is the Gita dishonest?

[Lakshmi Srinivas]

--- Arun Gupta <suvidya at OPTONLINE.NET> wrote:
> Textual analysis of QM text, or Gita)
> will not get you much, and will show inconsistencies
> that are ultimately,
> not real.

I wonder if you can compare the study of a physics
text with that of Geetha.

For example, the so called caramazloka "SarvadharmAn
parityajya" etc (Bh.G 18.66), has been interpreted
differently by different traditional commentators and
the consequent inconsistencies in other teachers'
thought thrown up by their interpretation were and are
for their followers very real. Needless to say, all
these different interpretations co-exist and are
"vedavAk" for the adherents of different sects.

>
> Which brings me to my third complaint about
> Professor Doniger's statement --
> it seems to me that she seeks to undermine students'
> shraddha. But who
> is she to decide what is worthwhile to understand?

But you may be interested to know that a traditional
teacher in one very theistic, vaishnava tradition in
the 14th cent. is said to have advised a prominent
disciple clearly "Read once (i.e., do not waste time
reading) the Brahma sutra bhashya and other Sanskrit
texts of our tradition, but continue the study of the
bhakti texts like our ancestors did". Would you
consider this statement as undermining the student's
sraddha since this statement clearly included the
Geethabhashya also?

Actually the followers of this teacher took the advice
seriously and continued the study of the Tamil bhakti
texts with extra energy and transmitted a vast
commentarial literature on the Tamil texts.

Perhaps students may take Prof Doniger's advice or
ignore it. I don't suppose teachers *decide* what is
worthwhile ... but I'd better let the teachers on this
list talk on this subject :-)

Thanks and Warm Regards,

LS






__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/