I have already absorbed Bhagavad Gita (BG) in my blood, right since I first read in after 12th class. So majority of my decisions were based on the methods suggested in Gita. Its a good book for reading from everyone's perspective, from person of any religion, including atheists, provided that they assume that the things which they consider unbelievable or false can be true or right for someone else. Anyways, that was not the focus of my post here.
I was told about Ashtavakra Gita by Veni, my senior in Samsung. He accidentally met me in Andamans where I and my wife had gone to celebrate our new marriage. He told me that Gita is told by Krishna who was a 'Kushal Rajnitigya...Kushal Kutil Rajnitigya" (Expert Politician, Expert, cunning politician". So Whatever he says is interpreted by the readesr in their own ways, and while reading, the readers find the solution in their own ways for themselves. Then Gita becomes a very relativistic book, meaning to say that the content of the book are likely to be interpreted differently by different people. So if I want to read an unwavering content that is expected from Bhagvad Gita, I should read Ashtavakra Gita(AG). Ashtavakra was Janak's Guru. Janak was Sita's father. Whatever Ashtavakra told Janak about the Truth, has been mentioned in Ashtavkra Gita.
The content of the AG is almost the same as what I remember in Gita, though the scientific and moral part mentioned in Bhagvad Gita are not mentioned in AG version of what I read.
In AG, the state of a free man has been mentioned. More or less it is the same, except that it does not mention about God. It says that even the God is nothing. And whatever God is, it is in everyone, so when nothing is there, an enlightened man does not go to anywhere in seeking God. He is content in himself. It mentions that even the mind is not a person's. It changes with the environment, and so does the nature of a person. An enlightened man is least interested in all these variations but remains peaceful with all these fluctuations going on around him.
The thing about mind, and the thing about God is what primarily looked to me different from Gita. May be because these two entities are not physically observable, hence in Gita, Krishna did not give any definition about them. Though he said that the mind has to be controlled, and that focus on God is necessary for enlightenment. So they were open to interpretations, the definitions.
Overall, the new thought that I gained about God, that he does not have to be looked outside, something which many teachings already do, this thought has brought peace. I think it is a matter of time and age that this thought struck me at this point of time.
I would suggest that for a quick extract of BG, AG can be useful. But TO be in that state of mind so that one could understand AG, he has to read BG. :) ;)
I was told about Ashtavakra Gita by Veni, my senior in Samsung. He accidentally met me in Andamans where I and my wife had gone to celebrate our new marriage. He told me that Gita is told by Krishna who was a 'Kushal Rajnitigya...Kushal Kutil Rajnitigya" (Expert Politician, Expert, cunning politician". So Whatever he says is interpreted by the readesr in their own ways, and while reading, the readers find the solution in their own ways for themselves. Then Gita becomes a very relativistic book, meaning to say that the content of the book are likely to be interpreted differently by different people. So if I want to read an unwavering content that is expected from Bhagvad Gita, I should read Ashtavakra Gita(AG). Ashtavakra was Janak's Guru. Janak was Sita's father. Whatever Ashtavakra told Janak about the Truth, has been mentioned in Ashtavkra Gita.
The content of the AG is almost the same as what I remember in Gita, though the scientific and moral part mentioned in Bhagvad Gita are not mentioned in AG version of what I read.
In AG, the state of a free man has been mentioned. More or less it is the same, except that it does not mention about God. It says that even the God is nothing. And whatever God is, it is in everyone, so when nothing is there, an enlightened man does not go to anywhere in seeking God. He is content in himself. It mentions that even the mind is not a person's. It changes with the environment, and so does the nature of a person. An enlightened man is least interested in all these variations but remains peaceful with all these fluctuations going on around him.
The thing about mind, and the thing about God is what primarily looked to me different from Gita. May be because these two entities are not physically observable, hence in Gita, Krishna did not give any definition about them. Though he said that the mind has to be controlled, and that focus on God is necessary for enlightenment. So they were open to interpretations, the definitions.
Overall, the new thought that I gained about God, that he does not have to be looked outside, something which many teachings already do, this thought has brought peace. I think it is a matter of time and age that this thought struck me at this point of time.
I would suggest that for a quick extract of BG, AG can be useful. But TO be in that state of mind so that one could understand AG, he has to read BG. :) ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment