And ISRO continues to leap ahead.

This blogger, being of a slightly pessimistic variety had held back from the fireworks that gripped the nation as India achieved this feat. But with news of its success coming by, I just could not hold back. Perhaps this is OT, but still trying to blend it in with some Gita quotes.

Chapter 17:
११

अफलाकंक्सिभिर यज्नो
विधि-दिसतो या इज्यते
यस्ताव्यम एवेति मनः
समाधाय सा सात्त्विकः।

"Of sacrifices, the sacrifice performed according to the directions of scripture, as a matter of duty, by those who desire no reward, is of the nature of goodness."

I shall now explain to you how ISRO would serve humanity in India and the world, through the Chandrayaan-1 without having any regard for themselves (i.e. the scientists.)

Introduction: The Chandrayaan-1 (translated as Moon Vehicle), is India's first mission to the moon. The unmanned lunar mission includes a lunar orbiter and an impactor. It was launched from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre in Sriharikota, Andhra Pradesh on the 22nd October 2008 and inserted into lunar orbit on the 8th November 2008.

It has high resolution remote sensing equipment for infra-red, visible and soft and hard X-ray ranges. It carries five ISRO payloads and six from foreign space agencies, like the NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Association), the ESA (European Space Agency) and the Bulgarian Aerospace Agency.

Objectives:
1) Mapping lunar surface for chemical elements and 3 dimensional topography.
2) The impact of a sub-satellite (Moon Impact Probe) on the surface of the moon to get data for future soft landings on the moon.

Other Technical details can be found here:

In return, our scientists get one-eighth of the salary at NASA. Reports say that this is one of the major reasons why India has been able to get cost competitiveness in the space sector. Plus, people should be more grateful to these scientists, as they have not ditched their jobs and gone for other high paying sectors.

The fruits of their labour will entail discovery of several minerals such as iron, magnesium, aluminium, thorium, uranium and even the discovery of helium-3, which is said to be a clean nuclear fuel able to be used in fusion reactors. And there is said to be an abundance of helium-3 on moon, to such an extent that can power the earth for 200 years.

Even for such an important contribution to the society, the ISRO scientists are offered a paltry Rs. 31,000 at entry level posts, Rs. 60,000 at mid-level posts and Rs. 70,000 at high level posts of director and above. (ref.) Which means that while a businessman who has studied much less, and toiled a lot less than a scientist and carries little weight of the country's pride on his shoulders can have a shot at being a millionaire/billionaire, while our scientists are doomed to a middle-class life no matter how much hard they work and no matter how much of the country's esteem is based on their shoulders. All this just because of their love of science and technology.

In comparison, the NASA scientists have an average salary of $88,000 (link). Yet we have PIOs and Indian space scientists working in foreign space agencies flocking to India to work here (link). Now it would be against the intentions of the blog to discourage young Indians from working in ISRO and ditching India, but for the average Indian, I think making such a comparison helps in garnering more support for ISRO, and be more appreciative and grateful of the work (rather service) these scientists do for India.

Hats off to ISRO, you guys there sacrifice your life for a thankless world, and satisfy the definition of a good sacrifice as mentioned in the Gita. But I hope there is a significant section of the society, me included that is grateful to you. Keep up the good work, you have a long way to go (link)..

Some pics:

Pic 1:

Pic 2:

Pic 3:



Other Images: [1,2,3,4,5,6]

Idol Worship? Nothing better to fight against??

I don't know why time after time, centuries after centuries and even right now, people have problem with idol worship. Many of us are appalled by the death and destruction that the word God has caused and might even consider ourselves agnostics/atheists, but there are many still (including yours truly) that hold Him in higher esteem than any other human. For our sake, we say this:

Chapter 12:
२

श्री-भगवान उवाचा
मयी अवेस्य मनो ये मम
नित्य-युक्ता उपासते
श्रद्धया परयोपेतास
ते में युक्ततमा मतः।

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Those who fix their minds on My personal form and are always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith are considered by Me to be most perfect."

३-४

ये टीवी अक्षरम अनिर्देस्यम
अव्यक्तं पर्युपासते
सर्वत्र-गम असिन्त्यम का
कुता-स्थं अकालम ध्रुवं।

संनियाम्येंद्रिया-ग्रामं
सर्वत्र समां-बुद्धयः
ते प्राप्नुवन्ति मम एव
सर्व-भूत-हिते रतः।

"But those who fully worship the unmanifested, that which lies beyond the perception of the senses, the all-pervading, inconceivable, unchanging, fixed and immovable—the impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth—by controlling the various senses and being equally disposed to everyone, such persons, engaged in the welfare of all, at last achieve Me."

If not at a human form of God, what is the common layman assumed to imagine, when he worships of God? An idol is precisely that, a medium that a common man can use to imagine God. I have never undergone this experience, but those who do, may drop a few lines. I would like to explore the philosophy of the 'others' who hate idolaters.

But at the same time, the beauty of Ancient Hindu philosophy is that it allows another side of the spectrum that supports worship of the unmanifested as well. OTOH, consider what St. Francis Xavier, in whose school I might have ended up studying if I were richer has to say about us idolaters:

"When I have finished baptising the people, I order them to destroy the huts in which they keep their idols; and I have them break the statues of their idols into tiny pieces, since they are now Christians. I could never come to an end describing to you the great consolation which fills my soul when I see idols being destroyed by the hands of those who had been idolaters."(from The Letters and Instructions of Francis Xavier, 1993, pp 117).

(reference link)

People have continued denigrating humanity in the 21st century by getting itchy over all art forms and having problems with any form of humans in art.

It would be interesting to understand the working of the human mind, when two sections of the society can have such different schools of thought. What can be the reason for exclusivist thinking of more than half of humanity? Why has human philosophy reached such a nadir after levitating to such heights under Indian philosophy?

We need to get our act together and get over our petty feuds and be ready for greater challenges in this world, such as greenhouse effect, avoiding a nuclear fallout, combating diseases and so on. The lessons of Gita are for all humans, irrespective of size, color, nationality, etc.

Proselytisation-2

Well, it's veterans day over here today, and got time to crack some knuckles and begin typing a post, which might take me a few days to complete.

In reply to my last post, one of the blogs co-contributors wrote on October 21, 5:48 a.m.

"So whats the underlying problem?
Where does this proselytisation ultimately lead us to?
Why should we be wary of it?
Is there any loss to the country, or to the humanity or the world as a whole because of proselytism?"

You have not dwelt on these questions. Please consider them as well."

Time to type something out on them.

Q 1. So what's the underlying problem?
Ans. 1. I assume that he is talking about proselytism over here. The idea thrives on two things. Local insecurity of the people targeted, and the ideology of the proselytizer.

It is common knowledge that pangs of hunger, poverty, and disease are too hard to digest for the common man. It is indeed against the morals of the land to abandon the religion and switch onto another. No culture would support that directly. But when in today's morally bereft world, when the rich do not show any inclination to obey the cultural norms and continue their rather rash quest of material advantage and power, and that without facing any physical limitations on their existence, do we really expect the poor and needy to abide by the rules, when there's is a matter of life and death?

Countries and populations cannot survive on just talks on dharma and air. Those times are long gone. Thus, socio-economic welfare for the entire populace, along with physical and mental security should be the key motive of the state. By physical security, I mean security against terrorists and rioting bigots, and by mental security I mean their protection against propaganda spread by foreign agents inside the motherland.

This is where the last post comes relevant. When there is resentment in the society, class conflict gets inevitable. But should this conflict have players other than the local populace affected? Should there directly be any external benefactors of this class conflict? You decide.

Q2. Where does proselytisation lead us to?
Ans. 2 The ultimate goal of proselytisation driven by either religion/personal initiative is deprivation of individual intellectuality. It will give rise to transnational organisations that will be run from a central power center. There will be nations, but the soul of the nations, the independence of the people's mind will be lost.

Well, what after the world has converted to the one true faith, the one honored by God? Shouldn't a boundary-less world be the ultimate goal of humanity?

Yes, but the necessary precondition to this that the individual is left independent to be what he wants to. Is there a guarantee over here that the religious elite seating at the power center of this true faith recognize the problems ailing the people of the other corner of the globe? Our experience is that empires of the state have not been able to do so, which could be the reason behind freedom struggles of the people, and their ultimate victory. And empires of the mind/religion can only do so by making people zombies to their order, incognizant of their individuality, and doing stuff for the elite by misplaced zeal without knowing little of what they are doing. People would end up as willful slaves of the religion. While the elite will enjoy the spoils of this cultural war, the laymen would have the most dogmatic aspects of the religion thrust down their throats.


Q3. Why should we be wary of it?
Ans2. For this, it is necessary to look into the dogma of the religions that proselytise. The dogma that is frequently espoused by the clergy of these religions is that the way of worship of these 'religions' is the best, and the rest need to be saved/killed/etc.

Thus, there is no concern of the law of the land. Whatever way of life exists in one portion of the globe, if it is not palatable to the locals, who viewing the way of life of the outsiders find their ways better, there is always a way to reform the local customs and traditions and take the best of their ways. The abhorable indigenous practices can be removed, while the best can be retained. Common sense says that the ancients cannot be entirely right, in the same way, they cannot be entirely wrong.

This will not be acceptable to the proselytisers. Theirs is a method of either labeling the locals as 'unbelievers' and killing them outrightly, or as 'heathens' and the need to 'save' them. The locals are made to reject their native customs completely, assimilated into the proselytic faith either at gunpoint or allured through fake promises. If at all any attempt is made to legalise native customs, they would be mutated as if to be invented by the proselytisers.

Thus, the eventual aim of proselytism would be to expand the following of that particular faith, at the cost of others. There is no 'live and let live' philosophy. There is always an urge to convert, by both the moderate and the radical even under the slightest of excuses.

In this melee, the native cultures are lost forever. The native faith, which is almost always inclusive in nature, will welcome trojans intoxicated by proselytic faiths. In today's world, with nukes at large and countries spending alot on defense, it would be a massive pain to conquer people and nations by the gun. Instead, nations will get conquered by religion. And the newly converted, will be made to parrot the lines of the headquarters of the religion. Say hello to the new weapon of imperialism, religion.

Q4. Is there any loss to the country, or to the humanity or the world as a whole because of proselytism?
Ans 4. The biggest loss to proselytic faiths is the loss of individuality, the lack of criticism or introspection on the basic tenets of the faith that would allow a process of natural reform, doing which an individual could be ostracized from the community as a whole.

The only way out of this grip of proselytism is spreading awareness about the proselytising faith among the masses. Religion is not what it was in the bygone days. In those days, it could be considered as a set of ethics, which could help govern a society when the state wasn't so powerful.

Today, with less damaging wars to the state (who knows what happens tomorrow, but at least there are not frequent changes to country boundaries and we don't see many grand conquerors rising in today's world except for this last maniac) state rules should suffice to govern the society.

So, then what is the need of religion? Perhaps only to provide ideals of human character and what we should aspire to be. And then, if one religion has those ideals already, why do we need to switch to another? The only reason could be when people are deprived of basic needs or when they are fed false propaganda regarding a faith.

Thus, to fight this renewed scourge, socio-economic reforms of the people is a must. Next step would be to encourage people to read about the new faith and its history before accepting the new dogma. Even then if he wishes to convert, inspired by the new doctrine, he should be allowed to. Blindly mugging people of their local faith without spreading awareness in the lust to increase numbers and region of spread will only lead to greater turmoil.

(Disclaimer: The following are solely my thoughts, which are very very remote from being implemented as law in any place in the world, considering my political inclination, and also the professionin which I am currently embroiled. So the point is, do not lose any sleep on what you may read here, as I am somewhat radical in thoughts. Also, due to some constraints based on the fact that I am an Indian by origin, I will write from an Indian PoV and be a critic of the known proselytising faiths. I have tried to keep it as generic as possible. Again, there is no inspiration from the Gita for this, but in the interest of holding a discussion that started off from some Gita quotes.. am just trying to end what I started.)

Class Warfare and Proselytism - An Explosive Mix

(Taking a jab at what is already known to many.. just for the sake of penning my thoughts. Not naming any religion directly.. so hope no one has a hurt ego, 'coz my points are general in nature.)

So, let us get to the definition of class warfare as per the great learning site:

Class warfare:
"...Class conflict, also class war or class warfare, is both the friction that accompanies social relationships between members or groups of different social classes and the underlying tensions or antagonisms which exist in society due to conflicting interests that arise from different social positions. Class conflict is thought to play a pivotal role in history of class societies (such as capitalism and feudalism) by Marxists who refer to its overt manifestations as class war, a struggle that is viewed by them as a product of capitalism..."

and proselytism:

Proselytism:
".. Proselytism is the practice of attempting to convert people to another opinion and, particularly, another religion. The word proselytism is derived ultimately from the Greek language prefix 'πρός' (towards) and the verb 'έρχομαι' (I come). Incidentally, proselytism is prohibited in Greece, according to the constitution of Greece. Historically in the New Testament, the word proselyte denoted a person who had converted to Judaism. Though the word proselytism was originally tied to Christianity, it is also used to refer to other religions' attempts to convert people to their beliefs or even any attempt to convert people to another point of view, religious or not. Today, the connotations of the word proselytism are often negative but this article will use the word neutrally to refer to any attempts to convert a person or people to another faith...."

Well, in simple class warfare within a people of the same religious domain, conflict resolution may be easy. That is assuming that both the 'proletariat' and the 'bourgeoisie' have the same cultural underpinnings.

But when another religion starts chipping into the 'proletariat', wanting them to denounce their former religion with false propaganda and try to ally them with the culture of the new religion, especially when the religion is an alien one, things get murkier. For now, the cultural common ground using which a conflict maybe resolved, is lost. The proselytes, aided by the foreign power grow more aggressive in their demands because they do not identify the 'bourgeoisie' as their own. And again, they have found a new entity batting for their interests. Any punishment of even rogue elements among the rebellious proletariat becomes 'persecution of the religion', the proselytes look to the homeland of the new religion for support, and seeing a chance at expanding its power, the foreign country seeks to establish a stronghold in this new land. What was a simple conflict now becomes a clash between two countries.

For those who think that missionaries are right in converting groups of underprivileged people, or even right in converting anybody at all, I have this from the Bhagwada Gita:

Always remember that key emphasis in the Bhagwada Gita is on "Moksha" from the cycles of life and death. Shree Krishna divides Nature into three parts, the good, the passionate and the ignorant. The good get liberated from the cycle of life and death, the passionate return to earth and the ignorant get a lower birth.

Classifying properties attributable to the good.
Ch. 16
१-३
श्री-भगवान उवाचा
अभयम सत्त्व-सम्सुद्धिर
जनाना-योग-व्यवस्थितिः
दानं दमास का यज्नस च
स्वध्ययास तप आर्जवं।

अहिंसा सत्यम अक्रोद्हस
त्यागः शंतिर अपैसुनाम
दया भुतेस्व अलोलुप्त्वं
मार्दवं हरीर अचापलं।

तेजः कसम ध्र्तिः शौचं
अद्रोहो नाती-मनीता
भवन्ति संपदं दैविम
अभिजातस्य भरता।

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Fearlessness; purification of one’s existence; cultivation of spiritual knowledge; charity; self-control; performance of sacrifice; study of the Vedas; austerity; simplicity; nonviolence; truthfulness; freedom from anger; renunciation; tranquillity; aversion to faultfinding; compassion for all living entities; freedom from covetousness; gentleness; modesty; steady determination; vigor; forgiveness; fortitude; cleanliness; and freedom from envy and from the passion for honor—these transcendental qualities, O son of Bharata, belong to godly men endowed with divine nature."

Thus, if this is good, then my question to people is - what is the need of proselytism? Can't people just tend to be good and spiritual rather than invoking a new God at every available opportunity? We have already divided the landmass of the world into various countries, countries into states, states into districts, districts into talukas (From the Indian PoV - perhaps translatable into counties?) and so on. We have divided water bodies, resources, even air (In times of war, we do talk of this country's airspace and that country's airspace.) We have divided people, into classes, and now, even God among different religions. Such is the arrogance of the human race.

And for the demoniac:
४

दम्भो दर्पो ’भिमानस च
क्रोधः परुस्यम एव च
अज्नानाम काभिजतस्य
पर्थ संपदं असुरिम

"Pride, arrogance, conceit, anger, harshness and ignorance—these qualities belong to those of demoniac nature, O son of Pritha."

These are the attributes we see in the religion of the proselytizers.. "you believe in false Gods, you worship idols, you worship animals,.. forget that and look at our God".

As far as proselytism is carried out by force, it is certain that that will be opposed by a country's people. What may pull wool over their eyes is when people start converting by allurement.

So, as far as charities given by the foreign missionaries practicing proselytism is concerned:

Ch. 17

२०

दताव्यम इति यद् दानं
दीयते ’नुपकरिने
देस काले च पत्र च
ताड़ दानं सात्त्विकं स्म्र्तम।

"Charity given out of duty, without expectation of return, at the proper time and place, and to a worthy person is considered to be in the mode of goodness."

२१

यात तू प्रत्युपकारार्थं
फलं उद्दिस्य व पुनः
दीयते च परिक्लिस्तम
ताड़ दानं राजसं स्म्र्तम।

"But charity performed with the expectation of some return, or with a desire for fruitive results, or in a grudging mood, is said to be charity in the mode of passion."

२२

अदेसा-काले यद् दानं
अपत्रेभ्यास च दीयते
असत-कृतं अवज्नतम
तट तामसं उदाह्र्तम।

"And charity performed at an impure place, at an improper time, to unworthy persons, or without proper attention and respect is said to be in the mode of ignorance."

With this, I leave it upto you to decide what should be our attitude towards proselytism. As far as my opinion is concerned, people should be generally suspicious when some stranger to a country does charity, and preach some alien religion that doesn't arise from the soil of the land, just as we would be suspicious of strangers in general and not get too close to them just because they are showing us some moolah and promise small time benefits.

Take a stand. Protect your land from poachers. It is indeed true that God protects those who protect themselves. But in times like these, it is us too who have to protect God (deities.. to be specific). For without our worship, they will fade into the oblivion. Besides.. I also see it fit to oppose proselytism for the reason mentioned at the start.. that other countries can't get a say in another's sovereignty.

Food! For the Good, the Passionate and the Ignorant.

Shri Krishna classifies nature into three forms in the Bhagvada Gita: the good, the passionate and the ignorant. And in Chap. 17,.. classifies food, sacrifice, prayer, etc. into the three. Here is what the Bhagvada Gita talks on food.

८

आयुः-सत्त्व-बलारोग्य-
सुखा-प्रीटी-विवार्धनाह
रस्याः स्निग्धः स्थिर ह्रदय
अहरह सात्त्विका-प्रियः।

"Foods dear to those in the mode of goodness increase the duration of life, purify one’s existence and give strength, health, happiness and satisfaction. Such foods are juicy, fatty, wholesome, and pleasing to the heart."

९

कतव-अमला-लावानाटी-उसना-
तिक्सना-रुक्सा-विदाहिनाह
अहारा राजसस्येस्ता
दुह्ख-सोकामय-प्रदाह।

"Foods that are too bitter, too sour, salty, hot, pungent, dry and burning are dear to those in the mode of passion. Such foods cause distress, misery and disease."

१०

यता-यमं गता-रसम
पुती पर्युसितम का यात
उच्चिस्तम अपि कामेध्यम
भोजनं तमासा-प्रियम।

"Food prepared more than three hours before being eaten, food that is tasteless, decomposed and putrid, and food consisting of remnants and untouchable things is dear to those in the mode of darkness."

Of the 9th we may agree. As we know from modern science,.. too much of salt can cause high blood pressure, too much of hot food can also cause problems and so on. And I believe the 10th bats against fast food (McD goers, keep this in mind!)

But of the 8th I have doubts, as we know of the current problems that people have with atherosclerosis, diabetes and all.

But perhaps, just perhaps, these lines were spoken in times where people were physically fit and did a lot of manual labor.

One place where I find the Gita doubtful.. and wished to point it out.

It's a grey world.

Friends.. this is a twisted version of an original post made on my 1st blog. Trying to see if there can be any matching between this and the Bhagwada Gita. Please comment honestly if you find it wrong.

IT’S A GREY WORLD

(An interview takes place between Mr. X and Mr. Y. Discussing about some philosophies, they finally come to this topic.)

Mr. Y: So after all these topics.. let's discuss what it means to be a good human being.

Mr. X: Honestly speaking, I don't believe in this nonsense of right and wrong.

Mr. Y: What do you mean? Dharma, Adharma.. all this stuff have no importance to you?

Mr. X: No they don't.

Mr. Y: So.. departing from the event under discussion for a while, would you please allow our viewers an insight into your line of thoughts?

Mr. X: Sure

Mr. X: (Facing the camera) Generally speaking.. there is nothing like right or wrong in this world. All people do what they think is right. Human rights activists, gay rights activists, environmentalists, feminists, evangelists, thieves, murderers, terrorists, rapists.. whatever category that may come to your mind, they will only do what they believe is right.

Mr. Y: So you would club all groups of people into being right?

Mr. X: (Facing the interviewer) Exactly,.. like how would you define something as right or wrong? When we some event in the society.. how do we know which side to take? At this instant, somebody would answer that this is defined in this religious scripture or that. But pray how, did the writers of those scriptures got the idea as to what to classify as right or wrong?

(Back to the camera) The thing is, that this too comes from our selfish mindset of self satisfaction. What I think is that something which is right to us, is something that satisfies us,.. something that gives us pleasure or something that is proven to be good for us. Like, remaining healthy, maintaining cordial relations and so on. Whatever does not satisfy us, does not give us pleasure.. we relegate it to being wrong.

Mr. Y: But religion defines for us these things clearly..

Mr. X: (Interrupts) Remember that almost all major religions were written by consent of the majority of the society.. and most of the religions we see today had started before the advent of materialism. Which is why we see a distinction between our religious ideas and what is required of us in the industrialised, globalized world of today.

And in those days, (before the industrial age) a majoriy of people would have abhorred stealing, kidnapping, telling lies, and so on and so forth. These have been propagated down the generations, although somewhat diluted these days. What we recognize as good today, is nothing but the will of the majority imposed on the minorities or a will of the powerful imposed on the masses. What is bad today is what is/was abhorred by the majority in the bygone days. Heck, most of our constiutional laws are based on ideas of the ancients..

So in a nutshell.. I would say that as far as right and wrong is considered.. there is nothing like that. You cannot divide the world into two parts, white and black.. good and evil respectively. It is all mixed up, in shades of grey. This must be the right way.. for as you see.. both good and evil are selfish forces to some extent or the other. Both are in an eternal struggle, to impose one group's interests over the other. The world is a constant battle of groups with self interests, and this can be easily seen if we remove our rose - glassed goggles.

Mr. Y: So,.. what would you say a common man must choose? You have even nullified the purpose of being good and linked it to selfishness.

Mr. X: To propagate peace and order in the world, I have to say this. Every human is there for a cause in this world. And his choices must serve the cause he intends to live his life for. But at the same time, he must also greet the choices of other humans with respect, and not be intellectually smug about his goodness. Be choosy, of neither goodness nor badness, but only observe the intent. Inspite of different opinions.. he must show love and peace to all humans.. after all, all are made of the same matter but for their views and he should share his views among the deprived sections of the society with an intention of selfless reform without walking over any sentiments. It is after all,.. a grey world.

Epilogue: And then friends.. we come to my favourite shloka again.

२ - ४७
कर्मन्य एवाधिकरस ते
म फलेसू कदकाना
म करमा-पहला-हेतुर भुर
म ते संगो ’सत्व अकर्मणि।
"You have a right to perform your prescribed duty, but you are not entitled to the fruits of action। Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities, and never be attached to not doing your duty."

Reflections on the Bhagwada Gita

Departing from the normal line of sermonising.. we wish to present to you something new today..

FAMOUS REFLECTIONS ON THE BHAGAVAD GITA

Albert Einstein: When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous.

Mahatma Gandhi: When doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare me in the face, and I see not one ray of hope on the horizon, I turn to Bhagavad-gita and find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming sorrow. Those who meditate on the Gita will derive fresh joy and new meanings from it every day.

Henry David Thoreau: In the morning I bathe my intellect in the stupendous and cosmogonal philosophy of the Bhagavad-gita, in comparison with which our modern world and its literature seem puny and trivial.

Dr. Albert Schweitzer: The Bhagavad-Gita has a profound influence on the spirit of mankind by its devotion to God which is manifested by actions.

Sri Aurobindo: The Bhagavad-Gita is a true scripture of the human race a living creation rather than a book, with a new message for every age and a new meaning for every civilization.

Carl Jung: The idea that man is like unto an inverted tree seems to have been current in by gone ages. The link with Vedic conceptions is provided by Plato in his Timaeus in which it states..." behold we are not an earthly but a heavenly plant." This correlation can be discerned by what Krishna expresses in chapter 15 of Bhagavad-Gita.

Prime Minister Nehru: The Bhagavad-Gita deals essentially with the spiritual foundation of human existence. It is a call of action to meet the obligations and duties of life; yet keeping in view the spiritual nature and grander purpose of the universe.

Herman Hesse: The marvel of the Bhagavad-Gita is its truly beautiful revelation of life's wisdom which enables philosophy to blossom into religion.

Ralph Waldo Emerson: I owed a magnificent day to the Bhagavad-gita. It was the first of books; it was as if an empire spoke to us, nothing small or unworthy, but large, serene, consistent, the voice of an old intelligence which in another age and climate had pondered and thus disposed of the same questions which exercise us.

Rudolph Steiner: In order to approach a creation as sublime as the Bhagavad-Gita with full understanding it is necessary to attune our soul to it.

Adi Shankara: From a clear knowledge of the Bhagavad-Gita all the goals of human existence become fulfilled. Bhagavad-Gita is the manifest quintessence of all the teachings of the Vedic scriptures.

Aldous Huxley: The Bhagavad-Gita is the most systematic statement of spiritual evolution of endowing value to mankind. It is one of the most clear and comprehensive summaries of perennial philosophy ever revealed; hence its enduring value is subject not only to India but to all of humanity.

Ramanuja: The Bhagavad-Gita was spoken by Lord Krishna to reveal the science of devotion to God which is the essence of all spiritual knowledge. The Supreme Lord Krishna's primary purpose for descending and incarnating is relieve the world of any demoniac and negative, undesirable influences that are opposed to spiritual development, yet simultaneously it is His incomparable intention to be perpetually within reach of all humanity.

Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati: The Bhagavad-Gita is not seperate from the Vaishnava philosophy and the Srimad Bhagavatam fully reveals the true import of this doctrine which is transmigation of the soul. On perusal of the first chapter of Bhagavad-Gita one may think that they are advised to engage in warfare. When the second chapter has been read it can be clearly understood that knowledge and the soul is the ultimate goal to be attained. On studying the third chapter it is apparent that acts of righteousness are also of high priority. If we continue and patiently take the time to complete the Bhagavad-Gita and try to ascertain the truth of its closing chapter we can see that the ultimate conclusion is to relinquish all the conceptualized ideas of religion which we possess and fully surrender directly unto the Supreme Lord.

Madhvacarya: The Mahabharata has all the essential ingredients necessary to evolve and protect humanity and that within it the Bhagavad-Gita is the epitome of the Mahabharata just as ghee is the essence of milk and pollen is the essence of flowers.

Original Article

Well,.. the main reason for posting this article is that apart from the people from whom we expect any comments, there are many more who read the Gita in the recent past.. and it is surprising to see that greats like Einstein, Emerson and Thoreau had also spared time for the Gitopanishad.

An answer to "The Ashwattha Tree Riddle"

Hello friends,
I believe it is time for me to provide an answer for the question I had posed in my previous post:
"Is the Bhagavat Geeta, against the Vedas since it asks to cut the Ashvattha tree, the leaves of which are the Vedas themselves?"
Before I provide one answer to this question (there could be others, far far better that mine), let me tell you that when the answer struck me, my first reaction was to bow to this wonderous land called Bhaarat, that has produced such a culture and such Mahatmas (and we call just one man now-a-days as the "Mahatma", how much have we fallen!). Hopefully, the esteemed readers would realise the greatness and gravity of what I am going to say. So, here goes:

Vedas are no doubt the important and fundamental (well, as fundamental as leaves are, to a tree) philosophical constructs of the Indian philosophy, but they can be understood or chanted only through the indriyas (senses). In this sense, they are only equal to something called "shadba brahman"--The state that has attributes, and is just below complete perfection.So what?
The point is, we are looking at something beyond the indriyas, the state which has no attribute, no qualities, completely neutral, i.e., a state that is nowhere near to anything we see, hear, touch, feel, smell, or taste. We need to aspire for that "totality of nothingness".
When a person becomes "Vedavit" (this word occurs at the end of the first verse), he has no need of either chanting, or understanding the Vedas-- he "knows" the crux of them. In this state, just as a snake sheds its skin when it has to grow, even the mighty and lofty Vedas, which are but a layer and just instruments to help towards that way to perfection, just wither away like leaves on a tree in autumn, when the person has grown to that state.
Then, in such a state, the presence of that cosmic tree called the wordly "samsaara" is an impediment to attain that moksha. Hence, it needs to be cut.

Fine! But there is one more thing that I struck me here. Just imagine-- can Islam exist without Holy Quran, or christianity without the Bible? These personality cults are stuck within their own "koopasthamandookas" and keep revolving around the the personae and books that they themselves have created. On the contrary, just imagine our culture: You take any book-- the puraNas, dharma shastras, geeta, even the Vedas-- everyone of them point to the fact that they are not a central or "indispensable" part of the sanaatana dharma. Thats because we dont worship books or persons in the way they do. They are only a part of our belief system, not central. The real Sanaatana Dharma exists within us. We are the puraNas, shaastras, and the Vedas ourselves.

We need to awaken to this fact and arise as a nation.