Talk:Bhagavad Gita

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bhagavad Gita page.

Why are there all those other links on this quote page? Shouldn't they be over at the main article about the Gita?

—This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .

Einstein "quote" is almost certainly bogus[edit]

I removed this quote as almost certainly fabricated, as a google search indicates no published sources of it prior to 2005, and that book merely cites an internet web page as its source:

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

I have traced the source to a Yahoo user in Pakistan. I have contacted them but have had no response.

Though Einstein respected many traditions the stated views are directly contrary to most of his known opinions regarding traditional faiths and his notions of God. ~ Dragon Warrior 18:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I removed this quote as almost certainly fabricated"
why does it seem fabricated? Einsteins "religious view" are taken from (Baruch Spinoza)which scholars suggest is taken from a concept found in the vedic Vedanta of Hinduism, we also see the black and white footage of the father of the atomic bomb quoting the hindu scriptures, we also know that albert had a close work contact with hindu physics scientists such as "BOSE" Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC.
Also Im not sure what planet your on when you suggest that this quote started in pakistan in 1995, that alone sounds like your talking out of your BEEP because pakistan would NEVER credit hindus which such a prestige name, in fact why dont you tell us step by step on how you "TRACKED DOWN" this quote?
—This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .
I agree, Pakistan would almost always criticize anything Indian, especially Hindu scriptures, which promote peace and unselfishness.

I have read a great deal of Einstein's writing regarding philosophy and social issues, and I am certain that that quote is bogus. What gives it away is the phrase "how God created this universe" -- Einstein was not a "creationist", meaning he was not someone who believed that there was a creator of the universe. Atanudey (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest web source I have found for the quote, "When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous" (to include spelling variants "Bhagavadgita" and "Bhagavad Gita") is this: It was published 29 OCT 2000. The earliest published source retrieved by Google Scholar is this: It was published in 2004. The earliest published source located using a library search engine was this: This was a Times of India article published on 12 NOV 2006.


Published sources should be provided before moving these back into the article
  • The Bhagavad-Gita calls on humanity to dedicate body, mind and soul to pure duty and not to become mental voluptuaries at the mercy of random desires and undisciplined impulses.
  • 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.
  • The Bhagavad-Gita has a profound influence on the spirit of mankind by its devotion to God which is manifested by actions.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 seems puny and trivial.
  • The marvel of the Bhagavad-Gita is its truly beautiful revelation of lifes wisdom which enables philosophy to blossom into religion.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • The Bhagavad-Gita is an empire of thought and in its philosophical teachings Krishna has all the attributes of the full-fledged monotheistic deity and at the same time the attributes of the Upanisadic absolute.
  • In order to approach a creation as sublime as the Bhagavad-Gita with full understanding it is necessary to attune our soul to it.
  • If one desires to acquire the perfect happiness and freedom while still living in this ever changing world full of troubles and mysteries, then Shrimad Bhagwad Geeta has this knowledge, acquiring which not only can you experience the feeling of freedom in this life but you can take others also to the road to supreme bliss and satisfaction.
  • The Bhagavad-Gita is not seperate from the Vaisnava 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.
  • The secret of karma yoga which is to perform actions without any fruitive desires is taught by Lord Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita.
  • 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 Krishnas 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.
  • 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.
  • Nothing has ever arisen in my life, internal or external, that the Gita has not made clear and enabled me to deal with or understand.
  • The Gita is the universal mother. I find a solace in the Bhagavadgeeta that I miss even in the Sermon in the Mount. When disappointment stares me in the face and all alone I see not one ray of light, I go back to the Bhagavad Gita. I find a verse here and a verse there, and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming tragedies - and my life has been full of external tragedies - and if they have left no visible or indelible scar on me, I owe it all to the teaching of the Bhagavad Gita.
  • Gita is the mother of all modern sciences
    • [ [Dr. Narendar Bhojak]]
  • Far better to live your own path imperfectly than to live another’s perfectly.
    • This was added without citations of chapter or verse— and though some portions the Gita might indicate such notions, this seems a modern paraphrase or interpretation of some portions, and not an actual translation of any lines. ~ Kalki·· 16:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC) + tweak[reply]
They are not that hard to find out, that where they have came from, hopefully gonna found all soon. Justicejayant (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. It's 1st lines of 3:35 & 18:47. — 05:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ambedkar's quote can't be accepted, as he's more concerned about Caste system than Gita, other than that, the quote by some "Franklin Edgerton", no one knows about. Justicejayant (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By saying some "Franklin Edgerton", you're only showing your ignorance about the literature on the Gita.
The Gita covers many topics. The caste system is one of them. Ambedkar is criticizing that specific topic by explicitly mentioning the Gita. That clearly looks sufficient a ground for inclusion. — 07:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the book of franklin edgerton properly, you will find him talking positive about Gita a few times as well.. His views about the book differs from one to other.. For example, he's saying once that ""The most prominent specific ethical principle in the gita is that doing of good to others, treating others as oneself. Yet the injuction to do harm to any living creature, tho it is a logical interference from that principle." 2nd quote, by Ambedkar, if you read the whole quote, you will ultimately find it's conclusion that Ambedkar is actually forcing/promoting buddha in his saying, rather than making comment on this book. Caste system is not by indians, it was made by british, before that it was Varna, which is common anyway. What you are doing is clearly Wikipedia:Cherrypicking, either you can add the whole quote, or don't add anything, unless the quote is not contradictory with the same paragraph/subject. Justicejayant (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war 2013·12·12[edit]

About 10 edits to the page ago I had done some work to alphabetize the "About" section and repair some format damage that existed during some of the edits between two editors who seem to have animosities towards each others edits, but hadn’t been able to post it during the disputes. I will get around to posting at least some of that some time after the current lock expires — as I might be leaving soon. ~ Kalki·· 16:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC) + tweak[reply]

Kalki, I will release the current lock - I did sort the About quotes by their author in my most recent edit, but as you say, there may remain some broken aspects to the page that you can rectify. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Most of my alphabetizing edits corresponded well with yours, and I afterwards did a bit of format cleanup and further investigation and sourcing on a couple statements. I must be preparing to leave now, at least for a short while. ~ Kalki·· 17:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Majority of those "external" links were either mis-interpreted, and 3 of them being unreliable, internet trolls commentary, not even notable. Justicejayant (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've some terribly strong prejudice and some serious neutrality issues about the Gita also that you can't take anything labelled Criticism put up there. UDScott, for instance, restored the links; no one else saw any problem with that. But you insist; and that has made the article look less informative and kinda messed up. I think it was in a much better shape before you started trolling it. — 03:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of more names who translate it as "caste": Franklin Edgerton & W. Douglas P. Hill. — 03:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One more name: Eknath Easwaran. — 03:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Swami Prabhavananda and Christopher Isherwood do the same (translating varna as caste). And you want me to refer to Google Books! See how unreliable your words are. — 03:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't understand how as many relevant images as possible on the right side of the article is disruptive. Look how the article looks now! Some images are sneaking into the external links section. The article was so tidy before. — 03:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone has prejudice against some troll links, that are made by some no namer islamist or no namer anti-hindu troll. Majority of translations doesn't use the word 'caste', it's just latest trend to use simpler words, but they often mislead. Justicejayant (talk) 04:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And since you certainly assume Bad Faith for the editions, I would rather assume that we may need to re-write the article, or at least the part of the quotes that are claimed to have been from Bhagavada Gita. Not to mention that some of the copied material is simply Copyvio. Justicejayant (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from arguments on the retention of links which I don't greatly mind, but can actually agree do not seem to be highly significant essays by highly notable scholars, the current dispute seems to be presently focusing on which of 2 relatively obscure translations of a section of Ch. 4 should be used. There are no restrictions on the number of translations which can be used, so I believe BOTH can be retained, but personally would prefer using some more widely published translations for that passage and a few others. I might use a couple of the translations of the Gita I have to start to add material here within the next few weeks, but I do expect to be busy with many other things, and do not expect to get too much done on this page. I would recommend a more extensive argument on this talk page rather than regular reversals of major alterations to the article. ~ Kalki·· 05:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just made an edit which used BOTH recently of the disputed translations — but I believe that this VERY significant section of the Gita and a few others should have longer quotations from more famous translations and will probably start to add more from a couple of others within the next week or so. ~ Kalki·· 05:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"am become"[edit]

What is this grammar in "I am become death, destroyer of worlds". "Am become..."? What is it, a miss-translation or what? Why not: "I HAVE become..." or simply "I AM..." 2600:1700:4CA1:3C80:8026:9C37:B09E:A713 03:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See w:Present perfect#Auxiliaries. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]