What are said to be perishable are these bodies of the Self, which is indestructible, inscrutable, eternal. Therefore, fight O Arjuna.
Thus, Arjuna, only these bodies are by nature destructible, therefore fight.
He who thinks this (Self) to be the killer and he mho thinks this killed, both of them do not know; this Self neither kills nor it is killed
You identify yourself with your body and others with their bodies and think that you will kill and the Kauravas will be killed, without knowing the truth. If you think properly, you will realise that you are not the killer and they are not the ones to be killed.
He is never born nor does he die; nor having been, he will ever cease to be. Unborn, eternal, ever-lasting and ancient, he is not killed when the body is killed.
Source :- http://www.saibaba.us/texts/jnaneshwari/chpt02.html
Is this a controversial aspect of Bhagavad Gita ?
2006-10-03 01:15:40 · 5 answers · asked by jayakrishnaathmavidya 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
The thoughts of greats like Martin Luther King lives long after the body perishes. These are what poets refer to as "Footprints in the sands of time" No! the comments have eternal truths.
2006-10-03 01:29:01 · answer #1 · answered by Tom Cat 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You go to any swamy and ask, he with his knowledge of Sanskrit will say, killing doesn't mean killing physically and killing the bad karma and relieving one person from the evil influences. He will sing additionally two more slokas to support that.
Hinduism is and was always supported violence. Non-violence idea came after the influence of Jainism and buddhism came in to existence and become popular. Then the so called "Sanatana Dharma" or Brahminism started supporting non-violence and started preaching non-violence by interpreting all the stories to non-violence. But, how far one can do that? I think it is the honesty to accept the fact that, hinduism supported violence. Do you know all the incarnations of Vishnu was to kill some monster. One incarnation called Vamana was to kill a nice and righeous king. If you go through the stories of Hinduism, it is a mess and there is no religion called one like this ever existed or existing. It is Indian constitution which defines and believer of many dieties is Hindu. That is just for identification purpose. You cannot derive any meaningful conclusion from Hinduism. But, Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas are vast study about many branches of science and there are many meaningful inventions. Even west got a basic from those and developed the modern science.
Look at all Hindu mythology as mere stories and if you wanted to derive some value or Dhamma, you will end up in utter confusion.
2006-10-03 08:40:46 · answer #2 · answered by r_govardhanam 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've never read the book, but Hinduism is all about the re-incarnation.
Controversial? Of course.
Problematic? Yes.
This is the (obligatory) soldier's saving grace. It gives the fighter something to look forward to after they die. Just as a Muslim gets his virgins, the Hindu can fight assured that his spirit will continue on.
War's integrated complexity may be beyond the explicative power of theology.
This model runs concurrent through many if not all belief systems. Hence, institutional religion.
Are you talking about the relation that this passage has to the rest of the book? If so, I apologize.
2006-10-03 08:25:14 · answer #3 · answered by The Sushi King 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like a cartload of mature.
2006-10-03 08:31:02 · answer #4 · answered by cork 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is the summary of Bhagavadgita.
2006-10-03 08:20:28 · answer #5 · answered by Mr Fact 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋