Organized Religion

More Truths About the Bhagavad Gita

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.

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

Battle of Kurukshetra. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kurukshetra.jpg

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.

About the author

V.N.K. Kumar

He is a Management Trainer & consultant. Has degrees in Engineering & Management. He is a Secular Humanist. Born 1938.

125 Comments

  • Sorry to tell you that i am a little disappointed. This sounds like childish to me. You are trying to invalidate a literary work, with reason and facts, that’s really childish. Don’t think that i am a preacher or some fanatic BG fan. The work, BG,is philosophical, it mirrors the philosophy and moral values of that time, which is totally different from now. When you attack a scripture as old as BG you have to take into consideration a lots of other variables, like societal structure, values etc.. which are totally different from us.There are so many childish sides to your views for eg: “Unless the fighting is justified, a kshatriya is certainly not required to fight other people, especially his kith & kin.” Kshatriyas are mainly kings and land lords so it is their duty to protect the land, property, pride and of course people. In this case everyone knows “Duryodhana” was an evil man, so it is common sense that people dislike him. And as he was the next king, all the good men would have to take his order or else it would be called as treason, just like today (doesn’t matter govt is good or bad). So there is no problem in fighting him.
    What i want to say is no point in arguing against some philosophical scripture. We won’t gain anything by disproving it. People believe it, let them we can’t force anyone and can’t blackwash any theory or views for that matter. So it is our turn to make much more clear, reasonable and stable version of an atheist framework, which would be more acceptable to the common man. It should be standalone, means it shouldn’t loose its importance and relevance even this older views cease to exist. We can’t be parasitical.

    • @Sujith,

      Yes, I agree that there is no point in analyzing a story/philosophy that is not from this time. But BG has a profound influence on Hindus till date.

      Most hindus beleive it to be the words of Krishna and not just mere literary work – that is the problem. The castes, the justification for killing, and trying to do only your duty are followed religiously. There are some valid logical questions that will arise if only we look at it outside the garb of faith.

  • I agree with Sujith. It does not make any sense to say that Krishna preached the philosophy of the BG for more than 11 hours. One must see it as a story, a literary work, not as something that has actually happened. I agree with what is said about the third argument. Just like what Sujith told, don’t think I am a BG fan.
    Attitudes like these are major reasons why atheists are hated around the world. I think atheists should be more open minded, not for gaining public’s approval, but for their personal good because I think that one’s mind is more healthy if one is able to accept anything with all its limitations rather than finding all the faults with it and rejecting everything in the society.

    • I guess both you and Sujith missed the note at the beginning of the article:

      Let me assume hypothetically that Mahabharat is real history and Krishna was a god in human form :

      If you know that Mahabharat is just a story, good. But there are religious people who believe that Mahabharat really happened. So now, please tell me, given such people, is pointing out logical absurdities so wrong? Or is it that you still are biased towards Hinduism, and hence are talking from your bias against people who point out such absurdities?

      It is easy to preach what atheists should do when rationalists of the past have worked very hard to show the stupidities of scripture. If they hadn’t, it is quite likely that you and me would have believed that Mahabharat is true history.

      • You are right. Its important to point out that its just a story made as a framework for giving out that philosophy. Don’t get me wrong friend, I am not at all biased towards Hinduism. I just wanted to point out that there everything has many sides and nothing is completely senseless. And yes, I admit I missed the note at the beginning of the article.

      • one thing i want to share with you
        my grand ma fell down from 12 stairs at night because she was not able to see. and she got injured. we were praying for her death but nothing happened she was facing great pain her age was 99 years. then someone told me read bhaghwad geeta and i started reading it. i read only three or four pages i saw the pain was now receding she was feeling well now and slowly she died. that was turning point of my spritual life.
        i dont say you believe i just want to say dont judge anything good or bad…….only close eyes hold geeta in your hand and feel the power……….mahabharat war does not matter for us ………are we really following the gyaan of geeta thats matter
        thank you for reading. god bless you.

  • Author has not understood gita and Mahabharat..
    1. 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.—- there are 700 slokas and If Krishna used Sanskrit then it will take 2 hours at the most. Try reading 700 slokas at one go and check yourself.

    2.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——– This was war and in war killing is justified. Has writer read MBH carefully??? No he has not read. check how many times Kaurava tried killing Pandavas and that time Pandava did nothing to them. In battelfield what to do besides killing?? Otherwise Krishna has not justified killing. its wrong conception of author to prove it as BS.

    3. 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.—- This again shows lack of knowledge of MBH. Duryodhana was provoking pandavas for war. Pandavas only used that as last option. If brother is behind killing his brothers what wise man will do for defence??

    4.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 !—– This was just to encourage Arjuna who was asking same questions repeatatedly.

    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.—– Pandavas were never behind worldly pleasure (Read MBH). this was battle for truth. If tomorrow pakistan attacks us then we should not counter attack?? with writers logic NO as pakistanis are our old brothers only and indian land was there also 60 yrs back.

    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 ?—— Again same READ MAHABHARATAAAA.

    In short this article in BS.

    • This was war and in war killing is justified. Has writer read MBH carefully??? No he has not read. check how many times Kaurava tried killing Pandavas and that time Pandava did nothing to them. In battelfield what to do besides killing?? Otherwise Krishna has not justified killing. its wrong conception of author to prove it as BS.

      This argument shows that the idea of Atman as used by defenders of the Gita is hypocritical. If one accepts Krishna’s argument and still needs to kill people, it is no different than just needing to kill people. In short, the idea of Atman makes not a bit of difference as to what Arjuna should have done.

      This again shows lack of knowledge of MBH. Duryodhana was provoking pandavas for war. Pandavas only used that as last option. If brother is behind killing his brothers what wise man will do for defence??

      Pandavas could have just lived in another part of India and let karma take its course on the eevil Kauravas. But Panadavas had to take back what they wanted. This again shows that high talk about being detached in ones action is opportunistic at best. Rationalization allows one to explain away such acts while still holding contradictory beliefs.

      This was just to encourage Arjuna who was asking same questions repeatatedly.

      In other words, any rhetoric that gets Arjuna to do what Krishna wants to is justified.

      Pandavas were never behind worldly pleasure (Read MBH). this was battle for truth. If tomorrow pakistan attacks us then we should not counter attack?? with writers logic NO as pakistanis are our old brothers only and indian land was there also 60 yrs back.

      A freethinker knows that this life is the only one we get and there is moral justification to counter any threat that puts an end to the life. They don’t believe in nonsense like karma and maya. So there is no contradiction in a freethinker’s world-view.

      Conclusion: Dharma isn’t about being morally consistent, but is about doing what one can get away with and then dressing it up in profound sounding words.

      • >Pandavas could have just lived in another part of India and let karma take its course on the eevil Kauravas.

        Actually that is not how “karma” worked within the frame work of Mahabharat. Karma you are talking about is a mutated western version. The “good” and the “bad” karma etc.

        The war visited upon the Kauravas and the Pandavas was the fala of their karma or the fruit of their labours.

        >They don’t believe in nonsense like karma and maya

        Once again there is nothing wrong with believing in cause and effect. Karma is cause and fala is effect.

        • The war visited upon the Kauravas and the Pandavas was the fala of their karma or the fruit of their labours.

          As I said before, that is just a rationalization. Karma as an idea is so obfuscated and useless that you can invoke it to justify any act. So let me put it this way, “Had Pandavas lived in another part of India without going to war, that would have been the fruit of their labors”.

    • Consider reading the masterly introduction to his ‘transcreation’ of the Bhagavad Gita by Prof. P Lal where he acknowledges that there are real dilemmas facing even faithful readers who read this text with critical perspective. Now, Prof. Lal is certainly someone whom nobody can accuse of not having understood the Gita and Mahabharata. Quoting an objections from that introduction:

      The truth of the matter surely is that no rational refutation is possible of the essential humanist position that killing is wrong, especially when such a stand is grounded in a clean conscience and is cleanly argued. Many of the answers given by Krishna appear to be evasive and occasionally sophistic. When logic fails, Krishna apparently resorts to divine magic, to maya. The Gita is transformed from a reasoning dialogue in Cantos 1-9 to a poetic and mystical vision in Cantos 10-11. Unable to satisfy a worried warrior’s stricken conscience by rational argument, Krishna opts for the unusual – he stuns Arjuna with a glorious “revelation” of psychedelic intensity.

  • BG sounds positively inspiring, when you compare it with the Bible or Quran. The God in Bible is, as Richard Dawkins says,”… the most unpleasant character in all fiction, jealous and proud of it, petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, racist, an ethnic cleanser, urging his people on to acts of genocide.” The Quran is also known for its extremism. Compared to these two, BG is mild!

  • Dear All,

    It is proved that Mahabharata really happened. (Just Google you may find YouTube links and scientific proofs).
    Coins, battlefields, place names, archaeological founding, astrologists, destroyed underwater buildings have been verified.

    In light of date and astronomical phenomenon mentioned in MBH, scientist verified, those incidents were exactly happened. About Krishna’s birth all stars and astrological notes were found are true. So we know that MBH is a History and BG is a commentary of Krishna in light of all Vedas. However as atheist we may debate whether God exists or not? Krishna was an incarnation or just a Great Human being, having some supernatural powers?

  • Dr. Padmakar Vishnu Vartak
    Date : 13-9-2007

    Rama is a historic man and the Valmiki Ramayana is a true history.

    It was painful to read the news on 13-9-2007 that the central Govt. of India submitted an affidavit in the Supreme court that there was no historical and scientific evidence to establish the existence of Rama and the Ramayana. The Archaeological survey of India stated that the contents of the Valimiki Ramayan cannot be a historical record, because there is no proof to the characters and events, depicted therein.

    This statement is agonizing because there is ample evidence in the Valmiki Ramayana to prove that it is history. I say so because I have studied the Valmiki Ramayan for many years and have done lot of research on it.

    Valmiki was contemporary to Rama and he wrote the history. He says at 1-3-9 that he searched for the information and then wrote the history. When Seeta was abandoned by Rama, she came to Valmiki’s hermitage. Therefore Valmiki could gather a lot of information from her. In spite of this statement, if the Govt. does not want to believe, then how could it believe in the existence of Jesus and Mohamad Paigambar? Why the Govt. declared holiday on the birth date of Mohamad, which is not known to any book, historical or other.

    The Ramayana is a true history, therefore Valimiki has given 73 ancestors of Rama and recorded which Prince married which princess. The ancestry of Rama and Seeta both is recorded by Valmiki. It is not so in case of Jesus and Paigambar. Even then the Govt agrees with them and not with Rama. Why?

    If Rama was an imaginary character how should he be referred to by hundreds of books for hundreds of years? The imaginary characters are not at all referred to by other books. For example, Tarzan and Sherlock Homes are not at all referred to by other authors. The generators of those characters have not mentioned even the father and mother of their heroes. It is not the case with Rama and Seeta.

    Seeta is referred to again and again, place to place, even in Lanka, which is at least 1500 miles away from the residence of Rama and Valmiki. Many places in Shri Lanka bear the names connected to Seeta. There is a place called as ‘Diwurungaha’ in Lanka, which means the tree, where Seeta took an oath of chastity. Why all historical stories are told in Shri Lanka? Only because, they are true historical facts.

    In search of Seeta, Vanaras went to the east. Sugreeve told them to search for Seeta to the end of the east, which is demarcated by a golden, three branched, Tala tree, which shines from the top to bottom, carved on Uday Mountain. Kishkindha 40/53,54 describes this Tala tree having three branches. Valmiki wrote this true fact around 7292 years BC, and after 1965 AD such a three branched tree is discovered in the South America, on an offshoot of Mount Andes, near the Bay of Pisco. It is 820 feet tall, has three branches and it glitters like gold, when seen from the sky. Does this discovery not prove the Ramayana, authored by Valmiki, as true history? This one evidence alone is sufficient to prove the Valmiki Ramayana as true history.

    Tulasi Ramayana is not a history, it is written in devotion, 7700 years after Rama’s demise. I have proved by astronomical mathematics that Rama’s birth date is 4th

    December 7323 BC. He married to Seeta on 7th April 7307 BC. Rama was to be coroneted

    on Thursday, 29th November 7306 BC, but had to go in to exile. Rama fought with Ravana from 3rd November 7292 BC to 15th Nov. 7292 BC. On Phalgun Amavasya, on 15th

    Nov. 7292 Rama killed Ravana. Valmiki has recorded Thursday and calculations show that it was the Thursday on 29th Nov. 7306 BC. This proves the Valmiki Ramayana has a

    true history.

    Hanuman entered Lanka on1st Sept. 7292 BC and returned with information of Seeta on 3rd Sept. Rama moved his army to the south on 2nd October, reached the south sea on 22nd Oct. Nala built a temporary bridge in 5 days from 26th to 30th Oct. 7292 BC. Rama-Ravana war took place from 3rd Nov. to 15th Nov. 7292 BC. On 15th Nov. Phalguna Amavasya Rama killed Ravana. I have discovered the dates of almost 45 incidents from the Valmiki Ramayana. I used astronomy, which is a science.

    Around Delhi it is supposed that Rama killed Ravana on Vijaya Dashami; this is absolutely wrong. Valmiki has clearly stated that it was Amavasya. (Yudh 92/64)

    The Govt. depended on Archaeology, which is not a perfect science. During 1971, when I showed that Dinosaurs were present around Dwaraka during the Mahabharata era, around 5561 BC., the Archaeologist laughed at me saying the Dinosaurs never existed in India. But now existence of dinosaurs is well proved near Ahemedabad. Archaeologists did not approve my date of 5561 BC for the Mahabharata and 7323 BC for the Ramayana. They opined that there was no culture in such a remote past. But now a well-developed city is found submerged under the sea, in the Bay of Cambay, near Gujarath, which has water and drainage systems. It proves that the opinions of the Archaeological Survey are not believable.

    It is true that the Rama Setu never existed. Valmiki calls it Nala Setu, so also Vyasa in the Mahabharata calls it Nala Setu. It was erected by one engineer Nala. Valmiki has written in clear words that Nala erected the Setu using trees. Valmiki never says that the rocks floated on water. On the contrary he states that big rocks were cut with machines and thrown in to the sea, which sank and on that foundation a Setu of wood was built. Valmiki wrote a true history, but later it was perverted by devotional writings like that of Tulasidas, in the 15th century AD.

    Valmiki is keen to state the sea, there, was shallow and so boats could not go in to the sea. Today it is proved that the sea is shallow, proving the Ramayana as true history. How could Valmiki at least 1500 miles distant from the south sea write so exactly? Because he wrote history after gathering information from Hanuman, Seeta, Rama etc. Those were true characters

    The Govt should not say that the Ramayana is not a history and Rama never existed. There is no evidence to say that. BJP, VHP, and others should also not say anything untrue. Why should they say it as Rama Setu? Why should they hold that the Setu was built with stones? Why should they suppose that the stones floated on water? It is all false. Valmiki was a truth abiding sage. He wrote the truth and truth only. Hindu should stick up to the truth.

    The true fact is that there was a row of rocks, which made the sea shallow. Nala intelligently filled up the gaps in that row, with wood and made a temporary bridge. It was prepared 9299 years ago. How can it be present now? What is present is a natural row of rocks, which can be safely broken to prepare a way for ships. That way will save lot of fuel, time and money. It should be done. Nobody should oppose it and obstruct the national benefit. The Govt. too should avoid talking nonsense. The Govt. should abide by the truth. Rama was a true historic person and Valmiki has written a true history, though he used the form of poetry.

    I am ready to help the Supreme Court and the Govt. to show the truth. I have already published a book in Marathi, “Vastava Ramayana”, which shows the true historicity of the Ramayana, fixing the dates of almost 50 incidents in Rama’s life.

    • Dinosaurs in 5561 BC? This guy is in the same league as young earth creationists. And the “proof” he has for “Vastava”? Lineages and dates. One could find them in fantasy literature like the Silmarillion and The Lord Of The Rings. His other “proof” is that since it is accepted that Jesus is real, then why not Rama? The mind boggles at such ignorance.

      • Its actually Dinosaurs like creature mentioned in MBH which author is talking only one such creature is mentioned.. When MBH and Ramayana both written by different authors have Same generation history …Valimiki has given 73 ancestors of Rama and recorded which Prince married which princess ….which fictions give that much details????
        Dates are calculated from astronomical details.. read and prove them wrong and sent it to author..

        The mind boggles at such ignorance.. Biased, and close-mindedness…

          • Studies which show scientific consensus would be a starting point. Your initial post serves at best as a hypothesis. In science a good hypothesis will specify what conditions will falsify it. For example, if the hypothesis is that there is a dragon in my garage, the condition which will falsify it is – the absence of the dragon when I open the garage.

            Now your entire hypothesis is based on the assumption that authors of Ramayana and Mahabharat are speaking the truth. That hypothesis will be falsified if we include these conditions – absence of talking monkeys, 10 headed humans, flying couches, etc… But it seems like your hypothesis doesn’t even consider such things, and just assumes things are true because some lineages and dates where thrown in. Beyond that what evidence is actually there for things like talking monkeys?

          • Now your entire hypothesis is based on the assumption that authors of Ramayana and Mahabharat are speaking the truth. That hypothesis will be falsified if we include these conditions – absence of talking monkeys, 10 headed humans, flying couches, etc… But it seems like your hypothesis doesn’t even consider such things, and just assumes things are true because some lineages and dates where thrown in. Beyond that what evidence is actually there for things like talking monkeys?……… Ravana had 1 head, those monkeys where not monkeys but human only…. so the Book named ‘Vastava’ means ‘Realistic’.. as you can read above author has debunked story of rocks floating on water when Ram name was written.. as Valkimi never mentioned such stuff…Also Krishna lifted moutain.. his father travelled in river full of water… etc are completely debunked…Drapadi Vastraharan is interpolated story etc… there are many such stuff in that book… we were taught wrong ramayana, MBH thats the problem. Author has Debunked that Rama was GOD, Krishna was GOD….they where Human only people gave them respect.. Please empty your cup and Read… its good if you will not take extreme view.. Thank you

          • @Nirupam

            What is realistic about this:

            In search of Seeta, Vanaras went to the east. Sugreeve told them to search for Seeta to the end of the east, which is demarcated by a golden, three branched, Tala tree, which shines from the top to bottom, carved on Uday Mountain. Kishkindha 40/53,54 describes this Tala tree having three branches. Valmiki wrote this true fact around 7292 years BC, and after 1965 AD such a three branched tree is discovered in the South America, on an offshoot of Mount Andes, near the Bay of Pisco. It is 820 feet tall, has three branches and it glitters like gold, when seen from the sky. Does this discovery not prove the Ramayana, authored by Valmiki, as true history? This one evidence alone is sufficient to prove the Valmiki Ramayana as true history.

            Where is the evidence that around or before 9000-10,000 years ago people from Indian subcontinent traveled to South America or vice-versa for Valmiki to know about Peru? What’s even funny is that other people too are claiming the candelabra drawing as evidence of their beliefs. You expect us to ignore that, “empty our cups”, “open our minds” and believe such stuff? Show us some peer-reviewed scientific studies please.

            Also, your gratuitous advice is unneeded. We like to have something in our cups that feuls skeptical thinking, and enough restraints on our minds so that they don’t fall out leaving us with nothing to think with.

          • I have already answered.. Read original book if you want don’t draw conclusions on short article…
            Bdw where it is said that Valmiki went to peru?? sugreeve associates went there…
            where i have said to ignore other peoples belief.. i am aware about the thing you posted already… As for 9000-10000 yrs Author can be wrong in dating part as its complex mathematical calculation…

            Forget it dont waste time in reading that book… enjoy Freethinking and Question EVERYTHING.. remember dont forget word EVERYTHING…

          • If you want a book to be taken seriously you make the strongest case possible for it. Not escape questions raised on it by misreading my comments or by giving vacuous advice.

          • Please give ANCIENT text reference of other people faith supporting there claim of peru trident…it should be exact as described in link given below

            So you have already concluded that Valmiki is talking about that same carving (known by using aeroplanes no less) and not something he had pulled out of his imagination. Thanks for demonstrating the unscientific process involved in the so called “Vastava” Ramayana.

          • This is getting juvenile. Someone authored the mythology. It didn’t write itself. “Valmiki” refers to that someone. You have quite nicely sidestepped all the points I’ve raised.

          • Satish,

            You expect this person to engage you in a logical debate ?! He could be a troll or a Science-savvy person playing the Devils’ advocate. I have little patience with the former kind, who have a patronizing tendency and are very complacent with their ignorance.

            You, on the other hand, appear to be a dedicated teacher unobtrusively making the person think logically and discover his own fallacies, without giving up and without being hypercritical. I salute you.

  • The Ramayan and the Mahabharata may have been based on some genuine historical incidents ( as validated by the discovery of a submerged Dwarka off Gujarat ruled by then king Krishna).
    But both these epics had reciters who could have added on layers of stories interwoven so intricately as to submerge the historical facts with the magnificence of a well imagined mythology.

    • Pravin,
      You are right. There could have been some humans resembling those depicted in these epics but most probably they were running around in Langots/briefs with bows and arrows capable of shooting small birds at a distance of 20 feet. Does this scene match the splendour portrayed in these epics? Dwarka was discovered by the archeologists under the ocean. So what? It doesn’t prove the existence of humans with godly juggernaut powers.

      Having a scientific temper means being skeptical. Being a skeptic means being honest and mature enough to seek answers that are based on evidence and logic rather than hopes and dreams.

    • I am grateful for your two – part essay on this topic. Thanks for sharing. It only ratifies my earlier skepticism. Hope other readers here go to your site and get enlightened.

  • your thinking is logical but domain of your perception and contemplation is still narrow.
    gita is a contradiction for a frivolous attempt to read it.
    i believe it to b a great philosophical compendium of practical aspects of life, nature and universe.
    first of all b clear in your statements that to whom you are criticizing. people who believe in hindu religion and krishna or bhagwad gita.
    some of the people here are right that gita is just a literary work and proud to b called atheist. but fact is they do believe in a supreme self ,a higher being.
    and fanatics are obviously enveloped with dogmatic ideas engraved in their minds.

    have you ever thought what is god?

    dont go for personification of that supreme power.i dont think god is a human being. but we all living creatures are part of that supreme power.
    have you ever thoght about life we live. a connection between we all people. a connection between all the entities of nature. microscopic and macroscopic aspects of universe. all the rules and equations which govern this universe and were discovered (not invented) by us.
    mysteries which are still uncovered and unexplained.
    harmony in this nature.
    have you ever thought abt these things. yes ,you will think for some hours may b for some days then will revert back to your regular pattern of life.but these rules and patterns will always b there bcoz they had always been there. they never change. universal constants.

    and gita is an attempt to describe it.

    we live and we die.
    we suffer and we give sufferings
    we b happy and then sad.
    their is always polarity and no end.

    a tiger kills hundreds of deers in its life time
    you know wny?
    not just to satisfy appetite
    otherwise there will b only deers every where destroying all jungles and ultimately will destroy everything.
    Ecological balance that we call it. it is always maintained ,even in the lives of human beings.
    you can raise ur living standard but you can not evade laws of nature. for ur every attempt nature will always reply despotically.

    statements that you have claimed above is only beginning of a deceptively abstruse conversation between krishna and arjuna. its just a priliminary talk my dear.
    read gita and contemplate on it and then you will find out why it was chosen to b basic root of hindu religion.
    every time you will read it you will find something new to think of. its a step by step process to explain the purpose of every life from level of emotions to the level of devotion. read care fully and lovingly.

    and one more thing krishna was a human being and also incarnation of lord vishnu. so if you expect godly characters in krishna then remember he was a human being too and we all are well acquainted to the nature of human beings.
    mahabharata is just a story but philosophy is awesome. damn damn good. great work of indian genius philosophers. plz dont criticize it even if you dont want to understand it.

    more i read science more i try to understand world , firmer my belief in god bcomes.

    good luck

    • You personify the arrogance that is typical of religious apologists. Many of us were former believers and have consciously rejected god. All you did is to interpret Gita the way you please and ignore the other interpretations as given by exalted religious authorities, and then heap your condescension. Profuse use of adjectives and the word “philosophy” means nothing at all. Philosophy is about laying out your premises and forming conclusions and critiquing arguments which involves pointing out faulty reasoning or premises. It seems you aren’t capable of doing that.

      • i m not a religious apologist. but yes i do believe in a subtle supreme power.
        philosophy cares out layers of truth but it cannot tell what is wrong and what is right.
        why you reply again and again to this thread. why you never satisfy even after disposing so many arguments. because you are arguing for the virtue of your belief.
        and i have replied because of the same reason.
        and all that is happening here contains essence of gita. its a very practical book.
        may b you will reply me again. but where is the conclusion. conclusion is not what is right and what is wrong. conclusion is in persistence, perseverance, and devotion to your beliefs.
        you are criticizing religion but it is still there an it will always b. you are criticizing god but people still believe and will always do.
        you are criticizing gita but it is still being referred one of the best book.
        you can not eradicate things by criticism. you can only replace them by something better. and you dont seem to have. so stop worrying you dont have solution. may b someday people will forget gita. but there will still b something new, to replace it .may b a new religion. phlisophy will still b there my dear frnd.
        good luck

          • again u speak
            hey but you have included morals ,legal and political system. but why you forgot to include religion. its also a philosophy.
            why dont you consider it to be right or wrong?
            which political system are you talking about. there is variation among them. there are so many different and contradictory political philosophies. which one is right?
            why morals are not always followed when we know they are right.
            we need morals, laws, religion and political system to keep an order maintained. otherwise everything is right and every thing is wrong.
            as i have already told what people believe becomes true and everything else is discarded.
            now you may understand better why religion is followed. religion is nothing different than morals and political systems. if you have considered them to b right then automatically you have proved religion to b right.
            you have your answer man good luck

  • Atheists may not concern themselves about of the existance of Krishna and the Pandavas etc. The important thing for atheists should be the truth of the philosophy of Geeta. All philosophies are the result of brilliant people’s imagination let loose. They have no factual base. The philosophy of Geeta is no exception.

    • While in my teens I was told by my father that Bhagavad Gita is an epic poem not so much concerned with actual warfare as with the battle that goes on within each individual heart. It is a metaphorical poem symbolic of the victory of our good thoughts & intentions over our evil thoughts & intentions. But the general deluded population is convinced that it is real history with real people and real gods in the form of humans going through their motions in this drama. This requires a leap of faith, which some of us are not capable of.

      • Prof. V.N.K.Kumar
        I am somewhat amused by your reply. The general public is also entitled to believe what fathers tell about Geeta. Every analyst has interpreted Geta in his own way. We can analyse it in a rational way ourselves, but need not speak about it’s historicity, unless we are historians having some historical proof.

        • I am somewhat confused by your reply. Seriously. Ostensibly we both are on the same side of the debate. Neither I nor you are vouching for the authenticity of Bhagavad Gita and claiming that it is real history. At best it is a poem like Dante’s inferno and just a metaphor. As to what the poet wanted to convey through this symbolism is anybody’s guess. I have tried to encapsulate the main teachings of BG and debunked them. Thankfully we, the cultural cum secular Hindus can still criticise BG with impunity unlike the muslims who cannot lift a finger against the authenticity of their Koran.

  • When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous,” said Albert Einstein.

    • “……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 ..

  • 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.

  • 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.

    • 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”.

  • 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.

      1. The author isn’t assuming that Gita took place in some Universe where Krishna is a god who can change the properties of that Universe at will. He is assuming what religious believers assume in this Universe. That is why the argument about 11 hours is valid. You didn’t refute anything. You have merely setup a strawman argument. This article also assumes a rational moral system and analyzes Gita in light of that.
      2. ‘Dharma’ is peaceful co-existence of all ‘Jivas’ with justice to all.

        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.

        • 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.

          • 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.

          • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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..!

  • Keep aside Geeta aside for a moment.How can thought be ever free?Having seen geeta thoughts arise to prove or disprove the ideas there in.Thought being recognised as thought takes some time to arise in the brain.
    Mind may talk about infinity.Maths has a symbol for it.
    but can the mind ever grasp it?
    Can one intutively feel that infinity is contained in the infinitisimal? For both time and space and causation?
    can the human mind suddenly jump out of limitations of human brain?And if it does what does it percieve.If there were nothing to percieve, perciever knows that that there nothing to percieve.This nothingnes exists.The Geeta tells about it.

    • Let us not keep the BG aside. Let us consider the full implications of what it says. It is a common tactic of the religious to point out some paradoxical sounding sentence or something which humans don’t understand (yet), then put aside most of what BG says, cherry pick some convenient interpretation and then come to the non-conclusion that BG has the answers. You can’t say that 1 + 1 = 3, then say let’s keep addition aside for a moment and go “profound” with statements like “This sentence is false”.

      PS: This is what freethought means.

  • I wont justify that everything is right and supreme in hinduism but your claims are equally fallacious . In your arguments you are ignoring the context. A soldier is expected to fight. Pandavas being the leaders are supposed to lead by example in battle. your argument is biased, the lines and context are needed. For example i say “When a Soldier is in the middle of war. He should kill all the enemies till his last breath”.If you remove first sentence it becomes fallacy. Now take “When a Soldier is in the middle of war. Soldier should leave his gun and extend a hand of frndship to enemies”. when you remove first sentence it becomes good statement but this advice is wrong. Hope your website contribute to secularism,humanity not pure bashing of a religion

  • How close minded must one person be to never ask questions about the texts that supposedly lay foundation to Indian theology? Krishna not only convinced Arjuna to destroy his kin, he also destroyed his own army (that Duryodhana asked for). What kind of God commits genocide on his own Kingdom? What kind of God gifts the women and children of his own Kingdom such misery and pain? Krishna plots, manipulates, contrives and even threatens (In the story of Gaya he threatens Arjuna himself!) to get his way.

  • I agree on all points with the author. I haven’t read Gita but I am reading Mahabharata by Romesh Menon. It is a very enjoyable read with all explicit scenes described passionately.
    One can see how during those arachaic periods how one’s social status and other’s opinions on self was very important even over their lives.
    May be it was written to please the people who had such beliefs in religion and also secretly mock at the hypocrisy of the characters in following the principles. Either way I like that fact that the book is not rule book to follow yet it leaves room to ponder and learn about life. It kindles one’s moral self.

    • Go to http://www.flipkart.com and type out “The Mahabharata by Ramesh Menon” in the search box and you will go to the site of this book. It costs Rs 1425 and you can pay for it Cash on Delivery too. Just click on “Buy this now’.

  • Dear VNK, with every respect to your thinking about the Gita, I would advance the logic that if animal forms like Dianasours can exist on this earth at certain point of time, then why it is not possible for humans forms like Krishna & his contemporaries?

    • Are you suggesting that since the existence of Dinosaurs has been proven by the fossil study and they were huge and powerful creatures then why not accept that equally powerful humans like Krishna existed ? Mahabharata happened some 4 to 5 thousand years before now. Dinosaurs became extinct some 65 million years ago,and homo-sapiens were not there before 2 million years. The fossils of humans since 5000 years do not show that those ancestors were any different from us in structure. Perhaps I do not see the connection between Dinos & Krishna as clearly as you do.

  • Hello Mr.Kumar,

    oh dear !! I read this post and dont’t know what to say. looks like BG is totally misunderstood !!!!
    Krishna did not mean that it is OK to kill since atma does not die. anybody who understands it this way needs a second study on this.
    he says, do your karma, according to dharma. does not mean, you go around murdering people since atma does not die. it is a very shallow thought. may be, first the concept of dharma and karma needs to be understood.
    let us assume, like you said, mahabharata happened. now, imagine duryodhana becoming the king. what would be the state of the country ? and wasn’t he given a chance to mend things ? he was and he did not want to.
    A lot more maturity is required to analyze Gita and guess this article lacks that completely. before calling anything a BS, please try and understand its depth. from times immemorial , great minds have only praised gita. you have great responsibility when you try to teach others. please don’t preach some thing which you don’t have knowledge about.

    regards

    • @DKumar:
      “let us assume, like you said, mahabharata happened. now, imagine duryodhana becoming the king. what would be the state of the country ? and wasn’t he given a chance to mend things ? he was and he did not want to.”
      Duryodhana was the de facto king when the Pandavas were in exile. The rule of Duryodhana was very nicely described by Bharavi in his Mahakavya – the Kiratarjuniyam. The very first verse begins with the return of the spy whom Yudhisthira sent to report on the deeds of Suyodhana. The spy brings the unwelcome tidings that the king (Suyodhana) is walking in the ways of virtue and charming the hearts of the people.
      The Bharata war is basically a struggle for land between cousins. The war should in all fairness be described as an ‘Adharmayuddha’ as both have resorted to unfair practices in combat.
      That Gita was juxtaposed in MB at a later date is very well known.
      If one reads MB without wearing the religious blinkers on, one can easily see that Krishna was a relatively minor prince/king. He was to Pandavas, what Shakuni to Kauravas or Chanakya to Changragupta or Rakshasa to Nandas. Elevating Krihna to godhead must have come much later.

    • DKumar

      Can you stop lecturing on how much maturity is required to understand the depth of all the BS in Bhagavad Gita.

      ‘Great minds’ may have their own reasons for praising the Gita. That does not mean that critics should accept the rubber stamping of Gita by those ‘Great Minds’.

      Do not give examples when you do not know to give one. It is clear that you are not one of those ‘Great minds’. Rest content with that compliment.

      • @Ranganath R

        Sir, I know and accept that I am not a great mind. but, may be, you should try to see if there is any sense or in your words a science behind gita. never dismiss something, without understanding the depth of it. critics really don’t have to accept the “rubber stamping” like you said, but at the same time, don’t dismiss it because YOU THINK it is a rubber stamp. there is a universe of knowledge out there. try to understand, just because it is out of your reach, does not mean, it does not exist. you can probably accept when modern science tells you there are millions of galaxies out there, but hasn’t seen even a fraction of it. research continues based on this assumption. but you don’t want to give this kind of treatment towards gita ? right ? it is sad that we have people who do not want to even try to understand the kind of knowledge that our ancestors have tried to give us, but outright reject it because you can’t get hang of it. these were also the times where we had rishis who were far more advanced in science too(just a kind of pointer for people who think they were nothing)…..

  • Are you insane!
    The scripture on which the western world is conducting research and thousands of research papers have been published to explain one verse of Gita, the one which is well scientific , you are questioning on that. I can be quite if you question on any other Hindu scripture but come-on Gita is a science.
    I am in the field of science and with all the responsibility I say that Gita is the Zenith of science. Human race would take centuries to reach at a position where it can understand Sheemad Bhagwat Gita.

    • Anand Sharma

      Because people like you are in the field of science, the state of science in India is plumbing the rock bottom.

      ” thousands of research papers have been published to explain one verse of Gita”

      Really! Your nonsensical comment shows that you are one who is insane!.

  • ** Human race would take centuries to reach at a position where it can understand Sheemad Bhagwat Gita.**

    You mean people who wrote BG had no understanding of what they were writing?

  • As per gita, the soul does not die and it gets into another body after the death of the body. Then who/what will go to Heaven/hell(Swrag/Narak)?

  • Boys! Maha Bharat (Sanskrit) is very old (how old? May be 1000BC) and all composed by Veda Vyasa. (All 18 chapters have same poetic style). Bhagavad Gita is later addition to Maha Bharat’s Bhisma Parwa. Gita’s content is consolidation/collection from Sankhya Sastra (Original writer : Kapila), Upanishads (badarayana brahma sutras), early Buddishm. Gita writer’s original content is Karma Marg (Work is Worship and Duty is God). Karma (Action path) marg was not there in any previous philosophies. Based on the literary style, historians predict addition of Gita into Maha Bharat between 200 and 100BC. Now a days we call Maha Bharat. But its original name is Vijaya Gaadh (Story of win or win of war).
    Our ancestors were rough and tough. They used to follow Dharma (Path of righteousness) and heroically fight invaders. Of course there had been social order and originally Brahmhan was not a right by birth. It was a qualification to be attained by study and acquiring knowledge. Same to Kshatriya and other social orders. But its badly transformed into social order by birth. (Just imagine how J Nehru became PM and now Rahul just getting it by birth. Same to all current political families like Akhilesh, Sachin Pilot, Jyotiraditya Scindiya etc. Imagine it just happened in 50-60 years. So now imagine the same thing 2 Millennia back where there is no written constitution etc.).
    Forget that social order now.

    Buddha and Jain Maha veera were born in 6th Century BC and their religious philosophy established in India in 5th century. But Jainism established stronger roots compare to Buddhism in both South and North India till Ashoka time. Mourya Chandra Gupta followed Jainism. Magadha kingdom became very strong by 3rd century BC and emperor Ashoka established authority all over India (present India, Pak, Bangla and Afghanistan or Gandhara/Kandahar). You all knew Ashoka’s sorrow after winning Kalinga (Present Orissa) from Jain king. He embraced Buddhism and encouraged peaceful living. Magadha means current Bihar. During Ashoka time, numerous Buddha Viharas (place where monks teach and people can live there at peace) were built in Magadha and all over India. That’s how Bihar got name – place of Viharas. Bengali people corrupted the Vihar into Bihar. Buddishm is against social order. All are welcome at Viharas. At the beginning , people pond of philosophy joined there. Buddishm was more relaxed compare to Jainism and Vedic religion. Ladies also started joining the Viharas. Emperor encouraged charity to the Viharas. Farmers and merchants have liberally donated food & goods (clothes) to the Viharas. During Ashoka’s time there was no security problem both internal and external. Many Warriors retired and joined Viharas. Slowly many lower level people like farmers also started joining Viharas. It was Social revolution during that time.

    But predict? Why Ashoka’s kingdom collapsed? After Ashoka, neither her son Mahindra nor daughter Sanghamitra were interested in ruling. His predecessor was Samprati. Whole rule collapsed because Western India was attacked by Greeks and Persians. There was no army to protect the borders, All warriors embraced the Buddhism and resting in Viharas. At that time many professions including Farming collapsed because people started taking rest in Viharas. That was easy at least for lazy fellows. India was attacked by external invaders and internal law and order was collapsed because there were no warriors to protect the Dharma and whole economy collapsed because all professions had lost the enthusiasm and skill. If you don’t have the comprehensive understanding of life, doing meditation is like taking drug. First and foremost, one should become an expert in Karma Marg and 3D (Duty, Discipline, and Dedication) then doing Meditation comprehends the understanding of life. Have u heard Ashok’s predecessor was killed by his own minister? What kind of frustration was there in India right immediate after Ashoka i.e. 200BC-100BC. During this period, Gita was formulated. People lost the heroic nature (Fight to protect self respect, family and Kingdom). Known Intellectual collected the Gita content and applied to the Karma Marg and inserted into the Vijaya Gaadh’s Bhisma Parwa.

  • Mahabharata war was an OBC conspiracy against Brahmins and Kshatriyas. Lord Krishna was an OBC (Yadav). He pretended that he was trying to broker peace between the warring factions (Kauravas and Pandavas) but in fact he ensured that the War took place and both sides suffered heavy casualities.

    • You can’t write history by tweaking myth to your fancy. It simply can’t be done.

      The Yadavas as described in the Mahabharata were a Vedic tribe. The modern day Yadava caste has taken the inspiration of Krishna and claims ancestry from him (Sanskritization), but it has nothing to do with that tribe.

      The Mahabharata war probably did not happen. We have no evidence to pin it down.

      I remember this author Kancha Ilaiah who tried to pull the same thing as you, but this time to attack Brahmins, not support them like you’re doing. He says that the Gita is a “comspiracy” because Krishna as an OBC is said to have written it, but OBCs are illiterate. Ilaiah not only makes the same error you do , but also assumes that some Krishna existed and wrote the Gita. The Gita was a work in the making of over hundreds of years.

      Next time, before making a claim like this, please read a history book. You are NOT a historian, and it is vexing to better read people to read comments like yours.

      • Yadava were not Vedic tribe . Do not forget that the Mahabharata was written (200 BC) when Scythians ,Hephthalites & Kambojas had already started entered India . In fact , these tribes remain fathers to majority of North-west Indian castes/tribes be it Jats , Rajputs of North-west ,Gujjars & Khatris. So some Vedic tribe would have survived assimilation for 1000 years.

    • Mahabharata was a war to clean up the rotten society. Krishna always fought against the evils..He fought with Kans a cruel ruler, killed many demons who used to kill innocent people. When Draupadi was mistreated by the Kauravas and the entire society remained silent, it was time to cleanse it. Hence, even though Krishna could have avoided the war somehow opted for war after the last resort ( when he asked 5 villages for the Kauravas). And Krishna was a kshatriya by himself.

  • @ Venkata Rao, you cannot just dismiss me by saying Mahabharata war did not take place. The Brahmins were very poor at that time. Dronacharya was a Brahmin but he was too poor even to afford Milk for his only son. He had to take up teaching archery for earning his livelihood.

    Sudhama, who was supposed to be the friend of Lord Krishana was also too poor. Even the Brahmin family in “Apu Trilogy” was too poor. It was always the other Castes (Kshatriyas, OBCs, etc ) who controlled the wealth.

    I do not think it took “hundreds of years” to write a small book of just 18 chapters.

    • You said I can’t just dismiss you, but then you went on a completely unrelated tangent.
      The supposed historical poverty of Brahmins has nothing to do with whether or not there
      was a Mahabharata war. And you’re wrong on that point too– the existence of Brahmin landlords, moneylenders, etc. shows that both rich and poor Brahmins existed.

      And yes, it did take 100s of years to write the book because it has repeatedly been added
      to. There is a series on this website by Dr. Prabhakar Kamath, which– while retarded in
      its own right– is a step above you. You are free to read any books by modern scholars
      on the Bhagavad Gita and its textual history if you wish to become educated.

      It’s pointless to debate with people who don’t understand the scientific method and the processes by which history is written.

      • Please forgive me– I’ve been informed that I’ve used ableist slurs in this post. I mean “stupid” nor “retarded.” I sincerely apologize for the lapse on my part.

  • how com dronachrya a brahmin become expert in war fare which is essentially a kshatriya domain.who trained him and how when kshatriya had exclusive rights to use arms

  • Dear Prof. V N K Kumar,
    I don’t know whether this comment is too late. The facts and counter point by the author ,does not substantiate the immorality of Bagavath Gita in anyway.

    1ST Argument: Krishna does not ask to murder anybody, only the nature of atman he is mentioning here. Arjuna has a duty to fight against adharma ,in doing so if he has to kill some body he has to do so as a part of fulfilling his duty. He hesitates to do as some of his loved people are on the other side. Krishna tries to convince him and justify the confrontation. The context is important when one puts up an argument. For a person with minimum logic can make out that this does not say that anybody can murder anyone since they are not harming the atman.
    2nd Argument: There is a much valid cause for Arjuna to fight. The duty of Kshatriya is the protection of dharma, not killing and fighting as he wish. The argument does not make any sense.
    3rd Argument: Better to understand the meaning of Maya before mentioning about the same. Its obvious that Arjuna will be called as a coward if he left the warfield without fighting and he would have ended in much more grief than what the war result would have given him. It is the grief that a karmayogi feels when he fails to deliver his duty. That is what is mentioned in this context.
    4th argument: I don’t know whether you think that opting a career in the army and being a soldier to protect the country is an offense for your rational senses. You are picking up one line of a stanza just for the purpose to criticize with out understanding the context. How sad?
    The final Argument: You have failed to understand the concept of Karma here. Fight against adharma is the karma in this context. Not the killings. By your interpretation one person cannot even urinate, as going to the toilet is a karma with a desire to urinate.
    There is a saying “you see only what you want to see”.
    This book is meant for people like us, who found ourselves in the state of Arjuna at many instances of life. Hope the BS that is mentioned finally is not want I understand.

    • The point of the article is to illustrate how illogical and out of touch with reality Gita is. If Gita says there is “atman”, it has to answer some obvious questions that the existence of atman raises. Minimum logic dictates that you should not ignore the fact that Gita talks about “atman” and that the article very explicitly mentions it. Instead you chose to make up an argument of your own and convince yourself that that is what the article is talking about.

      Also, you don’t need silly concepts like “atman” to justify a fight for “good”. You don’t need a separate varna to mindlessly think it is only their duty to protect “good”. If you take world wars in the previous century, plenty of ordinary people volunteered to fight. They didn’t need vacuous excuses like “it is my Karma to protect Dharma as dictated by my Varna“. One also doesn’t need the allure of an imaginary heaven.

      • Why is the concept of ‘atman’ illogical? Is it because the thought is not rational or there is no evidence to substantiate the same? Something that can be proved is logical and that cannot be proved is illogical or nonsense!!!!How will you substantiate that “atman” is illogical?
        Regarding varna, varna is not decided by birth, it is decided by ones actions. All those who protect or fight ” good “belongs to the same varna.

        • Do you believe in the Chosen One who goes by the name of Harry Potter? If not, why? That answers your atman question.

          And all I said was appealing to one’s Varna as a means to motivate to fight for “good” is pretty useless given the fact that anyone can fight for “good”. No one Varna has a monopoly on that.

    • **Better to understand the meaning of Maya before mentioning about the same. Its obvious that Arjuna will be called as a coward if he left the warfield without fighting and he would have ended in much more grief than what the war result would have given him. It is the grief that a karmayogi feels when he fails to deliver his duty. That is what is mentioned in this context.**

      First, grief of one person being called a coward is insignificant compared to the preventable death of hundreds of thousands. Second, Arjuna was willing to walk away out of concern for the hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. He was persuaded against it by God with some meaningless BS about soul and death.

      • Krishna’s writings (actually Vyas) here are still a reflection of what the Prophet Muhammad meant by Jihad in Quran. The only difference is a utopian idea of absolute good vs absolute evil ; while Koran also gives it in similar way : Infidel vs Chosen one

  • 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.
    The same argument is descibed as jihad in quran.

  • The article actually ends up in vain.It is useful to only rebuff those Hindus who take it literally ,both Brahminical Conservatives (Traditionalists) & neo-Hindu Conservatives(Middle class Hindus) ( both socio-politically influential minorities) by understanding a 2000 yr old archaic metaphysics by paroding it.

    It fails to elucidate that how this Idealist Sanskrit treatise went onto become a Central Scripture of all Hindus & why yet it is not the Cental scripture of majority Hindus (esp. lower caste ,folk Hindus) in “strict sense” unlike Koran & Muslims etc.Though the following blog by Dileep Padgaonkar remains far more informative -illuminating BG’s recent historiography in light of recent BG controversy sparked by Hindutvavadis.

    http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/talking-terms/dangerous-dogma-an-official-national-book-cachet-would-emasculate-the-bhagwad-gitas-uniqueness/

  • Sir,
    with a lot of sadness in my mind after reading your post I thought to tell you something. Before you validate a great work of literature you are supposed to know the true facts of that literature. You don’t work by supposing. It is not management job you are analysing. You are playing with the feeling of the masses by writing such posts. Kindly do not do this.

    Krishna was REAL,is REAL and will always be REAL

    Just stating a fact here. I am the descendant of family which fought the Mahabharata. My lineage dates to King Shinh (on the side of PANDU’s sons).

    I hope you will not say that I am telling lies about my lineage.

    Please follow a realistic approach.

    Jai Shri Krishna

  • Sorry to say but you don’t know a single thing about the BG, you may know too much about the book & the story but you really don’t know a sibgle thing about the Shrimad Bhagvad Geeta.

    If you REALLY want to know, not just to know but to expreance the deep truths of everyone’s life which Krishna told thousands years ago, I prefer you should listen to Osho’s “Geeta Darahan” discourses.

    I used to think the same way you did because I was not able to grasp the meaning of Gita. It cannot be grasp just by logics and reasoning. There are people who believe in Gita & there are people who don’t believe in Gita but both kinds BELIEVE something which has nothing to do with the reality. I was in the same catagory of not believing like you.

  • Bombs and missiles on the one hand with veena and Gita on the other-We have often asked ourselves and others why India in its several thousand years of history has rarely tried to expand its territories or to assume a dominant role. Many of the experts and others with whom we had dialogue referred to some special features in the Indian psyche which could partly explain their greater tolerance, less discipline, the lack of sense of retaliation, more flexibility in accepting outsiders, greater adherence to hierarchy and emphasis on personal safety over adventure.”
    This is what Dr A P J Abdul Kalam, with the co-author SY Rajan, wrote in the famous book “India Vision 2020 A Vision for the New Millennium” [1998]. Kalam had raised these profound issues that are sourced in our national confusion over couple of thousand years since Ashoka became the role model of India by giving up war altogether. Kalam is being profiled by his millions of admirers as a ‘People’s President, teacher, scientist, visionary, thinker, and patriot.’ He is certainly all these and more. He had bombs and missiles on the one hand with veena and Gita on the other. The huge bandwidth of the man brings out the complete philosopher-nationalist that he was. Dr Kalam introspected and posited for the nation critical issues which mirror the lessons our history has taught us but we have not learnt and still refuse to learn. Each of the issues raised by Kalam is profound. As we did not expand them, our territories contracted. As we were not disciplined, our tolerance was a mere vanity. Accepting outsiders at the cost of kinship has divided us. Preferring personal safety over adventures has made us victims of adventurists. How true Kalam was? Yet, there was, even now there is, no effort to reorient our education or national discourse on Kalam’s lines, even though he wrote his famous work in 1998. Even today, Kalam, the man, is being discussed – personally and anecdotally. But there is very little focus on what he said or envisioned for India. Encomiums are being paid to him as a visionary without discussing what his vision is. Kalam’s introspection should be the concern, even active enterprise, of the entire nation and its establishment – government, media, academia and intellectuals. Even now it is not too late. In the memory of Kalam, work on what he had envisioned for India can begin. But there can be no beginning unless there is honest introspection by Indians about the role and purpose of India.
    Kalam’s Pokhran bomb and missiles have undoubtedly put India in a different league geopolitically and strategically. In his book Challenge and Strategy: Rethinking India’s Foreign Policy, Rajiv Sikri, India’s former foreign secretary recalled how despite Jawaharlal Nehru’s well-known but little publicised attempts to get closer to the US in the 1950s, India’s relations with the US remained at a low level for 50 years. According to Sikri, it was only after India became a nuclear weapons power in 1998 that the nature of India’s relationship with the US underwent a qualitative change and the US was jolted into taking India, and indeed the whole of South Asia, seriously from a security and geopolitical perspective. Pokhran-II coincided with India’s growing economic weight and the increasingly influential role of the Indian-American community in the US. Both factors added to India’s importance in US eyes. Kalam’s bomb showed what the West-centric world respects. Power. Nuclear weapons power is indeed fearsome. When the first atom bomb was exploded, its author Dr Robert Oppenheimer, a great admirer of Hindu spiritualism, quoted this verse in Bhagawad Gita to describe its power: “If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, That would be like the splendour of the Mighty One… I am become Death, The shatterer of Worlds.” And this is how the Gita-studying and veena-playing Dr Kalam described the Pokhran bomb in 1998. “I heard the earth thundering below our feet and rising ahead of us in terror. It was a beautiful sight. It was a triumph of Indian science and technology.” Power is indeed dangerous. But being without it is more dangerous. A democratic India, with 1/6th of humanity, humanistic philosophies of Sankara, Buddha and Gandhi and no record of invading others, high tolerance and flexibility in accepting outsiders was not respected. It was actually trivialised. See the contrast. In the 1970s, Henry Kissinger waited in Beijing for days for authoritarian China, which had 30 million people dying of hunger and was deep in poverty to agree to meet him! Why? A hungry and poor China had hundreds of nuclear warheads. That the world respects power is what the world has taught India — which is eight out of 10 populated by Hindus whom Mahatma Gandhi had described as “gentlest” of people on the earth.
    The geopolitical stature of India which started to rise with Pokhran has been on the escalator ever thereafter. The National Intelligence Council attached to the Central Intelligence Agency [US] reported [Dec 2012] that India will be among the three world powers in 2030 along with the US and China. But for Kalam’s bomb and missiles India would never have been seen as a candidate for a global power. Japan has trillions of dollars of assets. But that does not make it a world power. Power is comprehensive. Mere economic power is no power. Merely being an economic power without being a military power will invite invasions, like India did. We were the leaders of the world economy for 1,700 years, according to Angus Maddison who studied the world economic history on behalf of the OECD nations. But our wealth only invited invasions of barbaric peoples. We were conquered because we had no sense of the importance of power. We even detested power as uncivilised.
    The national confusion about, even bias against, military power, started with Ashoka giving up wars after he was shocked by the scale of destruction in the Kalinga war. Ashoka, after the Kalinga war, was in the same state for mind as Arjuna was before the Kurukshetra war. One cried after the war, and the other, before the war. But Sri Krishna with Bhagawad Gita cleared the confusion of Arjuna and made him a warrior. But Ashoka did not have the benefit of a Krishna to clear his confusion. And his confusion became our national pride. We paid the price for that high-cost pride with invasions and destruction of India. Kalam’s Pokhran explosion cleared the confusion and transformed India into a global power, though it is yet to be internalised by our elites and intellectuals. The Economist magazine [March 30, 2013] in its cover story asking “Can India become a great power?” answered it at the end of its editorial: “That India can become a great power is not in doubt. The real question is whether it wants to be.” This is what the nationalist-philosopher Dr A P J Abdul Kalam wanted this nation of 1.25 billion to say in once voice: “yes we want to be”. Instituting an in-depth study of our history to learn and internalise the lessons from it is the greatest tribute to this great man.

  • Dear All,

    Dont take inner meaning of BG take inners -inner -and its inner meaning ,the writer have take the story meaning ,though its also highly valid .
    the war is happening in our heart daily and its 5 elements of good vs 100 elements of bad , like control vs temptation , krishna is inner soul or pure intelligence ,arjuna is mind , hourse is controled by intelligence ,the fight is between blind ego king and krishna , arjuna is instrument , try to google some allegory in BG u can read well .jai hind

  • Food for thought, but nothing really more. These arguments are not original in any way and I’ve heard the same arguments from several Christian apologists. From a Hindu point of view, your “disputations” aren’t particularly hard to refute. What Krishna is saying is that Arjuna should not fear, because Arjuna has Krishna’s power and splendor on his side, and that it is his duty as a kshatriya to promote law, justice, and dharma. The reason for the killing is dharma, not because of the opinion of other people, or because people will think Arjuna to be unmanly, or because the soul is eternal so it doesn’t matter whether you kill anyone. Krishna makes all these arguments in direct response to Arjuna’s fears, not as independent, unqualified, separate reasons.

  • Indeed, GOD is always one for all. But there are number of opinion about him. Religions are the path to reach him. We should not grip the hands of religions and their preacher. Instead of we have to thirst GOD. We have to know, there is something having the whole powers of world. We have to search him in ourself. When we come to know, our SOUL is the only one thing which is PERMANENT, We can easily understand religions are the path. I accept that the world has number of wonders. But apart from that GOD is the real wonder. We are the slave to world’s desires. If anyone have doubt about GOD, he can get the answer from ‘THIRUCKURAL’. One can never stop the world, but he can, by stop his thoughts. If one stop his thoughts, he is similiar to stop all of the running world. This is just like when one get giddiness, he can feel the whole world is rotating. This is an illusion. Actually, the world has full of illusions. Knowing is the first step to reach GOD.There are so many views. In BG, GOD tells the real path to reach him.

  • Mr VNK Kumar,

    Last night I saw a dream. Can you tell me whether dream exists or not? If it doesn’t what did I see. If I saw it, how come it does not exists.

    Many insects complete their whole life in 11 hours of taking birth, giving births, dying etc. How come they are able to complete their life activities in few hours when we takes years to do so.

  • Krishna tells Arjuna to fight. Fine, may be their side was right. Then Krishna goes on to say “I am this, I am that”. He also says there is something called “soul” and explains a lot about it. All of this is subjective. You can neither prove nor disprove all these claims. If nothing else was wrong, I would be inclined to believe. Or at least say, “nothing wrong here”. But, then BG gets very very racistic and goes on to say each one should do their duty as per their birth. Goes on to say women, vaishyas and sudras are of sinful birth.
    Check the below blog.
    http://satheeshpaul.blogspot.in
    And let me know if my analysis is wrong!
    When it has clear errors, why should anyone believe in the other unproveable claims?

  • First of all: There is only one supreme God, who takes up many different forms and roles time and again to help in the upliftment of mankind and Shree Krishna was himself an embodiment of that one supreme god.

    So, before reading Gita, one should understand the FACT above and then go ahead. In this mode, he will be able to intrepret Gita in its truest sense.

    Shree Krishna being God himself, had stopped the time itself before preaching Gita. Everything was freezed..and so even though,as per your calculations, it might have taken 11 hours or so..but it does not matter because on battlefield it was normal timings for all other people..since the TIME itself was put to hold by Lord Krishna.

    Now, coming to your arguments:
    First Argument: You said murder should not be considered crime.

    My view: Arjuna is standing in the battlefield from the side of DHARMA, and when he saw his own kinsmen on the side of ADHARMA, he was overcome by emotions(due to his relationship with them)..But DHARMA is above everything..even relations..so Krishna wanted to make Arjuna understand this..so he started with explanations about the basic truths of life…This was just his way of telling Arjuna..that at this stage of battle for the establishment of Dharma..your emotions are meaningless…Thus an act’s categorization as good or bad depends very much on the situation also..And so murder is Adharma and is a crime..and when you do it for Dharma..then it is not call murder..it is ‘Vadh’ in hindi and is not a crime at all….

    Second Argument: You said Arjuna’s fighting is not justified.

    My view: Let me remind you that time and again..Kauravas had done many wrong things with Pandavas….Even to avoid this battle Pandavas tried many times..at last even Shree Krishna himself tried to avoid the battle..by asking for mere 5 villages..instead of the whole kingdom, which rightfully belonged to the Pandavas..But that too did not work out..So this battle was the end result of all the wrong things done by Kauravas throughout(Including Draupadi Cheer Haran and Lakshagraha fire)..What more justification is needed to fight from the side of Dharma?..Plus Arjuna was a Kshatriya(a class of society meant to protect their citizens)..So it is indeed a Kshatriya like Arjuna’s duty to fight this war for the establishment of Dharma..which Shree Krishna reminds him..

    Third Argument: You said that the opinion of other people is not a valid reason for a man to fight.

    My view: For a true Kshatriya, honour is more important to him than his life..A man who loses his honour is similar to a dead person..In those days, this was a fact. So Krishna reminds him this. All warriors were ready to fight..except Arjuna..cause Arjuna was destined to be the one because of whom all the future generations could also benefit from the true knowledge of the Bhagwad Gita..But the warriors did not know this and Since they themself were ready to fight, all warriors would have thought that fear might be the only reason and would conclude that Arjuna was afraid not to fight at such a stage of battle ,which would deteriorate Arjuna’s honour.

    Fourth Argument: You said that this kind of argument is not an encouragement for just and honest people to fight.

    My view: Here Krishna is just informing about a fact..It is just how the things go…if we are fighting on side of Dharma..then it does not matter if we live or die..because in both the cases we attain a blissful life..either on earth or in heaven…and here Krishna meant a life of peace..as where Dharma is established..there is peace..and a peaceful life along with God’s grace is what heaven means..

    Finally, You asked if Pandavas and Krishna themselves followed this :
    ‘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.’

    My view: Yes they did. Since beginning of their life..the only motive behind every action of Shree Krishna was-establishment of DHARMA for the Greater Good of Mankind..So if we see each of his action through the limited scope of our mind..then we may think he is not following it himself..but he himseld is unlimited and follows it perfectly..So you may have collected your point from somewhere or maybe its your own view…but when the Supreme God himself preaches something..how can he himself not follow it? Maybe initially Pandavas may have not followed it since they were born as humans, but under Shree Krishna’s guidance, they too learned and followed it..

  • Mr. Tejas,
    How you want to frame the plot of the story is up to you. We can also debate about batman, spiderman and Harry Potter the same way.

    Coming to right and wrong, how do you explain the fact that krishna says he created the fourfold caste system?

    4:13. The fourfold caste has been created by Me according to the differentiation of Guna and Karma;

    This caste system is not according to birth? Well then why is arjuna and krishna worried about “varnasankara”?
    Can you first explain the meaning of “varnasankarah” and why do we find this word in bagavad gita?

    krishna also says “among mountains, I am meru”.. Can you point out on map where this mount meru is?
    Did your krishna even know that the earth is a sphere? Lot of apologists say “we knew earth was a sphere.. we call bhu-gol.. which means a sphere”. Well, you also say mount meru is in the middle/center of the earth… a mount is on the surface of earth.. how can something on the surface of a sphere be in the center of the sphere? the only explanation is your guys thought the earth was a flat disc..

  • Well according to author of Mahabharata the time was standing still . All the animals and men arrayed for battle were in time dilation and for Lord Krishna, Arjuna, Dhritarashtra and Sanjaya alone time was running. So they did not feel the 11 hours passed.

    If God is there, miracles are bound to happen. First rationalists prove that our I couseousness or “Self” is a product of body and mind’s complex functioning. And this phenomena is not due to soul as mentioned in Hindu scriptures, then all theists will become atheists

  • If the Mahabharata actually took place then the second argument of Krishna makes sense and is in line with his teachings. The others are probably interpolations. Arjuna is Kshatriya which means warrior and does not have caste connotations in this text. His duty is to fight in a just war. If he does not fight then society suffers. I he fights for personal selfish reasons then society suffers also. Thus he must fight selflessly because it is his duty.

    The author is misunderstanding Krishna. Krishna is not trying to justify the war. Vyasa has already proved in the Mahabharata countless times before the war that the war is just. What Krishna has to do if to get Arjuna to fight in a war which Arjuna already knows is just.

  • Mahabharata is considered 5th Veda and written by Shri Veda Vyas to teach humanity Dharma according to Vedic principals. It is written after the war or added afterwords has no consequence. Shri Krishna revealed our inner Divine or Cosmic consciousness instantly like psychedelic experience similar to Swami Vivekananda got by his Guru.
    The Mahabharata war is for establishment of Dharma , but the war taken wrong turn due kaurava restoring to Adharma and hence Krishna has been forced take big decision to defeat Adharma .
    Hence Krishna is Great individual if you don’t want to consider him God , but he Godly . He gave away his own army to the opposite side . He has 16 qualities , unless we have these qualities , we cannot understand Him. We can be Lord Krishna or Rama provided we have these qualities.
    Varna ashram Dharma is necessary for smooth functioning of society today also which is according to work we do not by birth. Brahmins may doing the job of peon, if is has limited educational qualification.

Leave a Comment