Can I write a commentary on Bhagavad Gita??

[Srimadhan]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

What are the qualifications to write a commentary on Bhagavad Gita

a.Age
b.Knowledge of Vedas, Upanishad’s & other important Sastra’s
c.Reading and understanding of Commentaries by Saints
d.Reading and understanding of Commentaries by people other than saints.
e.Knowledge of Sanskrit / Other languages in which original version is written / commentary is written.

I feel that none of the above will make one qualified.

In the context of Bhagavad Gita
1. The person who is speaking or writing it (Lord Krishna)
2.The quality with which the person in speaking (Do the commentators know this?)
3. The person who is listening/questioning it (Arjuna)
4.The quality with which the person is listening it (Do the commentators know this?)
5.The words (Sure..The commentators know this but after all these years but there is a very remote probability that the words have changed during the course of time)
6.The context in which it is spoken (Do the commentators know this?)
To me, of the 6 points mentioned above, most of the writers go with 3 or at the maximum 4. Sorry 60% is no way near 100%.
Either you know it fully or you don’t.
Mostly it is a ego trip for the person who writes a commentary for Bhagavad Gita. He can claim “I have written a commentary”. That is all..
My view:
Already there are thousands and thousands of commentaries about Bhagavad Gita.
Even the commentaries written by Saints like Ramanuja, Madhavacharya and Shankaracharya have subtle differences. Saints are Saints, they do at the will of the GOD. If you are a Saint, please write.

If one does not know all the 6 mentioned above, please DO NOT write a commentary.

Though I have taken this for Bhagavad Gita, it applies for ALL commentaries on religious books/sayings.

Source: Aathman Awareness Centre - Door to Moksha - Founded by a realized Guru|Dedicated to Meditation,bhakthi and enlightenment|Importance of Jeeva Samadhi|Portal where all doubts in spiritual paths gets dispelled

 

[tbs]

hi

just info.....all the acharyas to prove their siddanta to write commentaries on prasthana thrayam.......prasthana trayam means

commentaries on brahma sutra/ bhagavad gita/ upanishads..........some saints written only commentaries of sri bhagavad gita...

i think sri madhusudana saraswati did commentary on bhagavad gita.....swami prabhupada did beautiful commantary on

bhagavad gita in english....so depends on....

 

[renuka]

Actually when we read the Geeta it unfolds to us and the meaning of each stanza has the unique capability to actually be suited to time,place and person.

One needs to have total surrender when reading Geeta....only then we can "hear" what we are meant to "hear".

Each person's experience will differ and we call that commentaries.

 

[Vaagmi]

What are the qualifications to write a commentary on Bhagavad Gita

a.Age
b.Knowledge of Vedas, Upanishad’s & other important Sastra’s
c.Reading and understanding of Commentaries by Saints
d.Reading and understanding of Commentaries by people other than saints.
e.Knowledge of Sanskrit / Other languages in which original version is written / commentary is written.

I feel that none of the above will make one qualified.

In the context of Bhagavad Gita
1. The person who is speaking or writing it (Lord Krishna)
2.The quality with which the person in speaking (Do the commentators know this?)
3. The person who is listening/questioning it (Arjuna)
4.The quality with which the person is listening it (Do the commentators know this?)
5.The words (Sure..The commentators know this but after all these years but there is a very remote probability that the words have changed during the course of time)
6.The context in which it is spoken (Do the commentators know this?)
To me, of the 6 points mentioned above, most of the writers go with 3 or at the maximum 4. Sorry 60% is no way near 100%.
Either you know it fully or you don’t.
Mostly it is a ego trip for the person who writes a commentary for Bhagavad Gita. He can claim “I have written a commentary”. That is all..
My view:
Already there are thousands and thousands of commentaries about Bhagavad Gita.
Even the commentaries written by Saints like Ramanuja, Madhavacharya and Shankaracharya have subtle differences. Saints are Saints, they do at the will of the GOD. If you are a Saint, please write.

If one does not know all the 6 mentioned above, please DO NOT write a commentary.

Though I have taken this for Bhagavad Gita, it applies for ALL commentaries on religious books/sayings.

Source: Aathman Awareness Centre - Door to Moksha - Founded by a realized Guru|Dedicated to Meditation,bhakthi and enlightenment|Importance of Jeeva Samadhi|Portal where all doubts in spiritual paths gets dispelled

Srimad Bhagavad Gita (SBG) is not a do-it-yourself booklet on how to assemble your newly purchased twin-blade shaving kit before using it. It is treatise on metaphysics and philosophy authored by someone in the distant past. It is replete with reference to complex ideas expressed in earlier scriptures which are difficult to understand in just one reading. So those who think that they have understood it tend to pass on the benefit to others so that these "others" can start from where they left and further delve deep into the subject and understand it more.

The person who made that treatise is called Lord Krishna. There is no need to dispute this unless we know for sure that it was made by someone else like say Pope Paul, Ayatollah Komeini, Gautama Buddha or some one else.

The given circumstances in which the SBG was presented is also clearly understood from the work itself. There is no need to waste time over that either.

The person to whom SBG was presented and his predicament at the time of hearing it is also given in SBG itself and we have no use misinterpreting it. That was the context and it is understandable.

To say that the commentators were all on ego trips and so produced those commentaries is a flippant statement.

Vedic Sanskrit is understandable today as there are people who have done a lot of research work on it to make it available to us.

Writing commentaries comes out of an irrepressible urge to share what one understood with other people interested in the subject. It is like birth pangs. It is a primordial creative urge. All artists, singers, poets, Acharyas suffer it. Without it the world would have been a less interesting place.

So, please do read the commentaries on SBG by Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Arabindo, Vinoba Bhave (Kaa Sri Sri's tamil translation-கீதைப் பேருரைகள்- makes it all the more enjoyable), Chinmayananda and any one else too and then ruminate and think about that deeply to finally understand what it is.

There no use being critical of the commentators calling them egotists.

 

[Srimadhan]

Srimad Bhagavad Gita (SBG) is not a do-it-yourself booklet on how to assemble your newly purchased twin-blade shaving kit before using it. It is treatise on metaphysics and philosophy authored by someone in the distant past. It is replete with reference to complex ideas expressed in earlier scriptures which are difficult to understand in just one reading. So those who think that they have understood it tend to pass on the benefit to others so that these "others" can start from where they left and further delve deep into the subject and understand it more.

The person who made that treatise is called Lord Krishna. There is no need to dispute this unless we know for sure that it was made by someone else like say Pope Paul, Ayatollah Komeini, Gautama Buddha or some one else.

The given circumstances in which the SBG was presented is also clearly understood from the work itself. There is no need to waste time over that either.

The person to whom SBG was presented and his predicament at the time of hearing it is also given in SBG itself and we have no use misinterpreting it. That was the context and it is understandable.

To say that the commentators were all on ego trips and so produced those commentaries is a flippant statement.

Vedic Sanskrit is understandable today as there are people who have done a lot of research work on it to make it available to us.

Writing commentaries comes out of an irrepressible urge to share what one understood with other people interested in the subject. It is like birth pangs. It is a primordial creative urge. All artists, singers, poets, Acharyas suffer it. Without it the world would have been a less interesting place.

So, please do read the commentaries on SBG by Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Arabindo, Vinoba Bhave (Kaa Sri Sri's tamil translation-கீதைப் பேருரைகள்- makes it all the more enjoyable), Chinmayananda and any one else too and then ruminate and think about that deeply to finally understand what it is.

There no use being critical of the commentators calling them egotists.

Dear Vaagami

Humbly, I would like to present my thoughts.

I agree on the all the points.

I would like to clarify a few here

a. I am not against any saint writing their view.. I understand that their act as per the will of God..
b. A commentator should think what is the value add he is making to the commentary (in addition to the thousands and thousands which exist already)
c. As a reader, I am given with say 1 lakh commentaries, would I not be confused to choose the right one..

As a commentator, I should question why I should write one?
A. If it is to satisfy my ego - A big NO
B. If it is to clarify my view (if not already clarified in the lakhs of commentaries) - Yes I can

The plausibility of Point B is very very very less..

If this goes on and on.. After 100 years, our future generation will be left with crores and crores of commentaries..

 

[Vaagmi]

Humbly, I would like to present my thoughts.

Srimadhanji, please do present your thoughts. Also be ready to receive other thoughts presented.

b. A commentator should think what is the value add he is making to the commentary (in addition to the thousands and thousands which exist already)

Please understand that these commentaries were compilations of exchanges between an Acharya and his sishyas. The sishyas had doubts and the Acharya elaborated on points to satisfy the needs of his sishyas. The value addition was that the sishya finally understood the point because of that. There are subtle differences between commentaries by Acharyas.

c. As a reader, I am given with say 1 lakh commentaries, would I not be confused to choose the right one..

You can choose the one that suits your level of understanding. When I was studying in School for the final examination Tamil was a subject and I had to clear two papers on that. There was a surfeit of modern day bashyams like Konar Notes (கோனார் தமிழ் உரை), valanar Notes (வளனார் தமிழ் உரை) and a few more in the market. Konar offered a plastic scale along with the book as a freebie while others did not offer that. Many of us bought Konar for that reason. So you choose a commentary according to your taste/level of understanding of the subject and move ahead. What is important is the subject itself and not the commentary.

If this goes on and on.. After 100 years, our future generation will be left with crores and crores of commentaries..

Dont worry. Our future generation would open a computer, give its level of knowledge as key words input and get a list of possible solutions to choose from. They will take it and be done with it in a jiffy. Or they will use facebook to contact the commentators themselves and get the knowledge firsthand without the intervention of a medium. LOL.

 

[renuka]

The person who made that treatise is called Lord Krishna. There is no need to dispute this unless we know for sure that it was made by someone else like say Pope Paul, Ayatollah Komeini, Gautama Buddha or some one else.

Dear Vaagmi Ji,


I am surprised to see Lord Buddha's name in your line up.

He is an Acharya for all practical purposes and its not fair to compare Him with Pope or Ayatollah.. cos He did not preach any exclusive Dualistic religion with the concept of Heaven for believers and eternal hell for Non Believers.

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Vaagmi Ji,


I am surprised to see Lord Buddha's name in your line up.

He is an Acharya for all practical purposes and its not fair to compare Him with Pope or Ayatollah.. cos He did not preach any exclusive Dualistic religion with the concept of Heaven for believers and eternal hell for Non Believers.

Oh No. Dont be surprised. Buddha preached the antithesis of religious thought which can be called again a religion. Marx never thought when he was alive that his Book was about Marxism. It is the later day latecomers to the show who made it Marxism for want of another suitable name. Buddha preached nihilism alright.

 

[Srimadhan]

Dear Vaagami Sir

I understand that anything and everything can be argued for and against.

I respect, accept and take your views. I am not talking about the commentaries of the past wherein the Guru explains the Sishya's.

I am talking about the commentaries - present and future.. and also about the commentators here..

In any case, will the commentators listen to me...:nono::nono:

Luv
Srimadhan

 

[mkrishna100]

The Truth About The Bhagavad Gita, By Dr. Prabhakar Kamath
The Truth About The Bhagavad Gita, By Dr. Prabhakar Kamath | Nirmukta

The above link gives a series of articles by Dr.Prabhakar Kamath and he takes a contrary position on the Gita which might not be palatable to many here but for those who are interested in such contrary opinions the above link will be useful .

 

[vignesh2014]

Just leave these arguments.Kindly think about living beings as herbivores,carnivores and omnivores. Herbivores living beings mostly harmless, sendantry and their ambition of grazing also very limited. This applies to human beings also since according to Darwin we deviated from Apes in the evolutionary stage. Therefore herbivores lived under a tree or cave with minimal requirements and thought about their human population sufferings. Before settling in river valleys, they never tasted soma.therefore no question of intoxication when upanishads were written (I feel upanishad should have been the beginning of veda instead of veda antha (i.e.,End). Carnivores since they have to fulfill their daily chores have to run around for food and other basic needs. Therefore their thinking was more external and always on their mundane routines rather than on peaceful or harmonious living. Slowly these carnivores people came to contact with herbivores people and formed a community which may in ancient times must be rishis(intellectuals) and carnivores (leader of a group and afterwards kings when they settled in river valley). Therefore this mix up might have occurred even in the forest itself. That's why even though they settled in river valleys they went to meet rishis or munis in the forest. Slowly they also moved into river valley civilization. due to mix up OMNIVORES or vaishyas and since all can't be land owners or possession of cattle or other worldly materials, in order to earn from them for their livelihood, slowly they became worker class. Therefore Bhavagad Gita need not have to be written for preservation of this varna or afterwards caste system. Since it is a natural evoution, just like VYASA codified vedas into rig,yajur,sama and atharva, Lord krishna for the orderliness of the society eulogised (not formed) these type of natural divisions in order to preserve harmony in society.

 

[KRN]

I have studied only the commentary by Sri Shankara but the answer to your query is given there itself͵ in the introduction to that commentary... where the Acharya has delienated the purpose of the BG as well as the purpose behind his writing a commentary to the BG