Just bought "The Upanishads." Have anyone read it? Also, "The Bhagavad Gita." Has anyone read any of them? Thoughts, Feelings?

[DalTheJigsaw123]

Just bought "The Upanishads." Have anyone read it? Also, "The Bhagavad Gita." Has anyone read any of them? Thoughts, Feelings??

[JustARandomPanda]

I also bought both of these books. Will read the first few chapters today and report back on my thoughts so far.

 

 

 

Cheers!

[John Zen]

They are fingers pointing at the moon.

[DalTheJigsaw123]

I also bought both of these books. Will read the first few chapters today and report back on my thoughts so far.

 

 

 

Cheers!

 

Awesome!

Who is the translator?

For me it's Eknath Easwaran.

[Fu_dog]

I have read Gandhi's translation and interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita four times.

 

I have also read Swami Satchidananda's interpretation, also excellent.

 

The Gita is the most powerful spiritual book I have read, period.

 

I have purchased Easwaran's Upanishads, but haven't yet read it.

[DalTheJigsaw123]

I have read Gandhi's translation and interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita four times.

 

I have also read Swami Satchidananda's interpretation, also excellent.

 

The Gita is the most powerful spiritual book I have read, period.

 

I have purchased Easwaran's Upanishads, but haven't yet read it.

 

Thank you! I cannot wait to finish both.

I am 30 pages into Upanishads book. I know that there is also Dhammapada. Will see if I can purchase that on Amazon.com.

[dwai]

Just bought "The Upanishads." Have anyone read it? Also, "The Bhagavad Gita." Has anyone read any of them? Thoughts, Feelings??

 

I assume you got the titles written by Eknath Easwaran? They are both very well written and are a good introduction to Vedanta. I would suggest reading the Upanishads first, understanding their context and then reading the Bhagavad Gita, will make understanding the Bhagavad Gita easier.

[DalTheJigsaw123]

I assume you got the titles written by Eknath Easwaran? They are both very well written and are a good introduction to Vedanta. I would suggest reading the Upanishads first, understanding their context and then reading the Bhagavad Gita, will make understanding the Bhagavad Gita easier.

 

That is exactly what I am doing! Reading Upanishads first! And then will be reading Bhagavad! Thank you!

And yes, I got both Upanishads and Bhagavad by Eknath Easwaran!

[9th]

[dwai]

If you are deeply interested in these matters, you may benefit from studying india's most ancient stories as well. The Rig Veda and Mahabharata and other Vedic scriptures were originally presented by people who were called "rishi", which has been translated as "seer". Consequently, the Vedas have been said to be "revealed" rather than created as such. The rishis were described as having the quality of being able to only speak truth. Such a prospect will immediately become confounding when adherence to literalism overtakes the presence of symbolic intelligence which created symbols in the first place. Even in the face of quite "natural" conversation and storytelling, many "supernatural" things of cosmic significance can be discovered. This interplay of "truth" in "lie" was the basis for the later invention and codification of bizarre symbolism which in modern times has been called the "twilight language", a necessity predicated by the rampant persecution of later "seers" in this very same culture by the systematic hierarchy implemented mainly by the brahmin caste and their exploitations. However, the muslim invasion also played a large role in those matters as well.

 

The rishi were quite vocal in their love for that which provided impetus for their visions, and which they called Soma:

 

 

 

It is therefore interesting to note the Persian rites of Haoma, as well as the other points of shared cosmology which eventually became contentious points of opposition... particularly in regards to the concepts of devas and asuras in Indian culture, and daevas and ahuras in Persian culture.

The "truth" and "falsehood" in the rg veda is really a derived interpretation. They actually are meant to represent substantial and insubstantial or existent and nonexistent (sat and asat respectively). You will find that understanding the rg verses in terms of substantial and insubstantial will open many mysterious doors

 

Eg take the nasadiya sukta .. It will make complete sense if the substantial/insubstantial concept is used:

http://www.medhajournal.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=345&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=212

Edited November 28, 2011 by dwai

[Patrick Brown]