Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
/The practice of TM isn't based on religious law or faith in a cosmic order, so the term Sanatan Dharma has no meaning to most TMers. According to Rig Veda 4-138, Hindu is non-native and of Iranian origin./ On 9/22/2014 4:03 PM, netineti108 wrote: Instead of condemning this statement, one should understand the historic perspective. So, let's review what we know: The Aryan speakers were tribes of nomadic cattle breeders, who occupied the steppes of Central Asia and the plains of the Caucasus Range close to the Black Sea and in Persia, now Iran. Due to overpopulation, about 1500 B.C., with many cattle, horse-drawn chariots, and iron weapons, they migrated northwards, to Persia, now Iran, then turned south-east around the Caspian and finally reached Northern India, by way of the Indus Valley where they composed the Vedas.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
This is not a piece of history to be believed. Aryans did not compose Veda.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
On 9/22/2014 6:02 PM, netineti108 wrote: This is not a piece of history to be believed. Not for nothing do they now call Persia, Iran. Aryans did not compose Veda. The term Arya is used 36 times in 34 hymns in the Rigveda. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
Hmmm? Vernon Katz was the translator and had no part in the commentary, according to him. In fact, in a video, Vernon says that he would argue with MMY about MMY's choice of words for the translation that overrode Veron's carefully devised scholarly translation, but in the battle of unveiled glances, MMY always won. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : Except, as we've heard here many a time, it really wasn't his commentary. He just approved but gave no credit to the scholar who wrote it. So it goes in the big business of cults. On 09/17/2014 03:19 PM, fleetwood_macncheese@... mailto:fleetwood_macncheese@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: I wasn't there, with Shiva, or Parvati, during that discussion, and I just wouldn't take an interpretation, on face value, from a third party. I liked MMY's commentary - but I admit not having read any appreciable amount of it, in years. Perhaps I will pick it up again. PS Anyone can write a commentary. Whether or not people consider it authoritative, is a personal matter, and not given to supposed edicts, from you, or anyone else. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Who is limiting their horizon, here? For decades I thought Mahesh Yogi's commentary was the be all and end all of Bhagavad Gita commentaries. Why? Because the movement said so. Ignorance is Bliss. Lord Shiva's discourse to Goddess Parvati...Sri Guru Gita explains who is qualified and who is not. It is clear from this scripture where Mahesh Yogi stood.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
Vernon Katz was translator and transcriber, not commentator. And MMY would insist that a different word be used in the translation and Katz had to oblige, so even the translation was strictly to MMY's specification even though Katz did all the original translating. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : I am quite sure it is Maharishi's voice, his thoughts, and his truths, though he had someone else expand, and assemble his ideas, for him. All big business is the same. ;-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : Except, as we've heard here many a time, it really wasn't his commentary. He just approved but gave no credit to the scholar who wrote it. So it goes in the big business of cults. On 09/17/2014 03:19 PM, fleetwood_macncheese@... mailto:fleetwood_macncheese@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: I wasn't there, with Shiva, or Parvati, during that discussion, and I just wouldn't take an interpretation, on face value, from a third party. I liked MMY's commentary - but I admit not having read any appreciable amount of it, in years. Perhaps I will pick it up again. PS Anyone can write a commentary. Whether or not people consider it authoritative, is a personal matter, and not given to supposed edicts, from you, or anyone else. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Who is limiting their horizon, here? For decades I thought Mahesh Yogi's commentary was the be all and end all of Bhagavad Gita commentaries. Why? Because the movement said so. Ignorance is Bliss. Lord Shiva's discourse to Goddess Parvati...Sri Guru Gita explains who is qualified and who is not. It is clear from this scripture where Mahesh Yogi stood.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
In one verse, I seem to recall there is 'deep' in brackets (deep). Seems like that might be Maharishi's addition...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
Bevan would not be glad to hear you tell such tales. From: netineti108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 12:41 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 3:42 PM, netineti108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: So what you insinuate here is that chapters 7-18 are insignificant and not worthy of his time. What I am insinuating is that if you don't understand Chapter II verse 45 of BG, and you don't know TM, and you have not read the MMY's CBG, is that Chapter 7-18 are insignificant and not worth my time discussing it with you. Dear Fellow, After three + decades of the TMO, I knew it too well. I derived great benefit from his CBG in my earlier years. But it was incomplete and my statement that he was not qualified to comment on the remaining chapters is evident as Mahesh Yogi was not educated in the tradition and his actions showed it. If he was a maharishi, why did he have others by his side to interpret Sanskrit/Veda? Who was that sweet old Brahmarishi by his side at the Hague in 1985? Also in Humboldt 1972, there was a Brahmarishi with his son interpreting for Mahesh Yogi. He was no maharishi. Again the western culture's ignorance just blindly accepted this. What is written above is just intellectuallizing and is not a path with knowledge to navigate. It's sounds pretty clear to me - go beyond or transcend the three gunas born of nature. Oh Arjuna, the Vedic scriptures deal with subjects in the three modes of the material nature. Become self-realized, transcendent to the three modes in pure consciousness, free from duality and free from conceptions of acquisition and preservation. http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-02-44.html It is nothing new. Maybe to the Western mind, but not to those who are brought up in the Vedic tradition. Which Mahesh Yogi was not. He was a clerk. He was a yogi clerk - that's how he wrote his commentary. He said, I am not a personal guru yet so many ignorant souls did not know what Guru is. You are mistaken - he did not say this anywhere in CBG. Speak for yourself. I never claimed he said it in CBG. But he did say it. I heard him say it. MMY on the Bhagavad Gita: CBG: II., v. 45, p. 126 VI., v. 1, p. 384
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
which commentary do you use? From: netineti108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 2:28 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic. I put my time into another commentary I find much more complete and practical, thanks.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
Tat Tvam Asi..The Universal Message of the Bhagavad Gita 2 Volumes. 828 pages. written by Dr. Pathikonda Vishwambara Nath, Founder and Chair of International Gita Trust. gitaglobal.com amazon carries it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
Thank you - I'll check it out From: netineti108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic. Tat Tvam Asi..The Universal Message of the Bhagavad Gita 2 Volumes. 828 pages. written by Dr. Pathikonda Vishwambara Nath, Founder and Chair of International Gita Trust. gitaglobal.com amazon carries it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:30 PM, netineti108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Mahesh Yogi was not qualified to provide a commentary on the remainder of the Bhagavad Gita. *The Mahesh Yogi was one of the best scribes in all India, holding a science degree in physics from a major university. MMY could read and write in three languages including Hindi, English and Sanskrit. He was so talented that he was appointed to be the chief clerk of the Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath, the most important headquarters of all the Dasanami sannyasins in all of India. MMY studied the scriptures at the feet of India's most famous yogi - HH Swami Brahmananda Saraswati. Apparently MMY had read all the scriptures by the time he was thirteen, according to his uncle Raj Varma, the famous painter. *
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 1:27 PM, netineti108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: But western culture was and still is ignorant of Sanatan Dharma. *The practice of TM isn't based on religious law or faith in a cosmic order, so the term Sanatan Dharma has no meaning to most TMers. According to Rig Veda 4-138, Hindu is non-native and of Iranian origin.* Yes I saw those pages purported to be the remaining chapters. I still maintain he was not qualified. He was selling what the Veda says is a sin to sell.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 1:28 PM, netineti108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: I put my time into another commentary I find much more complete and practical, thanks. Most TMers on this list don't even need a commentary on BG anymore, since they already know and understand the most important techniques of yoga and the mechanics of consciousness. In advanced meditation techniques the TMers don't even need to follow any written instructions or checking notes - for them, meditation just comes.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:41 AM, netineti108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 3:42 PM, netineti108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: So what you insinuate here is that chapters 7-18 are insignificant and not worthy of his time. What I am insinuating is that if you don't understand Chapter II verse 45 of BG, and you don't know TM, and you have not read the MMY's CBG, is that Chapter 7-18 are insignificant and not worth my time discussing it with you. Dear Fellow, After three + decades of the TMO, I knew it too well. So, did you enjoy? I derived great benefit from his CBG in my earlier years. But it was incomplete and my statement that he was not qualified to comment on the remaining chapters is evident as Mahesh Yogi was not educated in the tradition and his actions showed it. *According to what I've read, the Mahesh Yogi was with with SBS at his passing, So we can assume that the Mahesh Yogi was very important to SBS. We can also assume that the Mahesh Yogi was the most important scribe in all India at that time. Anyone that close to a saint would be so qualified that he would be the most qualified clerk on the planet!* *The Mahesh Yogi was the chief scribe of the Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath. Do you know what that means? SBS was the head of all the Saraswati Dasanami yogis of Northern India.* If he was a maharishi, why did he have others by his side to interpret Sanskrit/Veda? Who was that sweet old Brahmarishi by his side at the Hague in 1985? Also in Humboldt 1972, there was a Brahmarishi with his son interpreting for Mahesh Yogi. He was no maharishi. Again the western culture's ignorance just blindly accepted this. What is written above is just intellectuallizing and is not a path with knowledge to navigate. It's sounds pretty clear to me - go beyond or transcend the three gunas born of nature. *Oh Arjuna, the Vedic scriptures deal with subjects in the three modes of the material nature. Become self-realized, transcendent to the three modes in pure consciousness, free from duality and free from conceptions of acquisition and preservation.* http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-02-44.html It is nothing new. Maybe to the Western mind, but not to those who are brought up in the Vedic tradition. Which Mahesh Yogi was not. He was a clerk. He was a yogi clerk - that's how he wrote his commentary. He said, I am not a personal guru yet so many ignorant souls did not know what Guru is. You are mistaken - he did not say this anywhere in CBG. Speak for yourself. I never claimed he said it in CBG. But he did say it. I heard him say it. *MMY on the Bhagavad Gita: * *CBG: II., v. 45, p. 126 VI., v. 1, p. 384 *
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:30 PM, netineti108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Mahesh Yogi was not qualified to provide a commentary on the remainder of the Bhagavad Gita. *There was no need to publish a comment on the remaining chapters since MMY had already made clear the keystone in the arch of the BG: II verse 45.* *In commenting on Bhagavad Gita, MMY has brought our attention to the existence of the gunas, whose concern is action, which, in every case, is the result of the interplay of three constituents born of nature - eternal becoming, termed Prakriti in the Gita. * *Rajas, sattva and tamas - these three propensities regulate the state of action and are relative to each other and to all that exists in the phenomenal world. That is, nature, which is everything, is subject to the law of causation - cause and effect. It is the gunas, without exception, that govern all action-reaction in the material world. * *However, Maharishi has also called our attention to the fact that nature, governed by the three gunas, is entirely separate from the transcendental field - the field of Being, termed Purusha in the BG. * *MMY on the Bhagavad Gita: * *CBG: II., v. 45, p. 126 VI., v. 1, p. 384 *
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
So what you insinuate here is that chapters 7-18 are insignificant and not worthy of his time. What is written above is just intellectuallizing and is not a path with knowledge to navigate. It is nothing new. Maybe to the Western mind, but not to those who are brought up in the Vedic tradition. Which Mahesh Yogi was not. He was a clerk. He said, I am not a personal guru yet so many ignorant souls did not know what Guru is.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
Except, as we've heard here many a time, it really wasn't his commentary. He just approved but gave no credit to the scholar who wrote it. So it goes in the big business of cults. On 09/17/2014 03:19 PM, fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: I wasn't there, with Shiva, or Parvati, during that discussion, and I just wouldn't take an interpretation, on face value, from a third party. I liked MMY's commentary - but I admit not having read any appreciable amount of it, in years. Perhaps I will pick it up again. PS Anyone can write a commentary. Whether or not people consider it authoritative, is a personal matter, and not given to supposed edicts, from you, or anyone else. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Who is limiting their horizon, here? For decades I thought Mahesh Yogi's commentary was the be all and end all of Bhagavad Gita commentaries. Why? Because the movement said so. Ignorance is Bliss. Lord Shiva's discourse to Goddess Parvati...Sri Guru Gita explains who is qualified and who is not. It is clear from this scripture where Mahesh Yogi stood.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
I am quite sure it is Maharishi's voice, his thoughts, and his truths, though he had someone else expand, and assemble his ideas, for him. All big business is the same. ;-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : Except, as we've heard here many a time, it really wasn't his commentary. He just approved but gave no credit to the scholar who wrote it. So it goes in the big business of cults. On 09/17/2014 03:19 PM, fleetwood_macncheese@... mailto:fleetwood_macncheese@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: I wasn't there, with Shiva, or Parvati, during that discussion, and I just wouldn't take an interpretation, on face value, from a third party. I liked MMY's commentary - but I admit not having read any appreciable amount of it, in years. Perhaps I will pick it up again. PS Anyone can write a commentary. Whether or not people consider it authoritative, is a personal matter, and not given to supposed edicts, from you, or anyone else. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Who is limiting their horizon, here? For decades I thought Mahesh Yogi's commentary was the be all and end all of Bhagavad Gita commentaries. Why? Because the movement said so. Ignorance is Bliss. Lord Shiva's discourse to Goddess Parvati...Sri Guru Gita explains who is qualified and who is not. It is clear from this scripture where Mahesh Yogi stood.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
I have seen a couple posts that alluded to this - but I don't know any details, who is it that actually wrote the commentary and why did he or she do it? From: Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 6:55 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic. Except, as we've heard here many a time, it really wasn't his commentary. He just approved but gave no credit to the scholar who wrote it. So it goes in the big business of cults. On 09/17/2014 03:19 PM, fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: I wasn't there, with Shiva, or Parvati, during that discussion, and I just wouldn't take an interpretation, on face value, from a third party. I liked MMY's commentary - but I admit not having read any appreciable amount of it, in years. Perhaps I will pick it up again. PS Anyone can write a commentary. Whether or not people consider it authoritative, is a personal matter, and not given to supposed edicts, from you, or anyone else. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Who is limiting their horizon, here? For decades I thought Mahesh Yogi's commentary was the be all and end all of Bhagavad Gita commentaries. Why? Because the movement said so. Ignorance is Bliss. Lord Shiva's discourse to Goddess Parvati...Sri Guru Gita explains who is qualified and who is not. It is clear from this scripture where Mahesh Yogi stood.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 3:42 PM, netineti108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: So what you insinuate here is that chapters 7-18 are insignificant and not worthy of his time. What I am insinuating is that if you don't understand Chapter II verse 45 of BG, and you don't know TM, and you have not read the MMY's CBG, is that Chapter 7-18 are insignificant and not worth my time discussing it with you. What is written above is just intellectuallizing and is not a path with knowledge to navigate. It's sounds pretty clear to me - go beyond or transcend the three gunas born of nature. *Oh Arjuna, the Vedic scriptures deal with subjects in the three modes of the material nature. Become self-realized, transcendent to the three modes in pure consciousness, free from duality and free from conceptions of acquisition and preservation.* http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-02-44.html It is nothing new. Maybe to the Western mind, but not to those who are brought up in the Vedic tradition. Which Mahesh Yogi was not. He was a clerk. He was a yogi clerk - that's how he wrote his commentary. He said, I am not a personal guru yet so many ignorant souls did not know what Guru is. You are mistaken - he did not say this anywhere in CBG. Speak for yourself. *MMY on the Bhagavad Gita: * *CBG: II., v. 45, p. 126 VI., v. 1, p. 384 *
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Except, as we've heard here many a time, it really wasn't his commentary. He just approved but gave no credit to the scholar who wrote it. Vernon Katz did the transliteration on CBG. Everyone knows the commentary of MMY is by MMY - who else would have composed it? So it goes in the big business of cults. So, it goes - do you have any evidence that MMY did not dictate the CBG commentary? If so, just post it so we can read it. Thanks. On 09/17/2014 03:19 PM, fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: I wasn't there, with Shiva, or Parvati, during that discussion, and I just wouldn't take an interpretation, on face value, from a third party. I liked MMY's commentary - but I admit not having read any appreciable amount of it, in years. Perhaps I will pick it up again. PS Anyone can write a commentary. Whether or not people consider it authoritative, is a personal matter, and not given to supposed edicts, from you, or anyone else. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Who is limiting their horizon, here? For decades I thought Mahesh Yogi's commentary was the be all and end all of Bhagavad Gita commentaries. Why? Because the movement said so. Ignorance is Bliss. Lord Shiva's discourse to Goddess Parvati...Sri Guru Gita explains who is qualified and who is not. It is clear from this scripture where Mahesh Yogi stood.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: I have seen a couple posts that alluded to this - but I don't know any details, who is it that actually wrote the commentary and why did he or she do it? *If you had been keeping up with the conversation you would already know that Judy blew to bits the theory that somebody else wrote CBG. Go figure.* -- *From:* Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Wednesday, September 17, 2014 6:55 PM *Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic. Except, as we've heard here many a time, it really wasn't his commentary. He just approved but gave no credit to the scholar who wrote it. So it goes in the big business of cults. On 09/17/2014 03:19 PM, fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: I wasn't there, with Shiva, or Parvati, during that discussion, and I just wouldn't take an interpretation, on face value, from a third party. I liked MMY's commentary - but I admit not having read any appreciable amount of it, in years. Perhaps I will pick it up again. PS Anyone can write a commentary. Whether or not people consider it authoritative, is a personal matter, and not given to supposed edicts, from you, or anyone else. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Who is limiting their horizon, here? For decades I thought Mahesh Yogi's commentary was the be all and end all of Bhagavad Gita commentaries. Why? Because the movement said so. Ignorance is Bliss. Lord Shiva's discourse to Goddess Parvati...Sri Guru Gita explains who is qualified and who is not. It is clear from this scripture where Mahesh Yogi stood.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : Except, as we've heard here many a time, it really wasn't his commentary. He just approved but gave no credit to the scholar who wrote it. So it goes in the big business of cults. B-Man, Please stop making shit up. Maharishi's writing of His Commentary is well documented in books that you should read, rather than making shit up. On 09/17/2014 03:19 PM, fleetwood_macncheese@... mailto:fleetwood_macncheese@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: I wasn't there, with Shiva, or Parvati, during that discussion, and I just wouldn't take an interpretation, on face value, from a third party. I liked MMY's commentary - but I admit not having read any appreciable amount of it, in years. Perhaps I will pick it up again. PS Anyone can write a commentary. Whether or not people consider it authoritative, is a personal matter, and not given to supposed edicts, from you, or anyone else. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Who is limiting their horizon, here? For decades I thought Mahesh Yogi's commentary was the be all and end all of Bhagavad Gita commentaries. Why? Because the movement said so. Ignorance is Bliss. Lord Shiva's discourse to Goddess Parvati...Sri Guru Gita explains who is qualified and who is not. It is clear from this scripture where Mahesh Yogi stood.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : I am quite sure it is Maharishi's voice, his thoughts, and his truths, though he had someone else expand, and assemble his ideas, for him. All big business is the same. ;-) Suggested Readings: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - A Living Saint, Theresa Olson Conversations With Maharishi, Vernan Katz ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : Except, as we've heard here many a time, it really wasn't his commentary. He just approved but gave no credit to the scholar who wrote it. So it goes in the big business of cults. On 09/17/2014 03:19 PM, fleetwood_macncheese@... mailto:fleetwood_macncheese@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: I wasn't there, with Shiva, or Parvati, during that discussion, and I just wouldn't take an interpretation, on face value, from a third party. I liked MMY's commentary - but I admit not having read any appreciable amount of it, in years. Perhaps I will pick it up again. PS Anyone can write a commentary. Whether or not people consider it authoritative, is a personal matter, and not given to supposed edicts, from you, or anyone else. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Who is limiting their horizon, here? For decades I thought Mahesh Yogi's commentary was the be all and end all of Bhagavad Gita commentaries. Why? Because the movement said so. Ignorance is Bliss. Lord Shiva's discourse to Goddess Parvati...Sri Guru Gita explains who is qualified and who is not. It is clear from this scripture where Mahesh Yogi stood.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Bhairitu noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Except, as we've heard here many a time, it really wasn't his commentary. He just approved but gave no credit to the scholar who wrote it. Vernon Katz did the transliteration on CBG. Everyone knows the commentary of MMY is by MMY - who else would have composed it? I have a copy of the Bhagavad Gita (Sanskrit) that Maharishi used. So it goes in the big business of cults. So, it goes - do you have any evidence that MMY did not dictate the CBG commentary? If so, just post it so we can read it. Thanks. On 09/17/2014 03:19 PM, fleetwood_macncheese@... mailto:fleetwood_macncheese@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: I wasn't there, with Shiva, or Parvati, during that discussion, and I just wouldn't take an interpretation, on face value, from a third party. I liked MMY's commentary - but I admit not having read any appreciable amount of it, in years. Perhaps I will pick it up again. PS Anyone can write a commentary. Whether or not people consider it authoritative, is a personal matter, and not given to supposed edicts, from you, or anyone else. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Who is limiting their horizon, here? For decades I thought Mahesh Yogi's commentary was the be all and end all of Bhagavad Gita commentaries. Why? Because the movement said so. Ignorance is Bliss. Lord Shiva's discourse to Goddess Parvati...Sri Guru Gita explains who is qualified and who is not. It is clear from this scripture where Mahesh Yogi stood.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... mailto:mjackson74@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: I have seen a couple posts that alluded to this - but I don't know any details, who is it that actually wrote the commentary and why did he or she do it? If you had been keeping up with the conversation you would already know that Judy blew to bits the theory that somebody else wrote CBG. Go figure. He discredited Judy. Something to do with Nazis. From: Bhairitu noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 6:55 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic. Except, as we've heard here many a time, it really wasn't his commentary. He just approved but gave no credit to the scholar who wrote it. So it goes in the big business of cults. On 09/17/2014 03:19 PM, fleetwood_macncheese@... mailto:fleetwood_macncheese@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: I wasn't there, with Shiva, or Parvati, during that discussion, and I just wouldn't take an interpretation, on face value, from a third party. I liked MMY's commentary - but I admit not having read any appreciable amount of it, in years. Perhaps I will pick it up again. PS Anyone can write a commentary. Whether or not people consider it authoritative, is a personal matter, and not given to supposed edicts, from you, or anyone else. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Who is limiting their horizon, here? For decades I thought Mahesh Yogi's commentary was the be all and end all of Bhagavad Gita commentaries. Why? Because the movement said so. Ignorance is Bliss. Lord Shiva's discourse to Goddess Parvati...Sri Guru Gita explains who is qualified and who is not. It is clear from this scripture where Mahesh Yogi stood.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
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 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 7:18 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com 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?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
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. 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 7:18 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... 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. 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. You lost me at According to Wikipedia ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 7:18 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
On 9/12/2014 6:59 AM, Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: the battle was an historical battle It is a historic fact that the Aryans invaded India beginning in 1500 B.C., around the time of the Rig Veda, which describes many battles between the indigenous inhabitants and the invading Aryan-speakers. By what proof other than your willingness to believe it as a part of your larger need to be Marshy's patsy? Maybe you should take time to read a book about Indian history. Why do you think the Aryan-invaders invented the chariot? Go figure. *From:* danfriedman2002 no_re...@yahoogroups.com *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Friday, September 12, 2014 7:18 AM *Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
On 9/12/2014 7:22 AM, anartax...@yahoo.com [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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 no_re...@yahoogroups.com *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Friday, September 12, 2014 7:18 AM *Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
Regarding the Kurukshetra War - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, danfriedman2...@yahoogroups.com wrote : You lost me at According to Wikipedia - Well, short attention span or reading problems, huh? How about Encylopaedia Britannica: The Mahabharata is an important source of information on the development of Hinduism between 400 BCE and 200 CE and is regarded by Hindus as both a text about dharma (Hindu moral law) and a history (itihasa, literally 'that's what happened'). Appearing in its present form about 400 CE, the Mahabharata consists of a mass of mythological and didactic material arranged around a central heroic narrative that tells of the struggle for sovereignty between two groups of cousins, the Kauravas (sons of Dhritarashtra, the descendant of Kuru) and the Pandavas (sons of Pandu). The date for the war that is the central event of the Mahabharata is much debated, but it must have taken place sometime before 500 BCE. Or from one of the many web pages on the subject: Incidentally, the dating of the Mahabharat War has been a matter of challenge and controversy for a century or two. European scholars have maintained that the events described in the ancient Sanskrut texts are imaginary and subsequently, the Mahabharat derived to be a fictitious tale of a war fought between two rivalries. Starting from the so called Aryan invasion into Bharat, the current Bharatiya chronology starts from the compilation of the Rigved in 1200 B.C., then come other Ved's, Mahaveer Jain is born, then Gautam Buddha lives around 585 B.C. and the rest follows. In the meantime, the Brahmanas, Samhi tas, Puranas, etc. are written and the thought contained therein is well-absorbed among the Hindu minds. Where does the Ramayan and Mahabharat fit in? Some say that the Ramayan follows Mahabharat and some opine otherwise. In all this anarchy of Indian historiography, the date of the Mahabharat (the mythical story!) ranges between 1000 B.C. to 300 B.C. Sanskrit epics were academically attacked occasionally - an attempt to disprove the authenticity of the annals noted therein. For example, the European Indologist Maxmuller, tried the interpret the astronomical evidences to prove that the observations recorded in the Hindu scriptures are imaginary, probably because it did not match the prevalent views of European historians!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Regarding the Kurukshetra War - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, danfriedman2...@yahoogroups.com wrote : You lost me at According to Wikipedia - Well, short attention span or reading problems, huh? How about Encylopaedia Britannica: The Mahabharata is an important source of information on the development of Hinduism between 400 BCE and 200 CE and is regarded by Hindus as both a text about dharma (Hindu moral law) and a history (itihasa, literally 'that's what happened'). Appearing in its present form about 400 CE, the Mahabharata consists of a mass of mythological and didactic material arranged around a central heroic narrative that tells of the struggle for sovereignty between two groups of cousins, the Kauravas (sons of Dhritarashtra, the descendant of Kuru) and the Pandavas (sons of Pandu). The date for the war that is the central event of the Mahabharata is much debated, but it must have taken place sometime before 500 BCE. Or from one of the many web pages on the subject: Incidentally, the dating of the Mahabharat War has been a matter of challenge and controversy for a century or two. European scholars have maintained that the events described in the ancient Sanskrut texts are imaginary and subsequently, the Mahabharat derived to be a fictitious tale of a war fought between two rivalries. Starting from the so called Aryan invasion into Bharat, the current Bharatiya chronology starts from the compilation of the Rigved in 1200 B.C., then come other Ved's, Mahaveer Jain is born, then Gautam Buddha lives around 585 B.C. and the rest follows. In the meantime, the Brahmanas, Samhi tas, Puranas, etc. are written and the thought contained therein is well-absorbed among the Hindu minds. Where does the Ramayan and Mahabharat fit in? Some say that the Ramayan follows Mahabharat and some opine otherwise. In all this anarchy of Indian historiography, the date of the Mahabharat (the mythical story!) ranges between 1000 B.C. to 300 B.C. Sanskrit epics were academically attacked occasionally - an attempt to disprove the authenticity of the annals noted therein. For example, the European Indologist Maxmuller, tried the interpret the astronomical evidences to prove that the observations recorded in the Hindu scriptures are imaginary, probably because it did not match the prevalent views of European historians! Did I type the wrong url? Why do I keep getting Wikipedia and web page quotes? Has ffl been hijacked? How do I access ffl now? I'll try using the Archives.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
The 5 Pandus were meant to represent the 5 lower chakras under the power of the soul and the 100 evil minded sons of Dhritarashtra were meant to represent all the vices man is subject to in life, Duryodana chief among them as Material Desire. Which came first? the war? or the allegory of man's spiritual quest? I think the later! Vyasa's Bhagavad Gita came first, the so-called war was added to tell the story!, get it? The field of the body (kurushetra) is where the battle is fought between the evil and good tendencies (there's that duality again, God and the Devil). Hence the BG is as Religious as any Christian scripture. It's really a beautiful story that MMY really hasn't addressed, that wasn't his intention after all, but that's another story.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
On 9/12/2014 12:55 PM, anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Regarding the Kurukshetra War The Aryan-speakers invaded South Asia and started a long battle beginning in 1500 B.C. if not before. That's why they invented the chariot to be used in battle. Forum: alt.meditation.transcendental Thread: Aryan Invasion Theory Subject: Why on earth should hordes of mounted warriors have moved? Author: will...@yahoo.com Date: 04/07/2002 http://tinyurl.com/q2j3pgv The BG is concerned with three constituents: rajas sattva, and tamas. The idea is to transcend these three qualities. According to MMY: /The authorship of action does not in reality belong to the I. It is a mistake to understand that I do this, I experience this and I know this. //All action is performed by the three gunas born of nature./ The implications of these passages indicate that the nature of the mind is appreciated as it is, separate from activity. The goal of TM does not consist in gaining anything or reaching anything, but simply in recognizing what already is the case: that the I is essentially uninvolved with activity. Here, the ONLY criterion is internal: the Self recognized as independent of action - /the causal nexus./ /The Vedas concern is with the three gunas. Be without the three gunas O Arjuna, freed from duality, ever possesses of Self./ - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, danfriedman2...@yahoogroups.com wrote : You lost me at According to Wikipedia - Well, short attention span or reading problems, huh? How about Encylopaedia Britannica: The Mahabharata is an important source of information on the development of Hinduism between 400 BCE and 200 CE and is regarded by Hindus as both a text about dharma (Hindu moral law) and a history (itihasa, literally 'that's what happened'). Appearing in its present form about 400 CE,the Mahabharata consists of a mass of mythological and didactic material arranged around a central heroic narrative that tells of the struggle for sovereignty between two groups of cousins, the Kauravas (sons of Dhritarashtra, the descendant of Kuru) and the Pandavas (sons of Pandu). The date for the war that is the central event of the Mahabharata is much debated, but it must have taken place sometime before 500 BCE. Or from one of the many web pages on the subject: Incidentally, the dating of the Mahabharat War has been a matter of challenge and controversy for a century or two. European scholars have maintained that the events described in the ancient Sanskrut texts are imaginary and subsequently, the Mahabharat derived to be a fictitious tale of a war fought between two rivalries. Starting from the so called Aryan invasion into Bharat, the current Bharatiya chronology starts from the compilation of the Rigved in 1200 B.C., then come other Ved's, Mahaveer Jain is born, then Gautam Buddha lives around 585 B.C. and the rest follows. In the meantime, the Brahmanas, Samhi tas, Puranas, etc. are written and the thought contained therein is well-absorbed among the Hindu minds. Where does the Ramayan and Mahabharat fit in? Some say that the Ramayan follows Mahabharat and some opine otherwise. In all this anarchy of Indian historiography, the date of the Mahabharat (the mythical story!) ranges between 1000 B.C. to 300 B.C. Sanskrit epics were academically attacked occasionally - an attempt to disprove the authenticity of the annals noted therein. For example, the European Indologist Maxmuller, tried the interpret the astronomical evidences to prove that the observations recorded in the Hindu scriptures are imaginary, probably because it did not match the prevalent views of European historians!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY's Bhagavad Gita will never be a classic.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : The 5 Pandus were meant to represent the 5 lower chakras under the power of the soul and the 100 evil minded sons of Dhritarashtra were meant to represent all the vices man is subject to in life, Duryodana chief among them as Material Desire. Which came first? the war? or the allegory of man's spiritual quest? I think the later! Vyasa's Bhagavad Gita came first, the so-called war was added to tell the story!, get it? The BG is the highest expression of devine intelligence understood by man. Dealing with the unseen aspects of life, it also touches on the past and present of the world of our daily life. Furthermore, the BG, while expounding universal Truth, is itself a historical record and relates incidents that took place five thousand years ago... The BG forms the central core of Indian History, the Mahabharata... It is regrettable that some modern commentators on the BG have followed in the footsteps of modern historians, and refused to admit its historic authenticity. It is hoped that the light will dawn and truth will be recognized as truth. MMY Commentary on BG The field of the body (kurushetra) is where the battle is fought between the evil and good tendencies (there's that duality again, God and the Devil). Hence the BG is as Religious as any Christian scripture. It's really a beautiful story that MMY really hasn't addressed, that wasn't his intention after all, but that's another story. Better get past 'the body' if you want spiritual progress.
