This book reviews various commentaries (of both Indian and non-Indian interpreters) of Bhagavad-Gita and discusses its effect on the development of Hinduism. The introductory part discusses the history of modern Hinduism and specific images of Hindu tradition, but lacks focus and overlooks key references to Vedas and post-Vedic literature. For example, when discussing about Farquhar's interpretation of Bhagavadgita, there are inconsistencies from paragraph to paragraph. In one paragraph, he has favorable views on Bible over Gita in his comparative analysis, and in the next paragraph we read a different conclusion without properly explaining why Farquhar changed his views. There are too many repetitions of phrases and sentences, sometimes it reads like a catalogue of statements rather than a clear discussion. The author jumps too quickly from commentary on Gita to shaping of modern Hinduism instead of focusing on Gita. The literature surveyed in the introduction refers mainly on the work of British authors; she could have been more inclusive, and certainly her work does not call for a hefty price tag of this book. For any reader interested in the interpretations of Gita, I recommend Robert Minor's edited book, "Modern Indian Interpreters of Bhagavad-Gita."
The commentary on Gita by Swami Sivananda, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and Anne Besant has been described adequately expounding their spiritual teachings and metaphysical outlook. But the author does very little to discuss the spiritual teachings of Vivekananda and Henry David Thoreau except document some of their general comments about Gita and Vedanta from their lectures and letters. There is no discussion of Vivekananda's view on the Yoga and Sankhya philosophies. Aldous Huxley did not address the metaphysical elements of Gita in greater depths. He observed that the union of the self with divine and the knowledge of the Brahman-Ataman union is the perennial philosophy. Huxley was a member of Vedanta Society and worshipped at the Hollywood temple with Christopher Isherwood. His views were the same as that of Vedanta Society.
Bal Gangadhar Tilak interpreted the principal message of Gita is the duty of action. Performing action without committing the sin, namely the karma-yoga founded on knowledge in which devotion is the principal factor is the principle message of Gita. Gandhi also stressed action but in contrast to Tilak, he argued that karma yoga signified non-violence. His view strongly focused on both action and non-violence and its relevance to life where there is no divide between sacred and secular. Since action has to be self-less therefore he suggested that signifies non-violence. The practice of karma yoga involves devotion and knowledge. He reasoned that if there is no knowledge, there is no wisdom and without devotion, there is no love. Gandhi also viewed the war represents man's internal conflict and the questions regarding the fate of combatants and the outcome of a conflict is futile because even the victors will have psychological defeat: A field of righteousness prevails in all these conflicts. Aurobindo established a contrast to the teachings of Tilak and Gandhi in that Gita did not play significant role during his nationalist activity but became relevant in the later part of his life. He emphasized that the spiritual message conveyed by Gita in that Arjuna was a man of action guided by an ideal spirit to combine action with renunciation. He believed that Sanatana Dharma is life itself and hence revival of this requires Gita to be a universal message for humanity.
According to Prabhupada, Gita is a message for the worship of Krishna and bhakti yoga is the key in finding unity with the personal Godhead. Krishna Prem also believed devotional and theistic teachings of Gita with a different emphasis on the devotional aspect. He believed that all religions are fundamentally the same. Sri Chinmoy adopted very similar theme as that Krishna Prem and focused on the technique for transcendental mediation. Discussing God, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi identified both impersonal and personal conceptions of divinity but concluded that the impersonal identity is higher than the personal nature since the former is at the level of transcendental consciousness and the personal God is identified with ordinary consciousness. Swami Sivananda's commentary observed that the action, the devotion, and the knowledge are the principle message of Gita. Krishna taught different paths but they are all of same. The paths of action and knowledge may not be combined; he urged the adoption of jnana yoga once the heart has been purified by karma yoga. Sivananda was a Vedantin like Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan and gave strong emphasis to karma yoga but also suggested that jnana yoga eliminated obscurity and bhakti yoga eradicated disorder.
R.D. Griffith gave a higher role for the teachings of Bible and its setting of Mount Sinai with its natural and tranquil setting than the battle field of Gita. Farquhar likewise saw the teaching of Bible is the true teaching of the Lord; Jesus is the reality and Krishna is a myth. He concluded that the teachings of Gita reflected the teachings of Gospels and prepares a follower of Gita and Hinduism for the teachings of New Testament. Bede Griffith's argument was that the message of Gita set forth a devotion to Krishna where action was inspired by love for the divine. In the earlier work, Griffiths viewed Hinduism supports Christian theology and latter he stated that both speak of the same truth.
The commentary on Gita by Swami Sivananda, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and Anne Besant has been described adequately expounding their spiritual teachings and metaphysical outlook. But the author does very little to discuss the spiritual teachings of Vivekananda and Henry David Thoreau except document some of their general comments about Gita and Vedanta from their lectures and letters. There is no discussion of Vivekananda's view on the Yoga and Sankhya philosophies. Aldous Huxley did not address the metaphysical elements of Gita in greater depths. He observed that the union of the self with divine and the knowledge of the Brahman-Ataman union is the perennial philosophy. Huxley was a member of Vedanta Society and worshipped at the Hollywood temple with Christopher Isherwood. His views were the same as that of Vedanta Society.
Bal Gangadhar Tilak interpreted the principal message of Gita is the duty of action. Performing action without committing the sin, namely the karma-yoga founded on knowledge in which devotion is the principal factor is the principle message of Gita. Gandhi also stressed action but in contrast to Tilak, he argued that karma yoga signified non-violence. His view strongly focused on both action and non-violence and its relevance to life where there is no divide between sacred and secular. Since action has to be self-less therefore he suggested that signifies non-violence. The practice of karma yoga involves devotion and knowledge. He reasoned that if there is no knowledge, there is no wisdom and without devotion, there is no love. Gandhi also viewed the war represents man's internal conflict and the questions regarding the fate of combatants and the outcome of a conflict is futile because even the victors will have psychological defeat: A field of righteousness prevails in all these conflicts. Aurobindo established a contrast to the teachings of Tilak and Gandhi in that Gita did not play significant role during his nationalist activity but became relevant in the later part of his life. He emphasized that the spiritual message conveyed by Gita in that Arjuna was a man of action guided by an ideal spirit to combine action with renunciation. He believed that Sanatana Dharma is life itself and hence revival of this requires Gita to be a universal message for humanity.
According to Prabhupada, Gita is a message for the worship of Krishna and bhakti yoga is the key in finding unity with the personal Godhead. Krishna Prem also believed devotional and theistic teachings of Gita with a different emphasis on the devotional aspect. He believed that all religions are fundamentally the same. Sri Chinmoy adopted very similar theme as that Krishna Prem and focused on the technique for transcendental mediation. Discussing God, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi identified both impersonal and personal conceptions of divinity but concluded that the impersonal identity is higher than the personal nature since the former is at the level of transcendental consciousness and the personal God is identified with ordinary consciousness. Swami Sivananda's commentary observed that the action, the devotion, and the knowledge are the principle message of Gita. Krishna taught different paths but they are all of same. The paths of action and knowledge may not be combined; he urged the adoption of jnana yoga once the heart has been purified by karma yoga. Sivananda was a Vedantin like Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan and gave strong emphasis to karma yoga but also suggested that jnana yoga eliminated obscurity and bhakti yoga eradicated disorder.
R.D. Griffith gave a higher role for the teachings of Bible and its setting of Mount Sinai with its natural and tranquil setting than the battle field of Gita. Farquhar likewise saw the teaching of Bible is the true teaching of the Lord; Jesus is the reality and Krishna is a myth. He concluded that the teachings of Gita reflected the teachings of Gospels and prepares a follower of Gita and Hinduism for the teachings of New Testament. Bede Griffith's argument was that the message of Gita set forth a devotion to Krishna where action was inspired by love for the divine. In the earlier work, Griffiths viewed Hinduism supports Christian theology and latter he stated that both speak of the same truth.
Reference: Interpretations of the Bhagavad-Gita and Images of the Hindu Tradition: The Song of the Lord by Catherine A. Robinson
No comments:
Post a Comment