Talk:Bhagavad Gita/Archive 2

message: Easwaran's translation of the Bhagavad Gita is well-renowned and used by many academics as well as individuals. It deserves to be listed along with the other translations - otherwise the list of translations is a bit unrepresentative. It's ISBN is 978-158638-019-9. 
Similarly his Bhagavad Gita for Daily Living would be a welcome addition to the Commentaries listing. The ISBNs of this 3-volume set are: 0-915132-17-6, 0-915132-18-4, 0-915132-19-2
thank you!
DuncanCraig1949 16:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easwaran's translation 

message: All this loving detail about "shloaks" in the Mahabharata is off-topic for this article.  Further, Yardi is not at BORI, and BORI publishing his research on the basis of having used BORI materials is not an unqualified endorsement of his work.  Even if it were, his research has not been published in peer-reviewed journals, nor has it been cited widely. As such his research simply counts as a data point.  One rather topical place where he has been cited -- indeed, as just a data point in a spectrum of views -- is this paper by John Brockington.  Yardi is far from the last word on the subject.  rudra (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MR Yardi and BORI 

message: *Indeed, it is quite the opposite: one's life on earth must be lived in accordance with greater laws and truths, one must embrace one's temporal duties whilst remaining mindful of a more timeless reality, acting for the sake of action without consideration for the results thereof.
IMO (moved this from GAR as it is an opinion)....Perhaps this should be reworded but more for content rather than grammar.  It is the realised or attained spiritual master who may act without consideration for the results.   The one who lives life on earth who not only must consider the karma, and also receives the karma.  The acquirement of Dharma gives one a transcendental view of karma - of action and reaction or results.  I am just thinking the part action without consideration for the results would only be available for those who have achieved Dharma.SriMesh | talk 16:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Could someone please put a phonetic code of how one is supposed to read the name? 
I know i'm confused :) Thank you  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.246.224.63 (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Hey,
wouldn't it be fair to use a more neutral translation
considering prabhupada's bias...Domsta333 (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would Sarvapalli Radhakrishan's translation be ok?--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey,Domsta...You are ABSOLUTELY correct! Almost ALL of the articles conserning Vaishnavism are slanted towards the ISKON/Gaudiya "group". It is incredible! I have spend the last week studying every article about vaishnavism and their all slanted and bias towards the ISKON/Gaudiya group, in some way. Either overtly or in a subtle way. They all have ONLY quotes from Prabhupada...and no one else. All these articles have the mindset, flavor, and intentions of the ISKON/Gaudiya group. Every where you go on Wikipedia, it seems that these ISKON/Gaudiya people have created the articles and have a strangle hold on the articles and they are use it as a spring-board for their group. I agree we need to use non-denominational/group qoutes and translations from other sources. I really believe that ALL of the articles need to have a Non-bias slant to them. If we can,...can we work together with ONLY Rudra and redtigerxyz to do this...go through all the articles and make them non-bias....Govinda Ramanuja dasaUSA (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Domsta's original point is valid, but we should ideally quote from a range of Bhagavad-Gita translations, not just one or two. Please add more translations. In reply to Zeuspitar, if this page has a lot of quotations from one Gita it is because only a very small handful of editors have been bothered to add references. It's much easier to complain than it is to actually improve and work on something. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with Gouranga(UK) - multiple translations should be used, in the interest of WP:NPOV and a more comprehensive view of the Gita. --Shruti14 t c s 23:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: That's pretty funny. And, I will be actually helping and improving ALL of the ISKON slanted articles. But, the fact remains...it's NOT complaining, this is an issue that must be addressed first and then the need changes can occur. Govinda Ramanuja dasaUSA (talk) 09:20, 03 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  bhaktivedanta 

message: I see the traditional dating of the Bhagavad-Gita and Mahabharata as being relevant to this article, because otherwise we are only giving the modern academic belief. Many thousands of people within India believe that both were events that actually happened together, significantly earlier than 150 BC. Surely we should at least include this for the sake of reporting it as a popular belief (if not the most popular?) amongst followers of the text within Hinduism? Gouranga(UK) (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "traditional dating" of the BG or the MB as texts.  All "dating" concerns pertain to the events of the MB itself, a subject that's treated at Mahabharata. rudra (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article states in the beginning that the Bhagavad-Gita "...was originally written around 3000 BCE." however later (Bhagavad_Gita#Dates) in the article it explains it being written around 500-150BCE, the events which it describes dates around 3000BCE; but not the document itself. I propose a change that actually reflects the contents of the article, "...was originally written around 500-150BCE however the Mahabharata in which it describes dates 3000BCE." Currently, the article contradicts itself and lead to confusion on Talk:Aryan_race#Noteworthy. Keithieopia (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating of Mahabharata 

message: Hi
I only want to raise this point for discussion as in the introduction of the chapters it is mentioned that Krishna claimed that he was the Supreme Being and Arjuna should surrender to him and words to that effect.
I would like to know from knowledgeable people whether Krishna was using the terms Aham/Atman/Brahman etc. synonymously to refer to the Supreme Being?
If above is true, should the related text be changed?
I am sorry but I could not find any previous discussion on this topic (maybe I dont know how to search for it correctly)
Shreekar (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Shreekar, there are different opinions available on this point. For example, within Vaishnavism, when Krishna says 'mam ekam saranam vraja' (surrender unto Me) it is understood that Krishna is referring to Himself directly, either as Krishna or as Vishnu. Within monist schools, such as Advaita Vedanta on the other hand, the same statement (and similar) is generally interpreted to be referring to the formless absolute. It largely depends on which philosophical background you approach the text from, although the first perspective is more literal according to the text itself. Both atman and Brahman are discussed in more detail in other articles. We can explain the variety of point of views within the article, as long as they are referenced from appropriate sources. Best Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed - the interpretation of the statement(s) is largely dependent upon the philosophical school that a Hindu is from, and an attempt is being made at making the article more comprehensive in the viewpoints and interpretations of these statement(s) in the article. --Shruti14 t c s 23:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Krishna really mean surrender to me or surrender to the Atman 

message: Should this article have one? rudra (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:TRIV states that trivial material is only worthy enough to be included in an article if the information can be incorporated into the other sections. From my experience, items relating to pop culture can never be integrated while statistical facts such as the chapter containing the greatest number of shlokas may be significant enough to be included somewhere other than a trivia section. See Template:Trivia. GizzaDiscuss © 06:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree.  Trivia sections are inherently unmanageable grab bags, not to mention that the typical addition (in good faith, of course) is often unsourced or sourced to some random website.  Enough material for a separate Subject X in popular culture article might work, maybe. rudra (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  The info can be added in Influence section.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section 

message: This article currently starts with, "The Bhagavad Gita is a Sanskrit text from the Bhishma Parva of the Mahabharata epic, comprising 700 verses."
There is no link for Bhishma Parva.
What's a Bhishma Parva???
What I'm really asking is, can this first sentence be clarified, linked better, use terms that are actually in Wikipedia, etc....
:Well, it seems Redtigerxyz has since changed the text to now read:
::"...from the chapter Bhishma Parva of the Mahabharata epic..."
:It is simply the name of one of the parvan ( = "chapters" or "sections" or "books") of the Mahabharata;
:Bhishma is the central character of that "book" or "chapter".
:See the "Textual history and organization" section of the Mahābhārata article for more information about the other parvan, too.
:—Wikiscient— 21:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's a Bhishma Parva?? 

message: Removed:
"and is called sometimes the "Bible of Hinduism""James Mulhern (1959) A History of Education: A Social Interpretation p. 93Franklin Edgerton (1925) The Bhagavad Gita: Or, Song of the Blessed One, India's Favorite Bible pp. 87-91
The "Bible of Hinduism" is title given to numerous books from Vedas, Agamas, Mahabharata and Ramayana, also the "Gita" being one depending on the author. the epics as biblefor others. Since one book is not given the title unanimously, I think the term should be removed.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible of Hinduism 

message: Congratulations to the folks who have worked on this page! I can see that a lot of care and attention has gone into it and it is very well done.  However, I would like to suggest that the two sentences below, which appear in the opening section of the page, are extraneous and are not appropriate point in the opening summary and overview of the Bhagavad Gita and it's place in Vedic Literature.
I am new to Wiki and don't know what is the proper etiquette for getting something removed or relocated to a more appropriate section.
Comments or advice anyone?
Keithbob
--Keithbob (talk) 03:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, yes it is out of context, probably suites well in the "views on Gita" section, where it can be added with other views by Gandhi, Ramakrishna, Aurobindo, Isherwood., etc. -- vineeth (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ramakrishna section seems out of context 

message: How can the image and well referenced material be removed.? If required add it to the existing well referenced material, and dont remove it blindly.
The sentence, "The Bhagavad-Gita was written in 3138 B.C." is itself unreferenced. — Nvineeth talk 07:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of well referenced material and images? 

message: The following paragraph,
has original research, and even false information. The first para definitely looks like original research, and in the second para, none of the citations provided talk about patanjali's yoga sutra. (even checked in the radhakrishnan book, the page nos are perfect, but nowhere Yoga sutra is mentioned) I will be removing the first para, and make a few amendments to the second para.
Thanks. — Nvineeth talk 15:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the "setting the scene" that is mentioned in ref#17 is also incorrect., see the actual page. — Nvineeth talk 17:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added materials from other books (radhakrishnan, Vivekananda, Swarupananda) and move the quote to the ref. There is also another POV supported by several scholars, that the date of work does not matter and what really matters is the contents, which needs to be added from a WP:RS. Thanks. — Nvineeth talk 17:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Few Original research, failed ref checks. 

message: The Para,
Is also original research. The part referring to Aryabhata and Gupta is unreferenced. Moreover keay like other scholars says that the date is around 500 B.C India p.43 and also the name of the book for the reference 3102 B.C is not provided. Moreover, the sentence, "Many religious groups hold this date to be accurate in reference to the Gita" has a very vague reference, and no where in the reference is this mentioned. I will be removing this. — Nvineeth talk 16:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the "setting the scene" that is mentioned in ref#17 is also incorrect., see the actual page. — Nvineeth talk 17:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added materials from other books (radhakrishnan, Vivekananda, Swarupananda) and move the quote to the ref. There is also another POV supported by several scholars, that the date of work does not matter and what really matters is the contents, which needs to be added from a WP:RS. Thanks. — Nvineeth talk 17:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More [[WP:OR|Original Research]]

message: The current picture,IMO is not required .(pls see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images#Image_choice_and_placement).-Bharatveer (talk) 06:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, a picture is required., but a slightly clear and better image / painting will be good., until we find one, there is no harm in keeping the existing picture. Thanks. — Nvineeth talk 11:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Nvineeth's comment.  By all means find a better image but for now this one is not harmful.--VS talk 11:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I uploaded a cropped image, looks like didn't work out. Re uploading. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks much better now! thanks. — Nvineeth talk 12:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: woops! sorry! I realize now I should not add this link as an "external link" but instead in the section immediately below it. Please therefore ignore this proposal (below)DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links - new proposed link 

message: I propose to add an entry to the external links. It is a website which summarizes the main teachings of the Gita from a Christian point of view. Every point is referenced with proper quotations from the Gita and thus it provides a compact survey. It can be helpful for Christian readers and for those who want to know how Christians see this text. The link would be: "Teaching of the Bhagavad Gita - seen from a Christian point of view" - http://christiansinindia.in/Christians_in_India/Bhagavad_Gita.html - Nikil44 (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be original research.  I'd say it's irrelevant.TheRingess (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Support TheRingess, yes it seems like a WP:OR, to give a example, from the article link, "Interestingly Krishna never argues with the fact that this war is a righteous fight against evil people." seems completely false. The verse 2.31 in fact clearly addresses this : "Looking at thine own Dharma, also, thou oughtest not to waver, for there is nothing higher for a Kshatriya than a righteous war.". So including this link is out of question. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the problem of translation of the Gita. Other translators do not write anything like 'righteous war' but refer it to the caste-duty like R.C.Zaehner with 'fight prescribed by law'. The tension between fulfilling his caste-duty and acting righteously is shown in the person Duryodhana in that article. - Nikil44 (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As per, WP:EL, 'Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research"' should be avoided. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I think I understand some, after reading this article. Well done! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  As good as it is to give/get praise, rather unnecessary/irrelevant here... Armuk (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not!! I praised the editors making a good job, because I thought I understood something. The reason for praising editors doing a good job is of course to make them keep on editing. Apart from that I only care about understanding the content of the article – not believing in it. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 12:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the appreciation. Project Hinduism will try to develop more such articles.--Redtigerxyz  Talk  13:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Again: thank you! And keep your spirits up for doing an excellent job! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 16:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very good! 

message: Does the term "Gītopaniṣad" and the interpretation of the Gita as an Upanishad have any notabilitly outside of Hare Krishna, i.e. are the alternative names Gitopanisad/Yogopanisad lead-worthy? --dab (𒁳) 14:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure of the names, but the view does seem to have to have some notability. See e.g. Easwaran's introduction. (He is not associated with Hare Krishna.) The bit about 'the "tag" found at the end of each chapter' refers to the traditional "here ends the chapter titled..." phrase. (For a source before Prabhupada was born, see e.g this from 1882.) Shreevatsa (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure, really. I'd imagine the Thomas Coburn reference that is currently cited for the shruti classification would have something about this. Easwaran's "for as back as anyone can trace" seems to suggest that the "tag" identification as as Upanishad is part of the oral tradition, with no clear dates. Of course, there is also tradition of the Gita as smṛti or not exactly an Upanishad, e.g. Vedanta philosophy's prasthāna trayī which calls the Gita the "smṛti prasthāna", and one Gita invocation that calls it the "milk" extracted from the cows that are Upanishads (also mentioned in Müller's footnote above). "Some people consider it an Upanishad" might really be the best one can say about it. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: at least we could in principle find out more about the "tags". I do not think they are part of oral tradition, but part of manuscript tradition. After all, the printed editions of these texts aren't based on interviews with pundits reciting from memory, but on manuscripts that were collected by various orientalists during the 19th century. I understand  Easwaran's "for as back as anyone can trace" as implying that the tags are found in all known manuscripts. So the date of the oldest known manuscript with such a "tag" will also be a terminus ante quem for the term "Gitopanisad". --dab (𒁳) 15:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that the oldest manuscript would be a terminus ante quem, but it would probably be a crude one (if we can find it). As I'm sure you know, there is no real manuscript tradition in Hindu scholarship, only oral tradition: the Gita is not its manuscripts. And every manuscript was written down probably based on the equivalent of interviews with pundits reciting them from memory anyway. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 04:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upanishad 

message: The three main religions in the world are: Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. The primary teachings, respectively, are the Bible, the Qur'an, and the Bhagvad Gita. The first two articles are locked, so that people don't screw it up. It is wrong that this one is not, in my opinion. I don't want people who do not actually know about this teaching to mess up the article.
Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.30.15 (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about locking the article 

message: I was planning to replace the current lead image with this one: :File:Arjuna and His Charioteer Krishna Confront Karna.jpg ; IMO, this image looks more vibrant, and encyclopedia. I have included the 2 images below for comparison:
 
I would like others' opinions before making this change. Thanks --Nvineeth (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the new image but am neutral to its use in this article lead because, (1) it is a better depiction for the Kurukshetra war than BG, (2) it should ideally be displayed at a 300+ pixel size since it's many figures are hard to see at default size, and this is not a real possibility in the lede. Ideally we want a lead image specifically showing Krishna explaining the BG lessons to Arjuna - such images are pretty common in Indian art, but I haven't found any in PD yet. Abecedare (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The new image shows Arjuna and His Charioteer Krishna Confront Karna, a later event. The current image shows Krishna sounding the Shankha and declaring war, an event at the end of/ just after the Gita when Arjuna is ready for war. --Redtigerxyz  Talk  13:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

text:  There are :File:Bhagvad Gita.jpg and :File:FeteVarkala.jpg, but they are not 2-dimensional. There are also :File:GitaUpadeshTirumala.jpg and :File:Hitopadesha.jpg which are similar (one of them is used in the article), so not sure if we can use the other as well. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with abecedares' and redtiger's analysis above; But I still feel that the current painting does not do justice to the glory of the Gita , will continue to look for better ones! --Nvineeth (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: This is a nice article and excellent effort.  Following are some improvement suggestions, offered for your consideration.
1. Many people also spell Gita as Geeta.
2. Bhakti -- There are several quotes from Gita on Lord Krishna emphasizing "devotion," but only one from Chapter 12 -- The Yoga of Devotion.  It is in this chapter the "type of devotion" and the "signs of a devotee" are summarized.  I suggest including some additional translated verses from this chapter in the article.
3. It should be emphasized that the knowledge in Gita must be lived to truly understand the the meaning of its verses.  Bhagavad Gita is more than a book of philosophy -- It gives a way to see and unite with God. For example, "Yo maam pashyati sarvatra, sarvam cha mayi pashyati; tasyaham na padishyami .."
4. Additional quotes from prominent scientists, leaders, and scholars (Gandhi, Eienstein, Aurobindo, etc.) would be helpful.
5. There is also a school that claims that in the text form Bhagavad Gita/Mahabharata took place around 500 to 2000BC.  This is grounded on the fact that Buddha appeared at the time of the decline of Hinduism, and Buddha himself is 200-500BC.  While fixing the actual date is not critical (as said in the article), it is important for our children to know that that knowledge of Gita in all liklihood pre-dates works in most major religions of the world.
6. Most translations come from Prabhupada's works.  It might be more balanced to include some translations from Aurobindo, Tilak, Vinoba Bhave, Jyaneshwari (which is thought as a translation of Gita), etc.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.16.50 (talk) 05:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: BS Murthy, It very clear that few of the sources have been overused, we can bring more balance, Larson's article can be a good reference point to begin with and achieve balanced use of sources. --TheMandarin (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Few Suggestions for Improvements 

message: The recent addition of the following text to the lede in not in line with Wiki lede policy WP:LS "...as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article."
:"The direct audience to Lord Krishna’s discourse of the Bhagawata Gita included Arjuna (addressee), Sanjay (using Divya Drishti gifted by Rishi Veda Vyasa) and Lord Hanuman (perched atop Arjuna’s chariot) and Barbarika, son of Ghatotghaj who also witnessed the complete 18 days of action at Kurukhsetra."
It just makes points that are not expanded in the body of the article. Perhaps it could be moved to another section where it is relevant? --BwB (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki lede policy [[WP:LS]] 

message: How can you add a quote from a Buddhist convert about the Bhagavad Gita, a Hindu Text? Ofcourse they will say bad things about their previous beliefs. This is 100% unfair. Wikipedia should not allow this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knewace (talk • contribs) 23:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No quotes by converts please. 

message: My changes regarding criticism of the Gita were altered and removed from the lead under WP:Fringe  I'll have to disagree about WP:Fringe since there are many sources talking about the caste system in the Gita. In order to maintain an NPOV, we need a paragraph about this in the article body and a couple of brief lines in the lead mentioning this.  I'll wait for responses before I add any further content. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please quote other references, which document others who criticize the Gita on this front. Only 1 man's views were stated in the lead, which is an WP:UNDUE to the fringe theory. Note that it is moved to a later section, not entirely removed. --Redtigerxyz  Talk  18:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

text: There's no criticism section in this article. The lede should summarize the article. Add the criticism to the article fitrst. If it becomes a stable, consensus addition, eventually a mention could be added to the lede. Not now though. I agree with Redtigerxyz's edit. If you want to add well-sourced criticism to the article, we can change the 'influence' section to 'reception' maybe. — goethean ॐ 19:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of the Gita 

message: The entire lede of this article is plagairized, word for word, from the Amazon.com product description.  Fladrif (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It may be the other way round. If go through the history of the article, the lead is constructed by many editors - each adding a sentence or two with a reference, not 1 editor copy-pasting the whole lead. How is it possible so many editors copy-pasted single sentences from the site and searched for references for that sentence in other books?? --Redtigerxyz  Talk  15:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be right Red. --BwB (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We should bring this to the attention of Amazon staff. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagairized Lede 

message: This is incorrect as no stages are mentioned in the Gita. This implies Brahma Nirvanam (mentioned in several locations) is just a stage and requires two other levels of realization for Moksha! It soulds very Hare Krishna like, and plese remove such unsubstantiated material. 
There are three stages to self-realization enunciated from the Bhagavad Gita:
1.Brahman - The impersonal universal energy
2.Paramatma - The Supreme Soul sitting in the heart of every living entity.
3.Bhagavan - God as a personality, with a transcendental form.
Earlier on in the article, there is a mention of Krishna calling himself Swayam Bhagavan, which is incorrect too. That text is from the Bhagavatam and not the Gita.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.237.205 (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yoga section contains spurious material 

message: The Wikipedia article says that in the Gita, Krishna reveals himself to be 'Swayam Bhagwan'. But Chapter 16 of the Mahabharata (of which 'Bhagwad Gita' is an integral part) is called Mausala Parva, that is infighting between members of the Yadava clan with maces, which leads to their destruction. On seeing this, Krishna knew that the purpose of his birth was accomplished (the reason for which He had entered the mortal world in a mortal form). And Krishna departed the mortal world in Chapter 16 of the Mahabharata (following which the Pandavas also began their ascension towards the heavens). If Krishna really is the Supreme Being (Swayam Bhagwan), and not an avatar of Vishnu (as is popularly perceived), doesn't the Mahabharata contradict itself? I mean, how can 'Swayam Bhagwan' depart the world? Isn't He supposed to be immortal? Thanks. 59.184.181.84 (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Krishna 'Swayam Bhagwan' or an avatar of Vishnu (Para Brahman)? 

message: I've read dozens of translations and renditions. Yogananda's reveals what the Sanskrit names mean. It's not unique, but it is comprehensive and -- to me -- the most easily understood. 68.81.75.171 (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  We're missing Paramanhansa Yogananda's text 

message: The following is from the article introduction:
"It's philosophies and insights are intended to reach beyond the scope of religion and to humanity as a whole . It is at times referred to as the "manual for mankind"  and has been highly praised by not only prominent Indians such as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi but also Aldous Huxley, Albert Einstein, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Carl Jung and Herman Hesse.[1][2] It is considered among the most important texts in the history of literature and philosophy."
This reads like a promotional that belongs in the dust jacket or a book review rather than in an encyclopedia. I checked the Bible and Qu'ran & Torah and didn't find anything similar. Perhaps this belongs in a praises section? Thoughts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr gavin (talk • contribs) 19:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reads like a promotional 

message: How about the fact that Himmler, widely thought of as principal architect of the Holocaust, is said to have carried the Gita with him at all times, and that the text has elsewhere too had direct influence on the Nazi movement?  These facts seem to me of primary interest.  Of course, one is free to dispute their interpretations, etc..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.79.144 (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are proposing an addition to this article, the guidelines linked to at the top of this page will need to be meet.  Including verifiable citations from reliable sources.  This information might be better presented in one of the articles about the Nazis, or Himmler, with links in the /* See Also */ sections of this and related articles.  This encyclopedia tries not to duplicate information across articles. Lentower (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazis