On 9/12/2014 7:22 AM, [email protected] [FairfieldLife] wrote:
Kurukshetra War — 'The historicity of the Kurukshetra War is unclear.'
According to Wikipedia that battle, if it was fought at all, would
have been somewhere between 6000 BCE to 500 BCE.
>
There are numerous battles mentioned in the Rig Veda, circa 1500 B.C.
and thereafter. However, the BG could not have been composed before the
historical Buddha or the composition of the Upanishads and Patanjali,
since their doctrines are mentioned in the BG.
Obviously, the BG is a product of the Gupta Age in India, after the
formation of the sects. Almost all Indian poetry is allegorical.
It is a mistake to think of the BG as a manual for battle or an /'Art of
War'/ work. The compiler of the BG was explaining yoga, not fighting.
The BG is a polemic aimed at refuting the pacifism of the Buddhists, but
the primary aim of the authors is to explain to people how to /transcend
the three gunas/, how NOT to be attached to them.
>
In a novel you can mention historical events to give a more realistic
feel, and in religious apologetics, one can do the same thing. For the
purposes of 'spiritual guidance' one can create a fictional setting in
which to discuss various ideas. If the war actually took place, the
most widely accepted date is 10th century BCE or 950 BCE, according to
matching scanty archaeological evidence with things mentioned in the
text. I do not think they ever found any real evidence of a war.
Considering the supposed numbers of combatants, the lack of evidence
is a point in favour of its not having happened.
---In [email protected], <mjackson74@...> wrote :
"the battle was an historical battle"
By what proof other than your willingness to believe it as a part of
your larger need to be Marshy's patsy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* danfriedman2002 <[email protected]>
*To:* [email protected]
*Sent:* Friday, September 12, 2014 7:18 AM
*Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a
classic.
---In [email protected], <jr_esq@...> wrote :
I have a copy of Chapter 7 of MMy's commentary. I got it from MUM
Press a few years ago.
They were supposed to publish incrementally the remaining chapters of
the Gita, but they never did.
IMO, one can probably read the other translations of the Gita and
understand the message in the context of the ideas written by MMY
about the beginning six chapters of the Gita.
Dear jr_esq,
I have Chapter 7. Chapter 8 has already been published and distributed
mostly to Purusha. The remaining Chapters of English Translation AND
Commentary are complete. Those later Chapter Translations and
Commentaries are an upcoming MUM Course. The reason is that they were
not carefully proofed and revised, so better to have them presented by
a Professor.
As for WMG's Post at the bottom of yours: In short I can say the
entire first paragraph is false. The second paragraph is confused; the
battle was an historical battle AND the allegory is told in that
historical context. No, it is not a documentary.
As to the statements made in paragraph 3: The Gita can be perceived
from many perspectives (128)...think ffl - how many perspectives are
here, not multiply by the number of States that consciousness
assumes,,,and that number is...anybody? ...7. Thank you.
As for WMG;s 'Thirdly' point: Hindus. originated in the Vedic
tradition of knowledge.
As I mentioned in my Post to Michael, who'd written his support of
WBG's wrong-headed critiques, there are many quality scholarly works
on this topic. Read one.
---In [email protected], <[email protected]> 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?
