Scan barcode
mrangelmarino's review against another edition
hopeful
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
sidharthvardhan's review against another edition
2.0
'Just do it and don't hope.'
Rarely can we call a religious book over rated while being sympathetic to the religion itself (all religious books are by definition over rated, that is in their nature); but if there ever was one book that was most over rated it would be this one. The book gained popularity only during British rule.
The book in its narrative smashes together glorifying accounts of Krishna and a wide array of Indian philosophies. With so much of subjects covered, the philosophy of this book is made so flexible and loose that you can read it to draw whatever conclusion you wish to draw.
Arjun's killing of his relatives and Gandhi's path of non-violence - both find justification in the book. You can destroy the world if you do so selflessly. Robert Oppenheimer quoted it (wrongly) while he talked about the decision to drop atom bomb.
'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.'
The central idea that 'It is duty to act and the results are not to desired' is a good one and as near as truth we can get, when we are worried about success of actions (and is reason for all my stars).
However, as to what actions must be taken (what is right thing to do?), the book is ambiguous.
Krishna's answer to question of ethics is selfless action (there are others discussed too, but this one is most popular and only one I'll discuss). He wants you to do everything that is required of you (i.e., your Dharma, which by the way, is famously said to be 'subtle' somewhere else in Mahabharata) but take no enjoyment in actions. (Drink your whisky but try not to enjoy it.) Anything(good or bad), including murders is forgiven to those who act selflessly.
And what is reward of being good(Krishna's definition)? Gita like all Hindu texts is based on this most pessimistic (and silent) assumption that there is something inherently wrong with world and one must get out of it as quickly as possible - and since God (with capital 'G') is continually recycling our souls, we must find our exit in methods told in the book itself. You follow Krishna's instructions and you are relieved of cruel world.
Still, I suggest reading Gita if you base your life on Karma because chances are you don't understand it - most people take Karma to mean a balance of actions and reactions. Karma is far from Newton's third law; and you are not rewarded according to your actions. You may be a good guy and still suffer and you may be the bastard who own the wall street. Krishna was smart enough for to understand that.
Nowhere Gita says you are center of world and the equations are build around you. It says, much like Adidas, 'Just do it'. In one sentence, we can summarize the whole book as 'Just do it and don't hope.' A nice thing to say if you friend wants to propose his love but not when he is planning to kill her upon being rejected.
Rarely can we call a religious book over rated while being sympathetic to the religion itself (all religious books are by definition over rated, that is in their nature); but if there ever was one book that was most over rated it would be this one. The book gained popularity only during British rule.
The book in its narrative smashes together glorifying accounts of Krishna and a wide array of Indian philosophies. With so much of subjects covered, the philosophy of this book is made so flexible and loose that you can read it to draw whatever conclusion you wish to draw.
Arjun's killing of his relatives and Gandhi's path of non-violence - both find justification in the book. You can destroy the world if you do so selflessly. Robert Oppenheimer quoted it (wrongly) while he talked about the decision to drop atom bomb.
'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.'
The central idea that 'It is duty to act and the results are not to desired' is a good one and as near as truth we can get, when we are worried about success of actions (and is reason for all my stars).
However, as to what actions must be taken (what is right thing to do?), the book is ambiguous.
Krishna's answer to question of ethics is selfless action (there are others discussed too, but this one is most popular and only one I'll discuss). He wants you to do everything that is required of you (i.e., your Dharma, which by the way, is famously said to be 'subtle' somewhere else in Mahabharata) but take no enjoyment in actions. (Drink your whisky but try not to enjoy it.) Anything(good or bad), including murders is forgiven to those who act selflessly.
And what is reward of being good(Krishna's definition)? Gita like all Hindu texts is based on this most pessimistic (and silent) assumption that there is something inherently wrong with world and one must get out of it as quickly as possible - and since God (with capital 'G') is continually recycling our souls, we must find our exit in methods told in the book itself. You follow Krishna's instructions and you are relieved of cruel world.
Still, I suggest reading Gita if you base your life on Karma because chances are you don't understand it - most people take Karma to mean a balance of actions and reactions. Karma is far from Newton's third law; and you are not rewarded according to your actions. You may be a good guy and still suffer and you may be the bastard who own the wall street. Krishna was smart enough for to understand that.
Nowhere Gita says you are center of world and the equations are build around you. It says, much like Adidas, 'Just do it'. In one sentence, we can summarize the whole book as 'Just do it and don't hope.' A nice thing to say if you friend wants to propose his love but not when he is planning to kill her upon being rejected.
camstipated's review against another edition
medium-paced
3.0
repetitive and doesn't really present an interesting perspective if you've already read Greek philosophy
savaging's review against another edition
2.0
It feels hugely disrespectful to rate a founding religious text. Saying Oh, this is the most important thing in your world? I give it two stars!
So consider this a caveat that I am wholly ignorant of Hinduism, and a Content Warning: Irreligion.
Friends, warn me against taking personal advice from Krishna. That Beautiful-Haired One has some unsound suggestions. For instance:
Arjuna: I don't want to kill my family
Krishna: But it's your duty. You're a warrior. And anyway battle's fun!
Arjuna: But how will I live with my grief?
Krishna: take a cosmic view. I am the great destroyer -- I've already killed everyone. So how could you really be killing them? (Also, think what the others will say about you if you run away)
I prefer the pre-enlightened Arjuna, with his questions and his grief, to the triumphant warrior with his answers. This text, along with the Bible, strengthens my belief that if I ever taught a class on Maltheism I wouldn't need any text besides the religious works themselves.
And I probably didn't get much out of the cosmic ontology and suggestions of how to be enlightened. Krishna says I should be "neither acquiring nor keeping, self-possessed," and I'm completely on-board. But then I find myself too interested in the impure and unholy. Something so lovely in the women and dogs and other lesser beings. And the demonic:
Demonic men
recognize
neither exertion,
nor its cessation,
neither purity
nor even good action.
There is no truth
found in them.
They do not have truth,
and have no place to stand.
They say that
the earth is godless,
not created
in causal succession.
How else is it caused? They say:
‘It is caused by desire!’
So consider this a caveat that I am wholly ignorant of Hinduism, and a Content Warning: Irreligion.
Friends, warn me against taking personal advice from Krishna. That Beautiful-Haired One has some unsound suggestions. For instance:
Arjuna: I don't want to kill my family
Krishna: But it's your duty. You're a warrior. And anyway battle's fun!
Arjuna: But how will I live with my grief?
Krishna: take a cosmic view. I am the great destroyer -- I've already killed everyone. So how could you really be killing them? (Also, think what the others will say about you if you run away)
I prefer the pre-enlightened Arjuna, with his questions and his grief, to the triumphant warrior with his answers. This text, along with the Bible, strengthens my belief that if I ever taught a class on Maltheism I wouldn't need any text besides the religious works themselves.
And I probably didn't get much out of the cosmic ontology and suggestions of how to be enlightened. Krishna says I should be "neither acquiring nor keeping, self-possessed," and I'm completely on-board. But then I find myself too interested in the impure and unholy. Something so lovely in the women and dogs and other lesser beings. And the demonic:
Demonic men
recognize
neither exertion,
nor its cessation,
neither purity
nor even good action.
There is no truth
found in them.
They do not have truth,
and have no place to stand.
They say that
the earth is godless,
not created
in causal succession.
How else is it caused? They say:
‘It is caused by desire!’
painofboredom's review against another edition
4.0
Bhagavad Gita is a work which is very interesting on a intellectual level in the way it conceptualises the self the universe and god
But I strongly disagree with the almost fatalist attitude it promotes towards life and it's advocation of varna system (Indian stratification of society)
Gonna summarise what the Gita has to say below and my two problems with it :-
1.
Gita states that the atman(self/soul) is eternal unchanging unborn and indestructible
It changes bodies the way one changes clothes in a continuous cycle of death and rebirth
The atman comes from the brahman (universe/the ultimate reality/god?)
And the ultimate goal of all beings is the eventual union of the atman(self) with Brahman (the universe) i.e the ultimate salvation/liberation/moksha
It states that there are 3 paths to moksha :-
Path of knowledge
Path of action
Path of devotion
But it also argues all the three paths are one and the same and lead to the same place
The Gita promotes complete detachment from the material world
Detachment from emotions and aim/fruit of your actions
Action done purely "selflessly" (for the sake of cosmic balance?)
You are to do your "duty/dharma" that's been prescribed to you without a sense of "self" and you will attain the ultimate salvation i.e union with Brahman and freedom from cycle of death and rebirth
The very same can also be attained by the way of "devotion"
You have to submit the "self" to Krishna/THE God completely and he will take you unto him and liberate you from samsara (cycle of death and rebirth)
It also advocates strongly for non violence unless it's for the sake of "dharma"
But it also implies you don't have agency
And that even in the act of non action you are not the agent
You're driven by your inherent nature that you neither have awareness of or control over
So the gita advocates for "action with insight" over non-action and resignation
It has parallels to stoicism
And there lies my first problem
There's no way around this that it suggests one has no choice either way and the best way is to do what you're meant to do but with the insight that you are not in control
And if you do this then hopefully the god will free you from samsara
It's very easy to take all the above and think a attitude of resignation and submission to life is what's meant
This is not an ideal way of life for the masses
Though i do think this attitude is and can be helpful under specific context and circumstances namely during times of crisis or when faced with difficult decision
But it's not way of life meant for the general populace at all times
2.
It also discusses "samkhya" philosphy
In which there exists Prakriti (nature = material/feminine)
And Purusha (the spirit, the potential consciousness - masculine)
Nature by itself is inert and it's the union between the two that gives birth to all beings
Which all possess characteristics based on the mixture of 3 fundamental gunas(quality) in different proportions that comes from the feminine/material side of the equation
And the eventual stratification of society is based on these inherent characteristics with which one is born
And there arises my second major issue with it
Despite Krishna promising ultimate salvation to all regardless of birth (high or low) it doesn't stop Gita from showing extreme preference for the upper class
There's even a section where he's describing the inherent good characteristics of all the varna and he ends up exhausting every adjective in the description of the first two that he has nothing left to say about the other two castes/varnas
Of course at the end of day I can digest all this by rationalising that it's a 2500 year old work written by the people who were at the top of this hierarchy
I can also decide to pick and choose elements of it considering that the old varna system does not and cannot function in modern times
But still I can't help but feel disappointed by this aspect of it
I'm gonna re-read it again while going through all of Mahabharata and hopefully I'll like it more
But I strongly disagree with the almost fatalist attitude it promotes towards life and it's advocation of varna system (Indian stratification of society)
Gonna summarise what the Gita has to say below and my two problems with it :-
1.
Gita states that the atman(self/soul) is eternal unchanging unborn and indestructible
It changes bodies the way one changes clothes in a continuous cycle of death and rebirth
The atman comes from the brahman (universe/the ultimate reality/god?)
And the ultimate goal of all beings is the eventual union of the atman(self) with Brahman (the universe) i.e the ultimate salvation/liberation/moksha
It states that there are 3 paths to moksha :-
Path of knowledge
Path of action
Path of devotion
But it also argues all the three paths are one and the same and lead to the same place
The Gita promotes complete detachment from the material world
Detachment from emotions and aim/fruit of your actions
Action done purely "selflessly" (for the sake of cosmic balance?)
You are to do your "duty/dharma" that's been prescribed to you without a sense of "self" and you will attain the ultimate salvation i.e union with Brahman and freedom from cycle of death and rebirth
The very same can also be attained by the way of "devotion"
You have to submit the "self" to Krishna/THE God completely and he will take you unto him and liberate you from samsara (cycle of death and rebirth)
It also advocates strongly for non violence unless it's for the sake of "dharma"
But it also implies you don't have agency
And that even in the act of non action you are not the agent
You're driven by your inherent nature that you neither have awareness of or control over
So the gita advocates for "action with insight" over non-action and resignation
It has parallels to stoicism
And there lies my first problem
There's no way around this that it suggests one has no choice either way and the best way is to do what you're meant to do but with the insight that you are not in control
And if you do this then hopefully the god will free you from samsara
It's very easy to take all the above and think a attitude of resignation and submission to life is what's meant
This is not an ideal way of life for the masses
Though i do think this attitude is and can be helpful under specific context and circumstances namely during times of crisis or when faced with difficult decision
But it's not way of life meant for the general populace at all times
2.
It also discusses "samkhya" philosphy
In which there exists Prakriti (nature = material/feminine)
And Purusha (the spirit, the potential consciousness - masculine)
Nature by itself is inert and it's the union between the two that gives birth to all beings
Which all possess characteristics based on the mixture of 3 fundamental gunas(quality) in different proportions that comes from the feminine/material side of the equation
And the eventual stratification of society is based on these inherent characteristics with which one is born
And there arises my second major issue with it
Despite Krishna promising ultimate salvation to all regardless of birth (high or low) it doesn't stop Gita from showing extreme preference for the upper class
There's even a section where he's describing the inherent good characteristics of all the varna and he ends up exhausting every adjective in the description of the first two that he has nothing left to say about the other two castes/varnas
Of course at the end of day I can digest all this by rationalising that it's a 2500 year old work written by the people who were at the top of this hierarchy
I can also decide to pick and choose elements of it considering that the old varna system does not and cannot function in modern times
But still I can't help but feel disappointed by this aspect of it
I'm gonna re-read it again while going through all of Mahabharata and hopefully I'll like it more