Musings are thinking by oneself. But they can as well be prompted inquisitively or by queries from others. I wish to start off with one prompted by Bhau-mama. Here it is.
Dear SL
Please enlighten........
1) Who started the practice of taking oath in court of law keeping hand on Bhagwat Gita and swear he will tell truth ,nothing but the truth.Whose idea was it? Why?
2) Do they believe that Bhagwan was a reality? Or Gita is a writing of some wise Rishi and not the work of Bhagwan?
3) Do they believe Shrikrisna's Dwarka really existed and it got engulfed by ocean?
On hearing from you I have some more questions .
With Regards
Andhar far zala, Panati japun theva
Yete wadal vismrutiche, Nati japun theva
Dear Bhau-mama,
I think the practice in courts is primarily to remind the witness to be true at least to his/her faith. I think the practice must have been instituted by the British. In the times of Rajas and Maharajas, their judgement was final. I don't think there was any practice of argument of both sides and lawyers presenting their views and witnesses and all that. Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Swatantryaveer Savarkar, Babasaheb Ambedkar got their Barristerships in England. Dadasaheb Khaparde was Lokmanya Tilak's lawyer!!
I am always fascinated when I realise that like our "Satyameva Jayate", the motto of USA is "In God we trust". It is generally understood that, more scientifically advanced a country becomes, the general culture tends to question age-old beliefs.
One most questionable belief is about the existence of God, "The Supreme Being". My father once told me that Gurudev Ranade was once engrossed in drawing a distinction between God and Godhood. Having studied Shree Sai Sat Charita and Shree Gajanan Vijay, I too attempted drawing such distinction. In श्रीसाई-सच्चरित , in the 41 st chapter, there is one ओवी, "यश-श्री-औदार्य-ज्ञान | शान्ति-वैराग्य हे षड्गुण | इहीं श्रीसाई भगवन्त पूर्ण | ऐश्वर्य संपूर्ण हरि जैसा ||१७|| So, in this ओवी हेमाडपन्त has given a ready list of six virtues, which seems to be his list of qualities of Godhood.
Now if Yash is an essential quality of Godhood, I pity the Christian faith that crucifixtion of Jesus which is blatantly defeatist does not stop the Christians from regarding Christ at the pedestal of Godhood, if not God. Yet, according to Christian faith Jesus was only the son of the "Father in the Heavens". So a fine distinction between God and Godhood seems to be recognized by Christians.
I am more interested in understanding the Buddha religion, which does not recognize God!! So, how would you ask Buddhists to take the oath in the courts? Edicts of Buddhism are mostly in Pali. In many such Prakrut languages, a letter made of conjunction of two different consonants is simplified by doubling the first consonant. Hence Dhamma instead of Dharma and Sattam instead of Satyam.
A finer study of Geeta brings to mind that Sat and Satyam are again different things. In the 17th chapter of Geeta, the Shloka 23, starting with "Om Tat Sat Iti Nirdeshah" is followed by three further Shlokas. Studying these four Shlokas as a cascade, I find that within "Om Tat Sat", "Om" is a concept of the highest order, professed by "Brahmavadinah", "Tat" is a little inferior to "Om" professed by "Mokshakankshibhih"; and "Sat" is further inferior, because it is worldly and mundane. "Mokshakankshee" still has "akanksha" of Moksha. Title of 18th Chapter is Moksha-Sanyasa-yoga, Sanyasa of even Moksha!!
Geeta is very subtle. In 18th Chapter, for example, there is the Shloka 12, "Anishtam-Ishtam-Mishram cha Trividham karmanah Falam | Bhavati-Atyaginam Pretya Na tu Sanyasinam kwachit" Every karma can yield results, which can be either improper or benevolent or mixed. But the quality of the result is a matter of concern for those, who have not evolved to be beyond the anxiety of the results of Karma. Sanyasi is unconcerned of the Quality of result of Karma. This is actually a further elaboration of the line "Na cha Sanyasanad-eva Siddhim Samadhi Gachchhati" in the Shloka 4 in the 3rd chapter.
Ooph! You asked a question and I have started on a Pravachan on Geeta!!
Did Geetopadesh actually take place? Who knows? I once made a remark to my father, putting forth an observation that even as a novelist, Vyas-maharshi wanted to put in Mahabharata, the essence of philosophy and preferably to be narrated by Lord Krishna and to his most ardent devotee Arjuna. He found the start of the battle as the most appropriate event for Lord Krishna to narrate the philosophy!!
Speaking of Vyas-Maharshi, there is a phrase in the 10th chapter "Muneenam Api-aham Vyasah!" Now would a novelist eulogise himself like that in his own composition?
Some people seem to contend that actual Geeta could not have been 700-verses long. There is supposed to be a compilation of some 70 select verses, which are said to be original Geeta.
Have you noticed that the last Shloka of 1st Adhyay is an utterance of Sanjaya and so is the first Shloka of 2nd Adhyaya? Did Sanjaya stop a while to say "Here ends first chapter"? That is something most unlikely of Sanjaya to have done!! This itself suggests that what Geeta is seen and read, is a finely edited text, maybe, by Maharshi Vyas himself. Afterall, he is also known as Veda-Vyas, because he organized even the Vedas in an order, which he thought was the most appropriate order to learn them. If he did that with Vedas, he would have certainly done that with Mahabharat. We call Vedas as "Apourusheya". But what Vedas are available to us as of date are at best, as edited by Maharshi Veda-Vyas.
I think the practice in courts is primarily to remind the witness to be true at least to his/her faith. I think the practice must have been instituted by the British. In the times of Rajas and Maharajas, their judgement was final. I don't think there was any practice of argument of both sides and lawyers presenting their views and witnesses and all that. Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Swatantryaveer Savarkar, Babasaheb Ambedkar got their Barristerships in England. Dadasaheb Khaparde was Lokmanya Tilak's lawyer!!
I am always fascinated when I realise that like our "Satyameva Jayate", the motto of USA is "In God we trust". It is generally understood that, more scientifically advanced a country becomes, the general culture tends to question age-old beliefs.
One most questionable belief is about the existence of God, "The Supreme Being". My father once told me that Gurudev Ranade was once engrossed in drawing a distinction between God and Godhood. Having studied Shree Sai Sat Charita and Shree Gajanan Vijay, I too attempted drawing such distinction. In श्रीसाई-सच्चरित , in the 41 st chapter, there is one ओवी, "यश-श्री-औदार्य-ज्ञान | शान्ति-वैराग्य हे षड्गुण | इहीं श्रीसाई भगवन्त पूर्ण | ऐश्वर्य संपूर्ण हरि जैसा ||१७|| So, in this ओवी हेमाडपन्त has given a ready list of six virtues, which seems to be his list of qualities of Godhood.
Now if Yash is an essential quality of Godhood, I pity the Christian faith that crucifixtion of Jesus which is blatantly defeatist does not stop the Christians from regarding Christ at the pedestal of Godhood, if not God. Yet, according to Christian faith Jesus was only the son of the "Father in the Heavens". So a fine distinction between God and Godhood seems to be recognized by Christians.
I am more interested in understanding the Buddha religion, which does not recognize God!! So, how would you ask Buddhists to take the oath in the courts? Edicts of Buddhism are mostly in Pali. In many such Prakrut languages, a letter made of conjunction of two different consonants is simplified by doubling the first consonant. Hence Dhamma instead of Dharma and Sattam instead of Satyam.
A finer study of Geeta brings to mind that Sat and Satyam are again different things. In the 17th chapter of Geeta, the Shloka 23, starting with "Om Tat Sat Iti Nirdeshah" is followed by three further Shlokas. Studying these four Shlokas as a cascade, I find that within "Om Tat Sat", "Om" is a concept of the highest order, professed by "Brahmavadinah", "Tat" is a little inferior to "Om" professed by "Mokshakankshibhih"; and "Sat" is further inferior, because it is worldly and mundane. "Mokshakankshee" still has "akanksha" of Moksha. Title of 18th Chapter is Moksha-Sanyasa-yoga, Sanyasa of even Moksha!!
Geeta is very subtle. In 18th Chapter, for example, there is the Shloka 12, "Anishtam-Ishtam-Mishram cha Trividham karmanah Falam | Bhavati-Atyaginam Pretya Na tu Sanyasinam kwachit" Every karma can yield results, which can be either improper or benevolent or mixed. But the quality of the result is a matter of concern for those, who have not evolved to be beyond the anxiety of the results of Karma. Sanyasi is unconcerned of the Quality of result of Karma. This is actually a further elaboration of the line "Na cha Sanyasanad-eva Siddhim Samadhi Gachchhati" in the Shloka 4 in the 3rd chapter.
Ooph! You asked a question and I have started on a Pravachan on Geeta!!
Did Geetopadesh actually take place? Who knows? I once made a remark to my father, putting forth an observation that even as a novelist, Vyas-maharshi wanted to put in Mahabharata, the essence of philosophy and preferably to be narrated by Lord Krishna and to his most ardent devotee Arjuna. He found the start of the battle as the most appropriate event for Lord Krishna to narrate the philosophy!!
Speaking of Vyas-Maharshi, there is a phrase in the 10th chapter "Muneenam Api-aham Vyasah!" Now would a novelist eulogise himself like that in his own composition?
Some people seem to contend that actual Geeta could not have been 700-verses long. There is supposed to be a compilation of some 70 select verses, which are said to be original Geeta.
Have you noticed that the last Shloka of 1st Adhyay is an utterance of Sanjaya and so is the first Shloka of 2nd Adhyaya? Did Sanjaya stop a while to say "Here ends first chapter"? That is something most unlikely of Sanjaya to have done!! This itself suggests that what Geeta is seen and read, is a finely edited text, maybe, by Maharshi Vyas himself. Afterall, he is also known as Veda-Vyas, because he organized even the Vedas in an order, which he thought was the most appropriate order to learn them. If he did that with Vedas, he would have certainly done that with Mahabharat. We call Vedas as "Apourusheya". But what Vedas are available to us as of date are at best, as edited by Maharshi Veda-Vyas.
If the courts want that by taking oath, the person should vouch a commitment to be true at least to his/her faith, for Hindus, Vedas are more sacred than Geeta. But British might have opted for Geeta, being the most easily available and most commonly known scripture. In fact that practice has given room to the concept that Geeta is the scripture of the Hindus. By setting the practice that Geeta is the scripture of Hindus, the British, in effect, ‘institutionalized’ their belittling the universality of the philosophy in Geeta.
As far as Dwarka is concerned I give here below a link to an article about archaeological findings at Dwarka. http://drs.nio.org/drs/bitstream/2264/507/1/Migration_Diffusion_6_56.pdf
