3 ms·

>Now the problem is that these descriptions are colored by the philosophy and opinion of the person writing it, often heavily because of the lack of cross polli

>Now the problem is that these descriptions are colored by the philosophy and opinion of the person writing it, often heavily because of the lack of cross pollination of ideas. Yes but you can always read multiple commentaries, and its usually good to be critical of whichever one you are looking at. >For example, the ISKCON descriptions of the verses of Gita are often completely orthogonal to the main philosophy of Gita, but the interpretation is technically as valid as the literal interpretation. Yea, my first Sanskrit teacher was not ISKCON but ISKCON-adjacent, a very well-meaning guy, but I think recently we're beginning to break because I'm rejecting his interpretations of the Gita and the Sankhya philosophy. I've never read the ISKCON materials directly but I get the feeling that they emphasize a kind of personal monasticism and asceticism, which seems not exactly antithetical to what the Gita propounds, but is certainly a very restricted reading.

danans 4y ago
> I get the feeling that they emphasize a kind of personal monasticism and asceticism, which seems not exactly antithetical to what the Gita propounds, but is certainly a very restricted reading. Their interpretation is heavily filtered through the 15th century devotional movement of Chaitanya, himself a member of the devotional/dualist lineage started by Madhvacharya. Their beliefs stem from the medieval sectarian Puranic literature, and have the goals of moralization and idealization of Indian rural, pastoral, doctrinally vegetarian lifestyles, which is a perspective very far removed from the martial culture that produced the Mahabharata. Hence the strained interpretation they use. I'd also argue that there is nothing particularly monastic or ascetic about the Gita, which propounds that conquest and the fruits thereof are not only acceptable, but are expected as a matter of the prince's duty.

danans 4y ago

> I get the feeling that they emphasize a kind of personal monasticism and asceticism, which seems not exactly antithetical to what the Gita propounds, but is certainly a very restricted reading. Their interpretation is heavily filtered through the 15th century devotional movement of Chaitanya, himself a member of the devotional/dualist lineage started by Madhvacharya. Their beliefs stem from the medieval sectarian Puranic literature, and have the goals of moralization and idealization of Indian rural, pastoral, doctrinally vegetarian lifestyles, which is a perspective very far removed from the martial culture that produced the Mahabharata. Hence the strained interpretation they use. I'd also argue that there is nothing particularly monastic or ascetic about the Gita, which propounds that conquest and the fruits thereof are not only acceptable, but are expected as a matter of the prince's duty.