Talk:Bhagavad Gita/Archive 5

Hudson's Pancaratra Agama
I have the The Roots of Tantra on my shelf. There was a small para in this article that seems to have misunderstood what Hudson is stating. The primary discussion therein is about Pancaratra Agama in context of a relief in a temple's vimana, not what this article alleged. I have removed it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are obviously removing it because of the human sacrifice stuff. But don't you want to show that the Bhagavad Gita is continuous with the Vedas?VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Which page does Hudson state that it is about human sacrifice? Hudson is stating that there is parallelism in some ideas found in the Vedic literature, some chapters of the Bhagavad Gita, the temple relief panel he is describing and the Pancaratra Agama. A few sentences about that parallelism would be okay to summarize somewhere. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hudson gives a standalone explanation of Bhagavata thought that is independent of the temple relief. He says "Let us consider each in light of Bhagavata thought" on page 155 and then proceeds to explain Bhagavata thought.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Several problems! Bhagavata can mean Bhagavata Purana or Bhagavata tradition, neither mean Bhagavad Gita! In the sentence, "Let us consider each in light of Bhagavata thought", he means "thought in Bhagavata tradition", not "thought in Bhagavad Gita". Elsewhere he specifically mentions Srimad Bhagavata which is same as Bhagavata Purana. His chapter is all about Pancaratra Agama.... a part of the Bhagavata tradition. But, let us remember the subject of this article, let us avoid a mess. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I know he means the Bhagavata tradition.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Very little to say about this; just that "It is Bhagavata explanation of the Purusha Sukta and the Purushamedha Srauta yajna described in the Satapatha Brahmana" is abracadabra to me. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   07:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Its missing an "a". It should be "It is a..."<b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 19:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * JJ: Yep, it is gobbledygook and I have removed it. VictoriaGrayson: I don't see support for what you added. Please identify the page number where he concludes or states what you allege he does. I don't see it on pages 155-163 of the Hudson source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Its certainly way more supported than what you say. Hudson doesn't say Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita states that the name Vasudeva means the shining one who "dwells in all things and in whom all things dwell". This is what Hudson says: "Third, the story illustrates the meaning of the name Vasudeva, the shining one (deva) who dwells (vasu) in all things and in whom all things dwell."

There is nothing about Krishna stating this. This is a quote of Dennis Hudson. Not Krishna.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 06:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * VictoriaGrayson: Instead of providing the page number, you go your usual way... cryptic criticism/attack or strange comments! Let us consider your comment then. In the sentence you quote, you misunderstand the context of the story. Hudson makes this more explicit and clear on page 159, starting in the ninth line from the top. Hudson writes, "Krsna (the acarya) drew his disciple Arjuna's attention to himself and his own identity as Vasudeva who is Purusa Narayana, the Shining One who indwells all things and in whom all things dwell". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You state that "dwells in all things and in whom all things dwell" is a direct quote of Krishna. This is false.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 15:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Instead of, "states that the name Vasudeva means the shining one who 'dwells in all things and in whom all things dwell', according to Hudson.[91][note 8]" would you be okay with "identified himself as Vasudeva, the Shining One who 'indwells all things and in whom all things dwell', according to Hudson.[91][note 8]"? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just delete the whole section. I don't care about the Hudson chapter, except for a couple of pages.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 19:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I have again removed the content contested earlier. It was re-added in February 2018. I also re-added back the section with a better summary. With this edit you allege that it contains "false quotes". Which quote is false? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Its explained right above. I also explained at ANI.  You use false quotes all the time.  For example on the Buddhism page.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * @VictoriaGrayson: No I don't. If I did, please provide evidence. Once again, please stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Admin warned you. There is an active discussion involving multiple editors on the Buddhism talk page. There is no "false quote" there or here, and there is no need to repeat that discussion here. Please provide specifics here from Hudson or whatever source with a page number. I will do my best to clarify, or correct if I erred. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hudson doesn't say Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita states that the name Vasudeva means the shining one who "dwells in all things and in whom all things dwell". This is what Hudson says: "Third, the story illustrates the meaning of the name Vasudeva, the shining one (deva) who dwells (vasu) in all things and in whom all things dwell."

You state that "dwells in all things and in whom all things dwell" is a direct quote of Krishna. This is false.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * VictoriaGrayson: The article states, "Krishna similarly, in the Bhagavad Gita, identified himself as Vasudeva, the Shining One who 'indwells all things and in whom all things dwell'." Hudson on pages 156-157 states, "Third, the story illustrates the meaning of the name Vasudeva, the shining one (deva) who dwells (vasu) in all things and in whom all things dwell. It also illustrates the meaning of Visnu, the pervading actor. Krsna identified himself with both names and their meanings when he taught Arjuna." Wikipedia's copyvio guideline urges us to try to "summarize in our own words". I think what the article states is a reasonable restatement of those three sentences in Hudson (last two lines on page 156 and first two on page 157). If there is a better revised version, I am open to it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Um no. You are manufacturing a quote of Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * For the sake of a consensus, how about we paraphrase Hudson more closely? For example, "A story in Shathapatha Brahmana, states Hudson, illustrates the meaning of the name Vasudeva as the 'shining one (deva) who dwells (vasu) in all things and in whom all things dwell', as well as the meaning of Vishnu to be the 'pervading actor'. In Bhagavad Gita, Krishna identified himself as Vasudeva and Vishnu and their meanings to Arjuna." It is too close to Hudson's words, so we need to attribute. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Questionable sources
After the revert of your unsourced content by Doug Weller, you re-added the content with a source. However, there are two problems: you must identify which specific page numbers in the source support your content (please do not throw the book by citing all 496 pages of the book). We must also check if the source meets WP:RS guidelines, such as it being a peer-review scholarly source etc. The Gita has many gurus, and its translations / interpretations have been widely self-published on web and on paper. These are WP:Questionable sources. Our WP:RS guidelines urge us to pick the better sources, preferably those that have received scholarly reviews and those that are cited by other scholars. If you were to start by locating and reading such sources, your contributions thereof would be most welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@: On 'The Gita has many gurus', this excerpt from "Awe Unfounded" of my Bhagvad-Gita: Treatise of Self-help, https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Bhagvad_Gita/zRrWDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 may help -

"Now back to where it all began - the misleading image of the Gita as something that cannot be comprehended, even by the spiritually oriented, leave alone the mundane minded, without the guidance from a guru, well versed in the nuances of theology. Nothing could be farther from truth considering what Arjuna averred after having heard Krishna, (s73, ch.18),

'Glad O Lord Gone are doubts, Sense I gained With Thy words.'''

And consider this. Arjuna was an educated prince and an exemplary warrior but with no specialized knowledge or training in theology. Yet he found no difficulty in grasping the centrality of Krishna’s advice that helped dispel his doubts. After all, it could be expected that Krishna who knew his friend’s limitations on that count would have fashioned his discourse suitably. And won’t that bring the Gita into the orbit of average human understanding? More so, Krishna’s discourse was intended to be a ready reckoner for Arjuna and not an assignment in spirituality to be attended to as homework, with reference books and all, leaving the battlefield for the day.

But then why all this spin of spiritual intricacy on such a straightforward man-to-man talk! We must appreciate that the philosophy of the Gita is the apogee of the Hindu thought process that evolved through the Vedas, the Brahmasutrãs and finally the Upanishads. In a way, the Gita is the Seal of the Hindu Wisdom, for it separates the ritualistic chaff from the spiritual grain in the granary of sanãtana dharma. For those well versed in these and other such works, it is a tempting proposition to delve into the conceptual origins of a given sloka of the Gita in those ancient classics. But to what avail all that, and what is sought to be proved after all! That the Gita was a plagiarized work of Vyãsa?

Well, didn’t Vyãsa place the Gita in proper perspective with ‘the end of the chapter averment that it is the quintessence of the Upanishads and the Brahmasutrãs’. Yet this futile exercise of backward integration of the Gita with the Upanishads and others continues, giving raise to myriad interpretations to what is essentially a simple and straightforward message that Krishna intended for average human comprehension. In modern parlance, Bhagavad-Gita is like the Board Note, and it does not behove the board members to pore over the relevant files.

Though some well-meaning men and women have all along tried to straightjacket the Gita as a ‘Book of Work’, still it is the scriptural tag that sticks to it. Admittedly, this is not only detrimental to the Great Gita but also the misfortune of the common man who would have otherwise ventured to read it, and benefited as well. Thus, this work should be viewed as the outcome of an urge to place the Gita in its proper perspective for the utmost common good. On the degree of its success could depend how it would have served the cause of the Lord and that of man for whose benefit the  Gita, the Treatise of Self-help, was fashioned, though not as scripture. It pays to recall the words of Krishna,

‘That thee heard of this wisdom For task on hand now apply mind’.

Now it is left for all to deliberate and decide whether the Gita per se was Krishna’s unrivalled divine revelation, or Vyãsã’s philosophical discourse nonpareil. It is noteworthy that each of the eighteen chapters of the Gita has this post script - this chapter, with so and so designation, has the bearing of the Upanishads, possesses the knowledge of the Brahmasutrãs and deals with the science of its application. And the Upanishads, as we all know, were but the works of man, though of divine proportion.

Thus, if we were to concede that the Gita was a divine disclosure, then that would suggest that Krishna borrowed from the Upanishadic philosophy to fashion his discourse! Won’t that mean Lord Vishnu in His avatar as Krishna, relied on the works of man to formulate moksha for him! That is an absurd proposition, at any rate that is, isn’t it? Well, it’s a matter for man to deliberate and decide.

Last but not the least is the sectarian twist some interpolations give to the Gita to the hurt of the majority of the Hindus. Understandably, the offended sections view this secular text with suspicion, and thus keep away from it altogether, missing so much as a consequence of the same. In ‘All About Interpolations’ that follows, this aberration is sought to be corrected, and it is hoped that for the general good of the Hindus this aspect of the Gita would be set right for all times to come."

Best regards BS Murthy

Quoted BG 11.12 translation has devanagari for 11.32 (kAlo 'smi...)
कालोऽस्मि लोकक्षयकृत्प्रवृद्धो लोकान्समाहर्तुमिह प्रवृत्तः। ऋतेऽपि त्वां न भविष्यन्ति सर्वे येऽवस्थिताः प्रत्यनीकेषु योधाः॥११- ३२॥

If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one

Please fix it. J. 37.48.48.126 (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Review and proposal to update
Talk page watchers plus I have reviewed the talk page archives, comments in the past failed-GA-nom reviews, the article's edit history and the current version of this important, relatively high traffic wikipedia article, as I try to do in other articles. You all have contributed to this article and helped build it to the current version. This article can be improved further. The lead is currently about a half page, the main article is about 10 pages long (including the images). So, it is not too bulky currently. We can add some more summary from peer-reviewed scholarly sources to improve the NPOV, other aspects of this article and to update it. For example, the current Authorship section reflects the mythical and hagiographical view of Vyasa, who is traditionally believed as the single person who compiled all the Vedas, the Mahabharata and all the major Puranas (which exist in zillion versions). The real author(s) of the Bhagavad Gita has been speculated and discussed by notable religious leaders such as Vivekananda, and also by academic scholars. This article would improve with a short related summary. Other sections can benefit from similar collaborative review and update. I will start the update, but would appreciate your watch, cross-checks and comments as I progress. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Succes! Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I need some guidance here. There are over 200 translations of Gita in English, per Winthrop Sargeant. The chapters of the Gita are generally not titled in these translations, but some translators do add it, each one is different, sometimes very different. The older version of this article picked one 1885 version and another web version from the little digging I have done (for example, Chapter 1 is listed as Prathama adhyaya and The Distress of Arjuna). These chapter titles reflect these two POVs. There are 198+ POVs left! Our choices are [i] go with the majority (no chapter titles) but add a note that some sources title the chapters; [ii] list some select group of chapter titles and acknowledge there are many more; [iii] do something else that might be better/useful to the reader. I will cite RS of course whichever option we take, and I can create a table. Between the three options, I am wondering which one you might recommend as being more consistent with our good practices for the Chapters section. If talk page watchers have suggestions/comments on this, please share. FWIW, I intend to add a table, perhaps a collapsed one, later in the article with the top 25 to 50 notable translations of this text between 1785 and 2017. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Abecedare: Seems like you haven't logged in for a week and are busy in RL. In the interim, I opted for the second option above. I feel it might help improve the stability of this article and prevent POV-y plugs by those who might have read a website or a translation, and who then in good faith might want to add the chapter titles they have read. By including a few chapter titles, the article is a bit more honest about the diverse interpretations that have been published and be closer to NPOV (though, we cannot graciously include 100 or 200 translations here). It is still an interim patch. I welcome suggestions for further improvements. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion / exchanges recoded over a period of time by BS Murthy with various Wiki editors in respect of his work on interpolations in Bhagvad-Gita, is excerpted from User Talk: BS Murthy to carry forward the issue: Dear Mr.Abecedare: 'Mundane distortions in the divine discourse'was first published in the Jan-Mar 2009 issue of Triveni, India's literary and cultural quarterly being published since 1928. You can access the back issues of the journal up to Oct-Dec 2008 at the website of Sri Yabaluri Raghaviah Memorial Trust and maybe in a few days the Jan-Mar2009 issue in which my article was published would be available for your perusal. The said article was also carried out in the Indian Book Chronicle, January 2009. Apart from the above cited Indian journals,my article is published in advaita.org.uk, an authentic site for Advaita philosophy. Hope you would like to reexamine my case for the inclusion of the article in your project. Regards, BS Murthy

Thanks for that information. I have browsed through the advaita.org.uk version of the article, and look forward to reading the Triveni version once it is available online. Your attempt to identify the interpolated verses in BG is interesting and points to an aspect of Gita studies that the current wikipedia article is missing. As I recall, there are several opinions and arguments regarding, (1) whether the BG is an integral part of MbH, and (2) identifying the various stages in which the text developed and the verses (and, even philosophical ideas) that were later interpolation. Of course, we cannot go into all the details of the various arguments in the Bhagavad Gita article, which needs to summarize a humongous amount of literature related to BG. However we need to at least point out to the reader in 2-3 sentences that such hypotheses exist. I suggest that we continue this discussion on the talkpage of the article so that other interested editors can join in if they wish. The next step would be to collect the best available references that either propound, or ideally summarize, the various theories on the subject, before crafting the language to be added to the article itself. I'll try to look up references in the next few 1-2 days, and will list the citations I find on the article talk page. Since you have studied these questions and presumably are familiar with the literature on this topic, your help in gathering the references will be appreciated. Regards. PS: I'll drop a note below on how one can easily sign and date ones post on article talk pages. You can read more on the use of wikipedia talk pages at WP:TPG Abecedare (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr.Abecedare: Thank you very much for agreeing to carry forward the discussion. The text of the article carried by advaita.org.com (Part II to follow) is the same as the one earlier published in the Triveni. It is not a discussion regarding the Gita’s antiquity or about its being an integral part or otherwise of Mahabharata. It is but an analysis of the content of the 700 +0 verse-text to pin down the deviant by the yardstick of the philosophy that the Gita postulates besides spotting the digressive that break the continuity of the discourse. But for Sir Edwin Arnold who dubbed s23-s27 of ch.8 as the ranting of some vedanti which he excluded from his century old ‘Song Celestial, there is no known attempt to identify much less codify the interpolations that most concede to exist in the Gita. I was inspired by this Arnoldian approach to probe the Gita for further fault lines that resulted in my Bhagvad-Gita: treatise of self-help sans hundred and ten interpolations in the end. The general tendency to take the Gita ‘As it Is’ can be attributed to the possibility that while the Indian translators/interpreters tend to accord a measure of sacredness to it, the Westerners who worked on it confined themselves with the philosophical aspects of the work and being unfamiliar with the apathy of the underprivileged castes towards these interpolations cannot be expected to delve deep into them. Ridden of the interpolations of deviant nature or of partisan character, the source of so much misunderstanding about this pristine philosophical work in certain sections of the Hindu fold, in the long run, my Bhagvad-gita: treatise of self-help is bound to bring in new readers from the majority of the Hindus who tend to keep away from it owing to the alleged sanction of the inimical caste system by Lord Krishna himself. While one can appreciate the genesis of the interpolations and understand the methodology of codification of hundred and ten interpolations in the introductory pages of my Bhagvad-Gita: treatise of self-help in contemporary idiom, the integrity of the philosophy can be grasped in the remaining 591 free-flowing verses. The text of my work can be accessed at Vedanta Spiritual Library besides gatewayforindia.com, which hosts an audio of the same. I request you to go through my work to be able to appreciate the veracity of my averments. BS Murthy (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC) BS Murthy

Dear Ms. Diannaa: I invite your attention to the above discussions between Abecedare and me regarding Bhagvad-Gita: Treatise of Self-help sans inane interpolations. As you can gather from therein, somehow the momentum was lost till you picked it up again on 14 April 2020 and my subsequent listing of the said book, after furnishing my copyright to you, under the External Links was deleted by some other editor, vexed by which, I too gave up. Since, it is too important an issue, I would like to pursue it afresh to inform you that the said work has been accorded the pride of place at the Great Books and Classics site among the Gita's translations, that is over and above Sir Edwin Arnold's timeless The Song Celestial http://www.grtbooks.com/HinduTexts/Bhagavad-Gita.asp?aa=TE&at=BH&yr=-400 Wikipedia editors may also know that I've placed my book as free ebook at 1_Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/BhagvadGitaTreatiseOfSelfHelpByBSMurthy 2_ Google Books https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Bhagvad_Gita_Treatise_of_Self_help.html?id=zRrWDwAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y 3_ Holybooks https://holybooks.com/bhagvad-gita-treatise-of-self-help/ to name only a few and the umpteen other sites in which it is available can be seen from its Google page I'm sure the above more than establish that I'm the copyright holder of this book bearing ISBN 81-901911-0-1. However, to further convince Wiki editors I've mailed the relevant document indicating the ISBN Nos of this and my other books to permissions-en@wikimedia.org Hope you would take forward the issue to its logical conclusion of its inclusion in Wikipedia's the Bhagavad-Gita page. Best regards, BS Murthy

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, I appreciate your contention that "links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product" are inappropriate for one to include. You may also realize that Wiki editors too should look for significant new works to update / enlarge the scope of the subject matter but as you can see from my above post, sadly, they are stubbornly closed to my work that throws fresh light on the Gita to show it in its original form polluted by subsequent interpolations to not only to its hurt but also the Hindu society at large. You may see from this link that my path-breaking work on Bhagvad-Gita without 110 inane interpolations and distractive interpretations is recommended by the sites dedicated to Hindu scriptures, who know better about the subject matter, and what is more, the Great Books and Classics site has accorded the pride of place to it over and above Sir Edwin Arnold's The Song Celestial, 2nd in your reference list (Mr. Mike Stickles of the site had emailed me that my work is better than that of Sir Edwin's) http://www.grtbooks.com/HinduTexts/Bhagavad-Gita.asp?aa=TE&at=BH&yr=-400. Also you seem to be blind to the works repetitively recommended /listed / cited in the Bhagavad -Gita page (Eswaran's work for a pathetic example finds mention in "References" under sl #s 126, 128,134 thru 138, 141,142,145,147, 151, 157, 160, 162, and he has many to keep company in this repetitive process, and laughably for the diligent wiki editors the irrelevant "40th National Film Awards (PDF)" (PDF). Directorate of Film Festivals. Retrieved 2 March 2012" is an online resource! So, it pays for Wikipedia if its editors get down from their high horses to set its crowded Bhagvad-Gita house in order as in the present form it is nothing but a collection of links, repetitive at that, of books based mostly on hearsay, though you've stated in your intervention that "Wikipedia is not#LINK|Wikipedia is not a collection of links" and advised me to see Wikipedia:Spam|spam guidelines. What a joke! Be that as it may, as my work is in the public domain in umpteen book sites as free ebook, my posting it in Wikipedia, by no stretch of imagination can be deemed as advertising the same. Whatever, going by the ever growing readership, be sure, my version of the Gita is going to be the Gita of the future, never mind whether or not it finds a place in the references jungle of Wikipedia. Bye 'n Best, BS Murthy https://www.google.com/search?kgmid=/g/113ygtc21&hl=en-IN&q=BS+Murthy&kgs=3cc165c6dbb7e9ea&shndl=0&source=sh/x/kp&entrypoint=sh/x/kp
 * bringing this to your attention. Doug Weller  talk 17:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear Dough Weller: Now that you’ve shown interest in my case (thanks for that) I would like to further submit that – If The Bible is the most translated scripture, Bhagvad- Gita is the most dabbled Hindu epic in English that is unlike Sundara Kãnda, the Valmiki Classic regarded as the world’s foremost poetic composition, which hardly has any takers besides me (2n external link in its Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundara_Kanda). The reason for this is whereas the Gita has only 700 slokas (verses) mostly couplets that lend to prosaic translation the Sundara Kãnda has over 3,000 verses that won’t jell much in prose. However, broadly the Gitas in English can be classified into three categories and they are - 1) translations of the 700 sloaks in poetry / free verses  such as Sir Edwin Arnold’s ‘The Song Celestial’ (though as a long poem but not verse to verse), Stephen Mitchell’s 700 verses ( beautiful ones) work published by Rider in 1988 and some such without any distractive interpretations for the readers  2) Translations as above but with the translators’ interpretation of the translated matter. 3) Word to word translations of the verses accompanied by lengthy commentaries. Given their very nature they belong to different classes but as you can see Wikipedia have clubbed them all into a single mould, so it would help to separate them into three categories. You may know that all the books in your shelf state the same thing more or less that is (but for ISCON’s Bhagavad-Gita AS it is) you can have a few of these in the main section of each category as suggested above for general readers and put the rest of them all as additional references (for research students). Coming to the ISCON’s Gita, you may know it’s banned in Russia and rightly so for it wrongly moulds the work in its extremist Gaudia ideology but owing to its immense resources it gains a disproportionate web space) My Bhagvad-Gita: Treatise of Self-help is one of a kind work as it has only 590 verses (plus one unnumbered one) whose quality carries my Hindu ethos and my English fluency that is without any distractive interpretations therein. So, while its introductory “Awe Unfounded” puts the Gita in its proper perspective along with “All About Interpolations, the rhythmic verses in translation bring crispness and clarity to the peerless discourse. Here are a few sample verses from it

Ch1 1 Thus spoke Dhrutarãshtra: Appraise Sanjay as my sons Gathered at the battleground Face the sons of my sibling Eager for the war on hand.

9 With their lives on line for me Adept at weaponry varied all Abound valorous in our ranks Past masters of group warfare.

Ch. 2 11 Thus spoke the Lord: Averring as knowing Worried over trivia! Reckon never wise Dead and alive both.

28 Isn’t thy lament over that Un-manifested to start with Gets manifested just as guest And bids adieu in due course.

Hope you may like to read my work as free ebook to gain much, and it could take a few hours at that https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Bhagvad_Gita/zRrWDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0

Best regards, BS Murthy — Preceding unsigned comment added by BS Murthy (talk • contribs) 11:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Just a note that I have reviewed some of the edits here over the last 12 months and concur with Joshua Jonathan's actions/reverts. User:BS Murthy would do himself and others watching this page a favor by reviewing wikipedia's community agreed content guidelines, particularly those about "peer-reviewed reliable sources that reflect mainstream scholarship". Novel, "extremist ideology as BS Murthy claims above" or more neutrally "allegedly extremist" versions, breakthrough or other passionate interpretations and ideas belong in a blog or other right-to-free-speech publications, not the wikipedia project. That applies to all contributors, not just User:BS Murthy. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC).

Having stated my case as above and in the following discussion, I would like to leave the matter at that as the Wiki editors have been harping only on "peer-reviewed reliable sources that reflect mainstream scholarship", while mine is a 'pioneering work' in the methodical identification / codification, and the deletion thereof, of 110 inane interpolations that is also rid of the superfluous commentary, which distracts the readers from that which is but a straightforward one-to-one talk between Krishna and Arjuna. Nevertheless, in respect of Wikipedia's peer review criterion, it may be appreciated that besides the said Great Books and Classics site http://www.grtbooks.com/HinduTexts/Bhagavad-Gita.asp?aa=TE&at=BH&yr=-400, my work has the approval of ten subject specific / subject selective sites that are, 1_ Vedanta Spiritual Library https://www.celextel.org/bhagavad-gita/bhagavad-gita-treatise/, 2 _ Gatewayforindia http://www.gatewayforindia.com/geeta/geeta.htm, 3_ Holy Books https://holybooks.com/bhagvad-gita-treatise-of-self-help/, 4_ Jain ebooks https://jainebooks.org/books/12397/Bhagvad-Gita-Treatise-of-self-help, 5_ Ancient History Encyclopedia https://www.ancient.eu/video/1020/bhagvad-gita-treatise-of-self-help-by-bs-murthy/, 6_ Advaita Vision.org  https://www.advaita-vision.org/tag/bs-murthy/, 7_ Sanskrit documents https://sanskritdocuments.org/gitalinks/, 8_Aum Amen http://aumamen.com/topic/bhagavad-gita-treatise-of-self-help, 9_ eganesha https://www.eganesha.in/soul/bhagvad-gita-treatise-of-self-help/, 10_Constitution.org https://constitution.org/1-History/scripture/hindu/bhagvad-gita_murthy.pdf. Be that as it may, while the very fact that my work is also published in many more websites, its 4*/5* reader rating testifies to its popular public receptivity as well Regards, BS Murthy

[[I would like to bring the following development to the notice of the page watchers, Mr.Abecedare, Ms. Diannaa and User:Ms Sarah Welch. On 13 March 2021, to the "Modern-era commentaries of Bhagvad Gita" I've added -
 * BS Murthy's English translation omits 110 verses like 'chaturvarnyam mayasrustyam' c4, v13, as latter-day interpolations https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Bhagvad_Gita/zRrWDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0.

Promptly MrOllie (talk) deleted the above with the accompanying caution "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. MrOllie (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)"

However, to the best of my understanding, my edit, by no wild stretch of imagination, is either promotional or advertising for it merely informs the Wiki world that there is a modern-era commentary of Bhgavad Gita that omits 110 interpolations. Nevertheless, MrOllie seems to believe that while the information about the existence of my free ebook that's in the public domain is promotional / advertising, the other works cited therein, most of which are sold in the market place, are 'I do not know what'!

Be that as it may, contrary to its holistic posturing against promotional or advertising content in it, the hypocrite Wikipedia not only engages in the promotion of many a work on Bhagvad Gita but also unabashedly markets some of them, more so ISKON's Ad of Bhagavad-Gita As It Is that reads -

"The version by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, entitled Bhagavad-Gita as It Is, is "by far the most widely distributed of all English Gīta translations" due to the efforts of ISKCON.[271] Its publisher, the Bhaktivēdānta Book Trust, estimates sales at twenty-three million copies, a figure which includes the original English edition and secondary translations into fifty-six other languages.[271] The Prabhupada commentary interprets the Gita in the Gaudiya Vaishnavism tradition of Chaitanya,[271] quite similar to Madhvacharya's Dvaita Vēdanta ideology.[314] It presents Krishna as the Supreme, a means of saving mankind from the anxiety of material existence through loving devotion. Unlike in Bengal and nearby regions of India where the Bhagavata Purana is the primary text for this tradition, the devotees of Prabhupada's ISKCON tradition have found better reception for their ideas by those curious in the West through the Gita, according to Richard Davis.[271].

May Wikipedia stay confused in its Bhagvad-Gita track paved by MrOllie's double standards, and as I'm done with it, MrOllie would be denied the pleasure of blocking me from editing the page.

BS Murthy]]

[[Attention Inviting Post for the page watchers, Abecedare (talk) , Diannaa (talk) and User:Ms Sarah Welch.

On one hand the Bhagavad Gita page is packed with assorted works of, Indian swamis / scholars, who have no issues with its reprehensible caste bias – eulogizing the Brahmins and deprecating the Sudras - and the Western intellectuals who are oblivious to the ill-effects of the inimical Hindu caste conundrum, but it fails to mention, even in the passing, that this aberration that runs parallel in this peerless philosophical discourse has been derided by many, including Dr. Ambedkar, the Dalit intellectual giant of an architect of the Indian Constitution, who opined that “Manusmriti lays down the laws of caste and the Bhagavad Gita gives a philosophical defence of the new social order. The philosophy that has helped grow Brahmanism and graded inequality system of caste.”

It should not be lost on the Wiki editors of Bhagavad Gita that owing to its avowal of social discrimination on caste lines, the Sudras, who form over 85% of the Hindu society, disparage it so much so that Vijay Mankar of the Ambedkar Party of India advocates that it should be thrown into the dustbin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7esBfb2_WVM.

In his well-argued “Caste in the Bhagavad Gita – Satanic verses of Bhagavad-Gita” Pardeep Attri has extensively dealt with the caste prejudicial verses of the work https://velivada.com/2018/03/07/caste-in-bhagavad-gita/ .This understandable apathy of the people of the 'slighted castes' towards the Bhagavad Gita is owing to their misunderstanding that it indeed advocates this crap agaisnt them even as Krishna had averred in s 29, ch.9, ‘None I favour, slight I none / Devout Mine all gain Me true’.

So, we have a situation in which while one section of the world lifts the Gita to the skies albeit clueless about the obnoxious caste divisions it advocates, while a much larger humanity debunks it for the same reason! However, both fail to realize that the caste-oriented verses were nothing but latter-day interpolations by the Hindu priestly class to serve its nefarious interests.

So to say, ironically, the protagonists as well as its detractors are equally ignorant about its true ethos and the relevance of my Bhagvad-Gita: Treatise of Self-help that has expunged 110 inimical interpolations from it to restore its original egalitarian character. https://g.co/kgs/U4DuSi

That’s not all, my work restore the philosophy itself that some of the interpolations have come to distort, and by way of example – In the philosophy defining 2nd Chapter, Krishna condemns rituals for boon seeking in verses,

42 Unwise use all enticing / Flowery language to further / Rituals Vedic in their scores / Not the knowledge of Vedas.

43 Eyeing heaven with mind mundane / Go for ceremonies such in hope / Of having best of both the worlds.

44 Pursue if thou wants with zeal / Instincts then would spin thy mind.

However in an interpolative U-turn in the very next chapter 3, Gita sanctions/ encouraged rituals as follows, how absurd! 9. Man is not attached to his actions performed in ritualistic sacrifices but all other actions bind him.

10. The Creator wanted mankind to prosper through sacrifices, which shall be the milch cow of man’s desires.

11. Foster the gods through sacrifices. 12. Fostered by sacrifices, gods would bestow desired enjoyments, but they are thieves who do not return anything to them (gods).

13. Those that partake the remnants of sacrificial food are sinless.

14. Food that sustains mankind comes from rains, which are but the outcome of sacrificial ceremonies.

15. Brahma is seated in sacrifice.

16. Who follow the above regimen would attain moksha.

So, in my work, such and other type of interpolations were identified, codified and omitted to restore to the Bhagvad-Gita its pristine purity.

The Blurb of my work would set its agenda thus:

Bhagavad-Gita is the most beautiful, perhaps the only true philosophical song existing in any known tongue’ – so opined William von Humboldt. Though it is a matter of consensus that Bhagvad-Gita in the present length of seven hundred verses has many an interpolation to it, but no meaningful attempt has ever been made to delve into the nature and extent, not to speak of the effect of these on the Hindu society at large.

The moot point that has missed the attention of all, all along, is that if the Sudras were to be so lowly in the Lord’s creation, how come then the Gita’s architect Krishna, His avatar, and Vyāsa, its chronicler, happen to be from the same lowly Hindu caste fold. Moreover, is it not absurd to suggest that either or both of them had deprecated the station of their own varna (caste) on their own in their very own Gita?

The methodical codification of interpolations carried out here, for the first time ever, puts the true character of Gita in proper perspective. Identified here are hundred and ten slokas of deviant nature and or of partisan character, the source of so much misunderstanding about this book extraordinary, in certain sections of the Hindu fold.

Thus, in the long run, exposing and expunging these mischievous insertions is bound to bring in new readers from these quarters to this over two millennia old classic besides altering the misconceptions of the existing adherents.

In this modern rendition, the beauty of the Sanskrit slokas is reflected in the rhythmic flow of the English verses of poetic proportions even as the attendant philosophy of the song that is the Gita is captured in contemporary idiom for easy comprehension."

Thanks to my refocus on the inimical caste-oriented interpolations in the Gita, I've come up with my new piece "Absurdity of Bhagvad-Gita's Caste Biases" https://www.academia.edu/45581323/Absurdity_of_Bhagvad_Gitas_Caste_Biases

So, I would like to close my case with Krishna's advice to Arjuna in s63, ch.18, ‘That thee heard of this wisdom / For task on hand now apply mind’.

BS Murthy]]

Bhaggavad Gita ; Chapter 2
Chapter 2 : Bhagwat Geeta ;  Human is in clenches of Attachment. In Bhagwat Geeta Arjuna is a human being who is in bondage of attachments. Attachement is the cause of human pains. Sh krishna as spiritual master guides that a wise man should not get attach to any thing of this material world,whether it is relation,things,possessions. Attachments never deliver any bliss or any fame. Attachment leads to Insignificant weakness.

What are the ways to kill attachment, How attachment arise and stay in our mind, How to conquer the attachment.

Sh krishna while teaching as spiritual master teaches him path to control the senses by following path of meditation, in Chapter 6 sh krishna teaches him to sit in any clean place,meditate on self everyday, one can gaze on mid of eyebrows or with slight open eyes can gaze on tip of nose, with close eyes on mid of eyebrow is easy for beginners, this is not easy path, and should not be started for attaining material pleasure, this is only should be performed with devotion, as Arjuna was not interested in any material pleasure further then only he practice this path and was able to cut his attachment,

the war place in Geeta is the human life field, where like Arjuna we are facing confusions of life and we have to practice the teaching of spiritual master whcih will help us to cut our attachment, In ch 2 of Geeta it is explained Attachment is greatest foe of human and to cut it we need to follow spiritual practices and slowly we can conquer on this ,our attachment to family,material things, fames,job,money,possession is hte cause of our pains, so cut this attachment as wise man practice and follow the spiritual path to conquer it, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans Cosmos YOga (talk • contribs) 16:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Image in nomenclature
The picture is not seems to be right Showing ravana in Article of Bhagavad Gita how can you relate This Right me if I'm wrong. 21aryan (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The capture only says "A scene from The Bhagvad Gita," so what's your problem here? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Never mind; what an ugly picture... Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I Know buddy what I'm doing A 10 headed man you seeing in this picture is Ravana From epic ramayana and You trying to stick ravana To the Bhagvad Gita Which from Epic mahabharta Both are Different epics from Ancient india can explain me if you can? 21aryan (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay i get it now This is vishwa rupa Darshan i get it, but it seems like Some way different than the vishwa rupa darshan glad you take away that picture. 21aryan (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Look way better now Respectively (Jai shree Krishna) 21aryan (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Vedas
Plz add some more line about hindus scriptures 2409:4089:A31C:72F5:152C:5294:C5D5:D5F5 (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Revert
regarding my revert the first source only says that Wilkins' translation was the first, not that there was no 'separate' BG before that; the second source is a non-English newspaper article; and the third source is a copy of the Wiki-article. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  03:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Query
Why the edit of mine is constantly reverted even though I ve provided reference in it? জাবিরটটক (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * See the previous thread... Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Fight between Bhisma and Arjun.jpg
 * Vyasa.jpg

Reversions of edits by Ellis408 to Gita main page
Dear Aman.kumar.goel and Rasnaboy - I spent a day editing the main Gita article and was surprised that all my edits were reverted diff diff without explanation, except the second one cited lack of references, which made no sense to me.

I added a form of disambiguation, to make it easier to find the articles on 4 notable English translations of the Gita. Deep in the article, there is a table listing dozens of translations, with links to these four, but that makes it unlikely that a person looking for one of the four translations will be able to find it. Here is the entirety of that edit (they are listed in chronological order):


 * For specific notable translations, please visit:
 * The Song Celestial by Sir Edwin Arnold
 * Bhagavad Gita - Song of God by Swami Prabhavananda and Christopher Isherwood
 * Bhagavad-Gītā As It Is by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
 * God Talks with Arjuna: The Bhagavad Gita by Paramahansa Yogananda

The other section I edited was in the "Promotion of just war and duty" section, which seemed an appropriate place for this perspective from a notable author and co-translator of the best-selling English Gita, who happened to be a Conscientious Objector in WWII. This is that section in it's entirety:


 * Author Christopher Isherwood, who was a Conscientiousness Objector in WWII and co-translated Bhagavad Gita – The Song of God with Swami Prabhavananda. In the Appendix, Isherwood authored an essay on The Gita and War. Isherwood suffered his father death in WWI and saw no effort by the allies to avoid getting into the next war. In England he was a member of the Peace Pledge Union, and during the war, while in the US, he did alternative service with the Quakers.


 * In the Appendix, Isherwood explains that the Gita is neither pro- nor anti- war. In certain circumstances, it would be quite alright to refuse to fight. In Arjuna's position, since it's a righteous war, and he's a warrior by birth and trade, he must fight.


 * In the purely physical sphere of action, Arjuna is, indeed, no longer a free agent. The act of war is upon him; it has evolved out of his previous actions. At any given moment in time, we are what we are; and we have to accept the consequences of being ourselves.


 * Only through this acceptance can we begin to evolve further. We may select the battleground. We cannot avoid the battle.

The only reason given for reverting my edits was lack of references, but the 4 translations have stand alone articles and don't require any additional references. That Isherwood was a CO is well documented in his biographical wiki article, and the quote comes directly from his essay - and this particular quote is the basis for his argument, which is referenced.

Perhaps this would fit better in the "Allegory of war" section, or combine the "Allegory of war" and the "Promotion of just war and duty" section into one section titled, "The Gita and War" as both are on that topic.

I really don't know what the objection is; all seemed pretty standard to me. I'm hoping we can come to one mind here. Please let me know your thoughts.

Let's discuss. Best, Ellis408 (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The lead summarizes the article; it does not open with links to specific translations. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  21:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * HI Joshua - Got a suggestion? I think if's an important idea. I put it at the top, before the article, where other disambiguation stuff occurs. The issue is if anyone is looking for a specific Gita, they have to enter the exact title - or it just goes to the main Gita page. Other translations are really buried in the article. I saw it as helpful. Best, Ellis408 (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ellis408 That is not how our articles are written. Please familiarise yourself with Manual of Style. Also, most importantly, read Edit warring — DaxServer (t · m · c) 02:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not at war with anyone, sorry if my comments gave that impression.I did one reversion, and then created a section on the Talk page to discuss the issue. I'm just asking for help for how to assist Wiki users, in this instance, to find what they are looking for. It's an unusual situation, in that if someone is looking for an article about, say, the A.C. Bhativedanta's Gita, or any of the other three that have their own page, they have to go way down in the article, to a table that lists dozens of translations. If it could put it into the top Gita (disambiguation) section that would be great. Not a war - just a discussion. Thank you. Ellis408 (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This page does not need translations that lack context. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've just added the three translations to the Bhagavad Gita (disambiguation) page. The fourth one was already there. I was hoping for a more visible solution, but this will do. Turned out that there was another translation already there, that I didn't know about. Thanks for the suggestions. Ellis408 (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Date created
Another source says the first written copy was made in 1492 but it says this book was made way before then so could I have the evidence for it being made long before 1492 Dopplegangman (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)