is the Gita dishonest?

[Gunthard Mueller]

The Gita is certainly not totally consistent. The Gita could be called
dishonest if that inconsistancy was intended and could have been avoided.
However, exactly that is a human impossibility--on the matters with which
the Gita is concerned, human consistency is impossible. It follows that the
Gita is not dishonest in this.
Conversely, if the Gita were "dishonest", then I may add that a basic principle
of Greek tragedy would make it "dishonest", too:
the human condition of not being ABLE to decide and act right, even when
bitterly wanting to do so. There is a difference between man and the divine,
and no human knowledge and intent can bridge it. Nothing we theorize can be
totally consistent. Nothing we do can really be perfectly right.
What is dishonest would be to assume that when you remove the veil
you become god. In fact, isn't it exactly dishonest to claim to be able to
provide
a consistent view of the world. It seems a bit uninformed by now to expect a
consistent view of the world from the Gita or any other human attempt at
understanding the world...

Gunthard Mueller

gm at e-ternals.com




Bhadraiah Mallampalli wrote:

> I suppose the issue is also a distinction between serious and careless
> scholarship. When Prof. Wendy Doniger says "gIta is a dishonest book", what
> does it mean?
>
> Dishonesty is a complicated concept. Even honesty not straight forward. Good
> is good. Bad is not good. Honesty is to do good when one has the opportunity
> to do bad without being noticed. Dishonesty is appearing as doing good, but
> actually doing bad because nobody is seeing.
>
> 1. What is "good" in the case of kurukSetra war?
> 2. What "good" does gIta present to public?
> 3. What "bad" is it actually doing?
> 4. Where does it deceive public?
> 5. Who was cheated?
>
> gIta is a book crammed with concepts borrowed from all over the earlier
> literature. For theological matters, it has many conflicting views because
> on one hand it says yajna is perfectly good enough for reaching "param", and
> at a different place it says 'navedayajnAdhyanairnadAnair
> nacakriyAbhairnatapobhrugraiH". Readers have to live with it.
>
> For practical matters, all Hindu zAstrAs are saying perform your dharma. Why
> only gIta? All purANAs, and epic stories (rAmAyaNa etc) contain long
> discussions on what is the dharma and how to decide in different situations.
> Even rAma broke some rules to secure win for dharma. Even if gIta were not
> propounded by Krishna, rest of the zAstrAs would be saying the same thing -
> arjuna must fight.
>
> As for religious intimidation and frustration, it is common. I also faced it
> at an NYC religious study group, which was otherwise a great memory for me.
> Such things only go against the spirit of freedom and harden attitudes. Let
> us live with it. (This is my 15th post, see you all in April).
>
> Best regards
> Bhadraiah
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com