Bhagvad Gita faces legal ban in Russia

[The Messiah]

This is what is wrong with religions...each have countless translations and interpretations and as a result contradicting dictates come out in the open which are then utilized by people for political or personal gains.

 

[LurkerBaba]

yeah that unfortunately is right.
what about translation by Vivekananda???
is there any ???

Yeah but it's not free

Flipkart.com: Bhagavad Gita As Viewed By Swami Vivekananda: Book: Swami Vivekananda (9788175053328) (Vivekananda, but not exactly a translation)

Flipkart.com: The Bhagavad Gita: Book: Sri Aurobindo (9788186510032) (by Aurobindo)

 

[Singh]

Well one issue I have after having read the ISKCON-Gita...there is a verse and there is a translation, but then there is a further "interpretation" paragraph which has stuff completely unrelated (and may times contradictory) to the translation !

Also, I don't like the fact that the guy in the beginning says that "all other interpretations of Gita are un-true, only my work is correct since I'm descended from so and so sage."

Everyone interprets Gita according to their school of thought. Its a question of faith.

 

[johnee]

This is what is wrong with religions...each have countless translations and interpretations and as a result contradicting dictates come out in the open which are then utilized by people for political or personal gains.

Not just religion, any idea is customized by people to suit their bias, needs and hopes. Interpretations and translations display this common human trait.

LurkerBaba,
I think there are various 'disciple successions'(parampara). Advaita, Dvaita, Vishishta Advaita, Sikh, Shaiva, Smarta, Vaishnava, Shakteya...so on and so forth. Depending on the parampara, the interpretation changes.

 

[civfanatic]

Here are some (translated) comments by Russians about the ban, in case anyone is interested:

I honestly do not understand why and for what someone has decided to include this book in the category of extremism? This scripture teaches peace, goodness, justice and development exclusively positive character traits from ANY of the human race.
My way of writing this has just started, but I now understand the depth of the knowledge in it and I regret only one thing - that had not previously began its study.
I sincerely wish all enemies of this remarkable book flip through a few chapters to see the error of their views.

We demand justice and freedom of belief and religion!

this is just some sort of Middle Ages - the court on the book! but where is the freedom of religion? at least it's disrespectful to India - a country with a much older religious tradition than Russia, where the main religion is Christianity, once brought from Byzantium and artificially implanted. please, stop religious racism!

I think the trial of the "Bhagavad-gita" provocation, pursuing political goals. This book is recognized by many scholars, the world famous Albert Einstein, Ralph Emerson ... And even our Russian Enlightenment - Tolstoy and Radishchev! I think that the court is organized by people on the level of intellect is inferior not only to these scientists, but also ordinary people, leading a pious life, regardless of their religion.

This is really hard to imagine what terrlible outcome it would be for the whole Russian culture and modern life if one of the most exalted scripture of the Earth will be banned there. Shame.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

when something gets banned it usually becomes more popular.

 

[johnee]

Nice to see those Russian views. But, surprisingly, all of them are critical of the ban. Is it a selective translation or this is how most Russians think?

 

[civfanatic]

Nice to see those Russian views. But, surprisingly, all of them are critical of the ban. Is it a selective translation or this is how most Russians think?

They are all from the first page of comments on this petition:
http://www.petitions24.com/forum/21894/start/0

I only looked through the first few pages but I couldn't find any that were in support of the ban (obviously not, since they had all come to the site specifically to petition against the ban).

 

[Vyom]

It's pretty obvious the way he calls the book "As it is", anyways I'll quote actual text (I have the book open too)

-----

He tells people to accept Gita without interpretation, fair enough. But is the authority ? It's seems its the guy who's received it via "disciplic succession"



---------

So what is this "disciplic succession" ? It's defined in the chapter The Disciplic Succession



Right....so he's received knowledge from an unbroken chain of people starting from Krishna to Narad to Bhrama...

------
Now that part is clear, and apparently now he's the original and authoritative source on account of being in "disciplic succession", he gives us this gem

When he says "Disciplic Succession", he means learning it from someone who has the authority to preach it. You may choose to learn it from anyone, but it is his firm opinion that it must be learnt by a "Guru-Shishya" type of system. You should know what traditionally gurus in India meant.

By "unauthorized commentaries" he means, only those should preach Bhagavad Gita who are pure devotees of Krishna.

You may find it hard to understand both these statements because to do so you have to realize the Bhagavad Gita in and out and in its entirety, and for that the first step is to realize the position of Krishna and see Him purely through the verses of Gita.

 

[LurkerBaba]

When he says "Disciplic Succession", he means learning it from someone who has the authority to preach it. You may choose to learn it from anyone, but it is his firm opinion that it must be learnt by a "Guru-Shishya" type of system. You should know what traditionally gurus in India meant.

He clearly defines "Disciplic Succession", by saying that he is the the most recent link in the chain of disciples, doesn't say a word about generic Guru Shisya system

By "unauthorized commentaries" he means, only those should preach Bhagavad Gita who are pure devotees of Krishna.

There is a obvious reference to Krishna consciousness i.e ISKCON i.e only ISKCON should preach Gita

You may find it hard to understand both these statements because to do so you have to realize the Bhagavad Gita in and out and in its entirety, and for that the first step is to realize the position of Krishna and see Him purely through the verses of Gita.

This is the ISKCON Gita which is claiming to be the "true Gita" (doesn't it sound similar to certain other religons?).

 

[johnee]

He clearly defines "Disciplic Succession", by saying that he is the the most recent link in the chain of disciples, doesn't say a word about generic Guru Shisya system

There is a obvious reference to Krishna consciousness i.e ISKCON i.e only ISKCON should preach Gita

This is the ISKCON Gita which is claiming to be the "true Gita" (doesn't it sound similar to certain other religons?).

I think all traditions(Paramparas) claim that they are the most accurate or the best. Thats part of the parcel. A neutral person is expected to go through the contents and claims objectively and then select or reject. Someone part of the tradition is expected to believe that his tradition is the best.

 

[Vyom]

He clearly defines "Disciplic Succession", by saying that he is the the most recent link in the chain of disciples, doesn't say a word about generic Guru Shisya system

How can he define something other than its obvious and generic meaning. "Disciplic Succession" means Guru-Shishya system, where Guru is someone who has not only authority over the subject but also the underlying ethical fabric of human world.

This is the ISKCON Gita which is claiming to be the "true Gita" (doesn't it sound similar to certain other religons?).

He is just saying that his version is the unadulterated one. He is well within his rights to claim that. You may choose not to believe him though, because no one has the original manuscript allegedly dictated by Ved Vyas. But from my experience of reading Bhagavad Gita from different sources, I found the Gorakhpur Press (the older version) more suitable with the findings I have deduced, pitting it against the fundamental physical nature of the universe and of life. Although, I found no major aberrations in Bhagavad Gita As It Is as well, meaning you still get the essence of Gita, as long it is not majorly distorted, no matter whose translation you read.

 

[Tshering22]

This is what is wrong with religions...each have countless translations and interpretations and as a result contradicting dictates come out in the open which are then utilized by people for political or personal gains.

With RELIGIONS Messiah... not Dharmic philosophical paths where interpretations are not dealt with militant groups.

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

Hey Guys, one of y friend is a Sanskrit Pandit. He told me that how a sentence in Sanskrit can have two different interpretations. One meaning says that the "Sun is in the middle and the earth rotates around it" and the other meaning of the same line is " A cow is tied to a stick at the center and the cow rotates around the stick". So, from this I understood that before translating anything which is Sanskrit we should first have the correct meaning and then we have to translate and then check it twice or thrice before making a release of it.

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

This is what is wrong with religions...each have countless translations and interpretations and as a result contradicting dictates come out in the open which are then utilized by people for political or personal gains.

SANATHANA DHARMA is not a religion. It is a path of truth. You can consider anyone as a GOD according to your belief but you have to lead a good and correct path without doing any wrong deeds. In fact SANATHANA DHARMA says " HUMAN HIMSELF IS THE GOD AND GOD IS INSIDE YOU WHY DO YOU SEARCH FOR HIM IN THE OUTSIDE".

 

[johnee]

With RELIGIONS Messiah... not Dharmic philosophical paths where interpretations are not dealt with militant groups.

I had written a post in another forum on similar issue. I am cross posting it:

The original comment: Islam is the most divided religion.

My post:A humble nitpick: Islam is not anymore divided then other religions and creeds. Human thinking is such that all people can never agree to one thing at all times. This is impossible even in a tight-knit small groups. So, to expect an entire creed to profess a single view in all things at all times seems a bit foolish. But this is exactly the condition placed by Islam. Islam rejects any diversity of thought and encourages its mullahs to enforce uniformity of thought. This creates the problems for an islamic society. Because no dissent is tolerated and no diversity is allowed. It starts from bigger differences and proceeds to minutest and irrelevant theological details.

In a society where muslims live with other non-muslims, the biggest difference is with the Kafirs. So, the muslim society can be united against the Kafir ignoring the internal differences. But in a society made up of predominantly muslims, the differences among the muslims is taken seriously. This leads to sectarian violence. But this is no end. If one sects succeeds in eliminating the other sect, even then the violence wont end. Because some other difference within the sect will soon create factions that will fight further. This is a process that will go ad infitum.

To be fair to Islam, this trait has been picked up by it from Christianity which has its roots in Judaism. All the three religions exhibit this feature. Christianity and Judaism have suffered due to the falling 'faith' of its adherents. And since the state promotes free speech, these two religions have been subjected to inspection and have been forced to accommodate. Christianity, in particular, has been subjected to harsh but well-deserved criticism which has somewhat curbed the theological intolerance in clergy(atleast outwardly).

Islam has escaped inspection and criticism by simply refusing to accept free speech even in countries that are not ruled by Islamists.

 

[yogesh108]

Show our Disagreement - Sign Online Petition

GITA teaches us to equally respect a cow, an elephant , a dog and a dog eater because everyone is part of God. And this foolish people are labelling it extremist....

We request you to sign the online Petition to show our disagreement.... spread the link to all the forums...
Суд над Бхагавад-гитой / Attempt to ban Bhagavad-gita - Petitions24.com

Once you sign the petition you will get a confirmation email , just click on the link and confirm. It takes max 30 seconds.

 

[SADAKHUSH]

Dump the T90 and other crappy equipment we buy from them.

What are we going to achieve by the action suggested by you? The Bhagvat Gita can also be made available on internet. Just relax and cool down my friend, whoever wants to learn about religion of others can do so if they have the will for that.

 

[yogesh108]

What are we going to achieve by the action suggested by you? The Bhagvat Gita can also be made available on internet. Just relax and cool down my friend, whoever wants to learn about religion of others can do so if they have the will for that.

With all repset to you sir..... this petition is raised by ISKCON Russia and they want us to do it.... Similar issue was faced by Iskcon Hungary and the online petition helped them alot. They are fighiting the battle there so the least thing we can do is support them in the way they want

 

[Vyom]

Ban the Gita? A look at Arjuna's doubts vs Krishna's wisdom

A Siberian court will shortly pronounce its verdict in a case calling for a ban on the Bhagawad Gita. The alleged reason: the Gita is apparently spreading "social discord".

As a complex text that can be interpreted in many ways, it's no surprise that people unfamiliar with the Indian cultural ethos might read all kinds of subversive meanings into it. Is it a call to war, or is it an allegorical work calling on each one of us to fight the evil within, as Gandhi would like us to believe?

It's probably both, since the context of the Gita's message is a war. But that does not make it a war-mongering text.
If a lack of cultural understanding can get a sacred text banned, there is a strong case to ban even the Bible and the Koran, which don't lack for controversial passages themselves.

Krishna does not say that war is the first option, but that it is important in a certain context. ISCON/Flikr

No doubt good sense will prevail in Russia, but this a good time to check if even we understand the essential import of the message of the Gita. I am no expert in either Sanskrit or the Gita, but I would like to offer a commonsense understanding of its central message — and especially its core message on war and peace. I find that even Nobel laureates like Amartya Sen miss the point.

Like any sacred text of the world, the Gita offers both eternal principles to live by as well as contextual guidance. So it is important to acknowledge both the context of its message, and the broader bits of wisdom.

The context is this: after repeated attempts to obtain an honourable peace, the Pandavas realise that there is no option but to go to war with the Kauravas. The latter were their kin, but they had usurped the Pandavas' kingdom through chicanery. For their part, the Pandavas foolishly agreed to a high stakes game of dice in which they lost everything.
However, when the armies assemble for combat, Arjuna loses his nerve on finding that he will have to battle and kill kith and kin and many of his teachers and elders. He is about to abandon the fight when Krishna intervenes. The Gita's message on war is given in this context – and is not a general exhortation to war on your neighbours.

Krishna's advice is simple: when you have decided on war after all options for peace ended, you have a duty to fight. That is your dharma. Krishna does not say that war is the first option, but that it is important in a certain context.
Amartya Sen has often taken the side of Arjuna – and treats Arjuna's doubts as an important argument in favour of pacificism.

No one can enter a war lightly. Arjuna's doubts were legitimate, but the doubts were the result of allowing emotion to cloud clear thinking.

Amartya Sen's laudatory references to Arjuna's self-doubts are wrong precisely because genuine pacifism can come only from strength and a willingness to fight for what is right. As Gandhi stressed, non-violence is the weapon not of the coward, but the truly brave.

The problem with romantic pacifism is that it ignores a fundamental paradox: the only way to ensure peace is to be ready for war. Seeking peace without having a deterrent is like sending an open invitation to plunderers and marauders to come and destroy us.

Just imagine what would have happened if Arjuna had opted out of the war. Of course, we would have had less bloodshed – but we would also have sent a powerful message of cowardice, where truth and honour are not important. The war had to be fought to prevent other warmongers from assuming that the nation will not fight.
In the second world war, Vichy's France and Quisling's Norway did not fight Hitler and the fascists. They were saved because Churchill's England and Stalin's Russia did not opt for the same cowardice. Vichy and Quisling let Arjuna's doubts stymie them; Churchill and Stalin followed Krishna's advice. If they didn't do that, Hitler would have won.
There is good reason to believe that the element of excessive pacifism came to India via Buddhist and Jain philosophies. While correctly attacking Brahmin orthodoxy and caste arrogance, both religions of peace inculcated excessive pacifism.

Buddhism teaches us the right way to conduct ourselves to liberate ourselves from suffering. But when an inward focus leads us to ignore outward threats — and the conclusion that we ought to do nothing about aggression — destruction is the only result.

Hear Ambedkar on this: "There can be no doubt that the fall of Buddhism in India was due to the invasions of the Mussalmans"¦.Islam destroyed Buddhism not only in India but wherever it went."

But for the corrective applied by Krishna's advice in the Gita, Buddhist and Jain pacifism would have laid the rest of India open to complete domination. However, there is little doubt that Arjuna's doubts never really left us.
India's recent history is replete with instances where we have taken Arjuna's cop-out and come to regret it.
Soon after independence, we ignored all intelligence that Pakistan was planning to take Kashmir by force. It was only after the invasion by irregulars that we sent in the army and got the Dogra ruler to sign the instrument of accession. In the process, we lost half the state.

With Pakistan — who are our kith and kin the same way the Kauravas were to the Pandavas – we have repeatedly turned a blind eye to their aggressive intent and ill-will and paid the price. After the 1965 war, we gave back all that we won at Tashkent. After the 1971 Bangladesh war, Indira Gandhi returned 90,000 prisoners of war without even a written agreement that Pakistan will give up its stand on Kashmir. In 1999, Vajpayee took the Lahore bus in pursuit of peace even when the body language of Pakistan's army was all wrong. We now know that Gen Pervez Musharraf was preparing for Kargil even when Nawaz Sharif was talking peace with Vajpayee.

The same thing happened with China during Nehru's time. Ignoring Sardar Patel's dire warnings on Chinese intent in Tibet, he bartered away Tibet's freedom for peace. After Tibet was swallowed, Nehru again chose to ignore Chinese war planning and led us to defeat in 1962. Well before all this happened, Nehru – in what must rate as a prime act of stupidity, declined the US offer of a permanent seat in the UN Security Council on the plea that Taiwan's seat should be taken up by its rightful owner – the People's Republic of China. Now, China will do everything to prevent us from getting that seat.

Even now, the government of Manmohan Singh is busy trying to buy peace with Pakistan on the presumption that as the big brother, we have to make all the sacrifices. We gave Pakistan Most Favoured Nation treatment decades before the latter even agreed to look at the suggestion. We allowed Pakistan to insert a reference to our alleged interference in Baluchistan at the Sharm-el-Shaikh summit, and we have all but given up our demand for action against the culprits of 26/11. Not only that, we are now treating Pakistan as an equivalent victim of terrorism – an equivalence it does not deserve.

The evidence is clear. We are children of Arjuna's doubts, of Amartya Sen's self-defeating pacifism. We have not really imbibed the lessons of the Gita because we have banned it in our hearts.
Ban the Gita? A look at Arjuna's doubts vs Krishna's wisdom | Firstpost