[Advaita-l] Bhagawat Gita an obscure text?
sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
Thu Nov 8 11:26:07 CST 2012
It is not at all true. The truth is that the Bhagavad Gita is the highest scripture. It is revealed by the Lord himself to Arjuna. By the definition of Upanishad it is an upanishad but as it had been incorporated by Vedavyasa in the Epic Mahabharata, it is treated as a Smriti text. The Mahabharata was composed in the beginning of the Kali yuga, i.e., after Lord Krishna passed away. Before that time, i.e., towards the the end of the Dwapara yuga, Before writing the Mahabharata Vedavyasa had already classified the four Vedas and the epic and the puranas were grouped as the Fifth-Veda. Vedavyasa never anticipated that at a later date some scholars would try to denigrate the status of the Bhagavad Gita in any way. What Lord Ram told Hanuman in the Muktika Upanishad was not incorporated by Valmiki in the Ramayana or else the Muktika upanishad would also have been a Smriti. What the Varaha Purana wrote about the Bhagavad Gita makes it very clear that there
is no higher text than the Bhagavad Gita. The Viaishnaviya Tantra-sara also says the same thing.
However one must know that according to the Mahabharata the original Bhagavad Gita had 745 verses. It was later made into 700 verses. One is not sure if it was an action by some Devi-bhaktas (Tantra-scholars?), who probably wanted the Bhagavad Gita also to have 700 verses like the Saptashati has. In Tantra Lord Krishna is considered to be the male-roopa of Mother Kali / Lalita. Though the 45 verses were omitted later on, yet the Original Bhagavad Gita of the 745 verses was known to many people. Some of the rare verses were also included in the Commentary on the Bhagavad Gita by Abhinavagupta.
From: Suresh <mayavaadi at yahoo.com>
To: Advaita <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2012 6:54 AM
Subject: [Advaita-l] Bhagawat Gita an obscure text?
Is it true that the Gita was an insignificant text until Adi Sankar commented on it? There aren't many commentaries on it prior to his, probably because no saint or scholar thought it worth his time. But once Sankar wrote his commentary, it has almost become a tradition for every school to write one. Today Gita and Hinduism have become synonymous.
My question, however, is, why would Sankar choose such an insignificant text when the Upanishads were much more respected and valued? If he had to, why not something else (like yoga vasista or something with a more advaitic tilt)?
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list