Like (-:
On Friday, September 12, 2014 8:38 AM, "'Richard J. Williams' [email protected] [FairfieldLife]" <[email protected]> wrote: On 9/11/2014 8:47 PM, wgm4u wrote: > Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic. > MMY's commentary is already a classic, BillyG. Classical in the sense that it's MMY's commentary. The important thing to realize is that the Bhagavad Gita tells the story of a battle in the form of an allegory - it's not a treatise on fighting or battle techniques. The BG describes "skill in action", a path of Yoga which allows the individual to avoid selfish desires, by engaging in a higher form of activity, namely, giving up all attachment to the fruit of one's actions. It's not complicated. > On 9/11/2014 8:47 PM, wgm4u wrote: >Firstly, it was never completed as far as we know. We do know MMY did some >translation sand commentarys of chapters 7-18 but we don't know which ones for >sure and they were never published. The missing chapters of MMY's Gita were >left in the hands of Charles Lutes and were mysteriously 'stolen' from him and >have disappeared, presumably at least one person knows where they are (if you >know let us all know). > > >Secondly, and more importantly, MMY never really unfolds the allegory that >the Bhagavad Gita IS. MMY suggests in his translation that when Krishna >advised Arjuna to "...rise and fight", it was talking about an actual war that >occurred in India in long gone days. (Think about how silly that sounds, a >dialogue on an actual battlefield where Arjuna becomes self-realized and >Krishna has a class on Indian philosophy, really??) > > >That is incorrect, Vyasa's classic only uses that historical reference loosely >to tell a more subtle esoteric battle, that is, the battle between good and >evil waged on the field (kurushetra) of the body, mind and soul. Understanding >the Sanskrit meanings of the words and characters in the script unfolds the >esoteric meaning, only a really intuitive realized soul can properly >understand Vyasa's meaning since Sanskrit words can have different meanings. >MMY only refers to this connection, BUT HE NEVER UNFOLDS IT! Why? probably >because he had an *agenda* in writing the book and never intended to do a >comprehensive analysis of it. > > >He also said if *time permitted*, (what, he was 93 when he died) in order to >do justice to the subject he'd have to do a commentary on the Gita in light of >ALL six systems of Indian philosophy (Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Sankhya, >Yoga...etc.) which would equal 24 commentaries.......it never happened! Which >is Absurd, IMO. > > >Thirdly, even though TM is not taught in the context of Religion, is used to >be! MMY said that TM is, I quote, "....the greatest blessing of the Vedas", >(The Vedas MMY) and that "all Religions come from the *eternal Religion* of >the Vedas". (MMY The Vedas). > > >The TM technique may not be a Religion, and like a steering wheel may not be >called a car, it certainly is central to the functioning of a car. That is the >relationship of the TM technique to Religion. > > >The advanced chapters of the Gita were too Religious sounding for MMY, IMHO. >For instance the title of Chapter 16v21 is, "The Threefold Gate of Hell", I >wonder why MMY didn't bless us with his commentary of this chapter...hummm? > > > >
