"how do I know a person is not wise? -because the desire to dominate exists inside of him" (31:26) . . . "ignorance is when you think the relationship is only about you, and wisdom is when you discover that the relationship is also about the other, and the moment that I understand that the relationship is constructed by the two of us, is when conversations happen, that's wisdom for me" (53: 10). . . "history is just mythology of someone else" (54:00). This is the most equal conversation that I have seen with Devdutt Pattanaik, in which Mani Rao took up equal space and authority. I could feel the mutual respect they have for one another, and I really appreciated how both responded to the questions from the audience at the end.
This is the problem with modern India - We cannot read Bhagavad Gita in Sanskrit or local language (kannada or telugu). And we praise such mediocre writers dishing out non-sense on Gita and calling it "My Gita" ------------------------ Note this is a review of “My Gita” written by Mr. Devadutt Pattanaik. I came across this book recently as I heard the author in a RU-vid talk. There is another critical look on this book on a RU-vid channel also. Please note - This is an independent review, I do not belong to any vedanta organization in the east or west and I generally follow Advaitha Vedanta that Adi Shankaracharya clarified in his bhasyas. I do follow Sringeri Shankaracharya’s teachings. To be fair author clarifies that his book (MG- My Gita) is his version written in thematic style. On page 4, there is statement that says Buddhist lore preceded Gita. [that is debatable, and I think this is wrong historical fact he is claiming without any reference or clarification]. He clarifies that Gita is subjective and his Gita is not obsessed with the self. I think this is a fair enough comment. [ my take - BG Bhagavad Gita is subjective is not doubt by Guru is the one who clarifies and gives us guidance. BG is dangerous for the common man to misinterpret and send a false message, hence Puranas are better to lay person] On page 20, he refers to priests as brahmanas or brahmins which is ok. But the word “Brahman” and “Brahmana” itself is so confusing throughout the book. On page 21 he says, “The narrative by Vyasa were called the Puranas, or chronicles, which included the epics Ramayana and Mahabharata.” This is where I started getting a feeling this book distorts some facts knowingly or unknowingly. Of course, every high school kid in India knows that Vyasa did not write Ramayana. It is always referred to as Valmiki Ramayana which is much earlier than Sage Vysa’s time (Sage Vysa lived around the time of Sri Krishna’s time period). I liked chapter 1, he has some interesting and good concepts. Page 42, he calls dehi (immortal resident) and deha (as body). Page 43 has a good summary. He uses this dehi and deha throughout the book. On page 54, author has a bizarre view of Yudhishtira of Maha Bharata (MB) epic regarding his gambling issue. But Yudhistira is dharma raya (he does not break any kshyatria rules). There are many graphics (2x2, schematics tables) throughout the book without figure numbers or table numbers. Some flows with text correctly and some appear to be inserted without proper reference. This perhaps needs good explanation by author. It appears to me that author is trying to convey something but is not clear from text. This happens often. Page 56 has swastick image with humans, animals, plants and elements. I am not sure what the message is here. Is the author trying to fit an image with items or is there a legitimate swastika bhasya somewhere for this is not clear. Either way author wants to use lots of graphics and image without proper titles. Page 63 he says that psychology is considered a pseduo or imperfect science. This is wrong definition of psychology. Page 68 dehi , jiva-tama and param-atama come back. Chapter 5: You and I have to face consequences. On page 84/85 author links Arjuna’s predicament expressed to Sri Krishna in chapter 1 to that of sloka in chapter 4 slokas 17 to 22. This is a totally weird or tenuous connection. I am totally lost by this connection. [It just does not make sense to connect the two is my take]. On page 86 there is totally weird graphic on karma. I just could not understand what he is trying to convey. There is action and reaction at two ends. There is a box named karma in between with Sex Celibacy Violence and Non-Violence. I have no clue what he referring to. He brings in many stories from Ramayana, MB and Bhagavatha. In this context he brings a story of Karna to explain complexity of karma from MB saying it is a telugu folks tale. Again he is fitting a story from Purana or MB to explain a concept from BG. Chapter 6: You and I can empathize. Author says that dharma is often confused with righteousness (page 89). On page 92/93 he writes about a story from Sundara Kaanda of Ramayana regarding Hanuman and Surasa when discussing adharma and dharma (food, predators and instinct). This is a totally out of context story that he brings in. [ I lost him here, anyone who knows the inner meaning of Surasa episode from Sundara Kaanda knows what it means symbolically as the name suggests. If you folks have time listen to pravachans by Sri Chaganti Koteshwara Rao, Sri Vaddiparti Padmkar ji or Sri Samavedha Sanmukha Sarma garu in Telegu. There are excellent pravachan masters and experts on Ramayana throughout India and there are good. Listen to it in native language). It feels like he is desperately trying to bring many concepts from many puranas and itihassa and tie-it to BG slokas. And the structure to do so simply seems to fall apart or at least there is no continuity. After the initial few chapters his thought process and message is all over the map. He is just not able to connect the t dots in a coherent way {and I an MBA and studied 100s of case studies, an Engineer and CFA and have written books} On page 96, he makes the weirdest statement “In the Mahabharata Duryodhana upholds rules, while Krishna breaks them.” Few lines later he says, Dharma however is upheld only by Ram and Krishna not Ravana and Duryodhana. [ go figure what his message is and of course some of these writers never spell the name Ram as Rama which is another big issue, but not an issue at least in this context] Later, author says: Dharma thus has nothing to (do is missing) with rules or obligations. On page 97 graphic is utterly confusing. At least he could explain clearly. [ The most useless information you get in this book. Obligations in each stage of life is so critical and everyone must follow dharma at each stage of life is the central tenet of Hindu philosophy and each purana. Here the author is totally contradicting himself and the message is simply not coherent] Chapter 11: You and I can include. Another chapter that is so disoriented and disjointed with lots of wrong definitions. On page 147 he says the word " brahmana" has two roots: expansion (brah) and mind (manas). And he uses this definition to refer to famous Gita slokas 4-24 (brahma-arpanam sloka). This is a such a critical sloka for Gita BG readers. Swami Harshananda (Ramakrishna mutt Bangalore) has a 45 minute lecture on this. Here author is keeping it in the food domain which is a narrow focus of the sloka. And he brings back Hanuman from Uttara-ramayana where he says Hanuman is biting into pearls given to him by Sita [ this story is not there in Valmiki Ramayana, it is a figment of some one's imagination that has come into some circles of Hindus. There is no basis for this story] Then author says referring to Hanuman “He seeks dehi everywhere and thus expands his mind and finds brahmana” This is where imagination of this author runs wild and it is a work of fiction and a totally value-less book that distorts our Hindu Puranas or Ithihasa. This is where I stopped. This is a book that does not add value to anyone. If anything, this is non-sense, fiction, disoriented ideas stitched together in 18 chapters with many factual errors about history, Indian Puranas and wrong, narrow translations. Brahmana, brahmin, nirguna brahman -author is all over the map and uses these interchangeably. Then there is chaturmukha Brahma from puranas. Then there is Hermit Shiva instead of Veerabhadra Swamy that Lord Shiva creates to destroy Daksha yagna. If you are serious about Gita, read a Sanskrit / local Indian language version. There is not a single Hindi, Sanskrit word in the book. This is potentially written for the lazy Indian who can’t read his/her own native language and is a slave of English translations of Hindu scriptures or a lazy Westerner who can say in a party that they are reading a book on Gita. I am returning it to Amazon.
What a pity the audience had to go through this ordeal for 65 minutes. I could have answered the Q& A session better, since they have no clue about the subject matter. Great learned and realized saints like Ramanuja, Madhvacharya, Shankaracharya and so many great devotees were born at regular intervals just to reinstate the existence of Lord Krishna and agreed he was a historical figure. And here we have this guy who has the audacity even to agree Lord Krishna was historical.
There is paramaatma = Parama+atma = Supreme Soul mentioned in the Gita. And of course Atma =Soul. Note that soul concept in Hinduism is not same as soul in the Western religions. Hinduism says that everything has Soul, whereas Christianity considers that only humans have soul.There is no Para Atma (other or other's atma in Gita!).
Jeeva Atma = My Atma, Para Atma= Your Atma, Parama Atma = Supreme or Infinite (God's Atma where God's name is Ananta (infinity) Vasudeva ) Atma. Parama Atma = para atma¹+ para Atma² +... ♾️
Why is there a "My Gita"? Is there a "My Bible" and "My Quran"? Once you brand Hindu sacred texts as borne out of "fiction", it's open season. He is given a platform, in India, by Islamic-Maoists and NGOs supported by them.
It is interesting to see how Mani who clearly does not relate to Devdutt's point of view is engaging with him in a very respectful way. For someone who is unaware of where he is coming from this conversation would look very innocent. But let me tell you it is not. The hidden idea's( which do come out here and there during the conversation) is something worrisome to me. Devdutt looks at the spiritual texts as work of fiction but according to him they do tell you the ill practices that prevailed in that time such as sharing wife, giving away daughters by kings for sexual favors etc. Mr. Patniaks works is not for me, i read Jaya but that did not ignite any interest in me.
Sages "run away" from family, "Atman" could not be understood by kids... What is this conversation? Devdutt, from Wendy Doniger's school of thought, can talk like this... Rajiv Malhotra's "The Battle for Sanskrit" looks more important than ever...
what is the need to retell the Gita?...the author had a purpose and if you do not care to understand it but rather give it your own twist saying, "you're free to interpret it" etc... it is sad...Philosophy/spirituality is the essence of the Gita. DP is probably the kind of person that Nisargadatta refers to as "intellectuals who cause maximum damage"
Assuming you read his book and will be liberated, then you are in 'Fools Paradise', BG chapter 04 verse 02 Very clearly says, one has to be from a Parampara to even distribute this knowledge, forget writing. Time and again such people do come and give their stupid interpretation of the Gita only to be doomed. Request the audience to pick a copy of the Gita from an Iskcon center near you and make your self sublime.
I think that rennaisance did not create the hierarchy and put the philosophers above the Poet. If you look at the painting of the Raffael in Sistine's chappel in Rome, you find out that the hierarchy is like this ; God (ultimate truth) above all, then Virtues (Christ and apostles) and then at equal Level the laws, art, philosophy and science.
Pretty much Meaningless conversation. It's not 'your Gita'. It's our Gita. There are many great talks about Gita. This doesn't come any where close. These guys are just talking without knowing much of Gita's essence and beauty.
He says for the Monastic people ( Like Sankara etc), wealth is shame, sex is shame etc, He misunderstood. it is not shame, you go behind wealth and sex and see how life goes. it is the wisdom of these people that wealth and sex are not going to give you permanent bliss which comes out of body consciousness and realize Atman, if welath and sex can give you permanent happiness, they go for it, but it is not because it comes of duality when the other persons goes off after death, then the happiness is not permanent, it is greif, only in that context, the traditional commentators commented on it.
It's simply orthodox , and blind believer of written darshan shastras without application of mind , which is very unfortunate and dangerous as addiction to some like opium .
Pattanik ji is not only confusing the audience and but he is himself confused. Both these speakers concur that there is no Paramatma if every atma is related to one another. This is total rubbish. At several instances in the Gita that He is the Paramatma and the Parabrahma and Bhagavan. If this truth is not realized then what kind of a commentary is this book?It can only be a blasphemy. There can be no absence of Paramatma at all. This is only grotesque imagination.
Why is the woman imitating American accent so badly? Kids understand what they want to understand, their are Gita for kids as well FYI by RK Mission and for professionals. So do not worry about others, Gita sing its own song to each one of us. A child's mind is most unpolluted and hence most open to philosophy. Take them to the nearby RK Mission or Arya Samaj rather than trying to school them on Gita with such pathetic western imitation. Devdutt - Meera wrote the song 'mere toh girdhar gopal dusro na koi' on a context of worshiping other gods which she was being forcing into by her inlaws, she was being forced into loving her husband passionately which she was not interested in, hope u remember she was married forcibly. For Meera, Krishna was her world so how she could have had another entity. Also Meera had an amicable relation with her husband, she used to call him Maro Rana. She respected and loved relationships and showed how can you always spread in fragrance no matter in what way u live.
Mistakes in almost every sentence n listen pat naik parah is nominative and param is accusative, u two plz learn basic sanskrit, u both dont know what u r talking of,
Assuming you read his book and will be liberated, then you are in 'Fools Paradise', BG chapter 04 verse 02 Very clearly says, one has to be from a Parampara to even distribute this knowledge, forget writing. Time and again such people do come and give their stupid interpretation of the Gita only to be doomed. Request the literature fest audience to pick a copy of the Gita from an Iskcon center near you and make your lives sublime.
Assuming you read his book and will be liberated, then you are in 'Fools Paradise', BG chapter 04 verse 02 Very clearly says, one has to be from a Parampara to even distribute this knowledge, forget writing. Time and again such people do come and give their stupid interpretation of the Gita only to be doomed. Request the audience to pick a copy of the Gita from an Iskcon center near you and make your self sublime.
