Consciousness.
From this, I understand what they misunderstood about the Universe and I learned myself as well.
So, I expect Nirmuktha to write more mature stuff, not high school disputing club, well, may be I am not thinking like common, but commons out numbered me in this planet, on that one Nirmuktha might have a point, explaining things like teaching to the kids.
The philosophical shortcomings of the Gita are mentioned in this series and also in other articles by Dr. Kamath. You will find more short comings in the comments here below. Ignorance is no excuse for smugness. Nor does it make anyone of us take your gratuitous advice seriously, especially when it comes from someone who probably has contributed nothing to the freethought community other than to troll.
When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous,” said Albert Einstein.
You comment is completely irrelevant because it is an argument from authority (That is assuming Einstein actually said that, as opposed to an apologist manufacturing that quote).
“……During the youthful period of mankind’s spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man’s own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.
Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?”
– Albert Einstein. From Science, Philosophy & Religion, a symposium, published by the conference on Science, Philosophy & Religion in their relation to the Democratic way of life, New York, 1941.
My question is : Could this Einstein be the same person who said what he is supposed to have said about Bhagavad Gita ? Everyone knows that Einstein believed in pantheism, which is holding the universe, life & consciousness in awe & admiration and trying to increase one’s knowledge about these through scientific research.
actually einstein got inspiration from gita…..
“i have made the bhagavad gita as the main source of my inspiration and guidance for the purpose of scientific investigations and formulations of my theory”-albert einstein……….. this is not a myth …its true…
otherwise how can great people like einstein and many others.read it . if gita is religious sentimental book ..