Sanaullah Ahmad Rizvi:-
>>>CONTRADICTION IN VEDAS AND GITA BOTH ARE THE WELL KNOWN RELIGIOUS SRIPTURES OF HINDUISM<<<<
The Vedas versus the Gita- Which is right? The Bhagvad Gita and the Vedas are well known religious scriptures. Even within the large collection of Hindu texts, they stand out from others because they are considered to be the direct words of God, in contrast to to other Hindu scriptures which are known to be written by men. Common Hindus are made to believe that both these scriptures are inspired by the same God. The logical implication of such a belief is that there should not be any inconsistencies between them. However a thorough analysis of both these scriptures reveals that they contradict each other even in the most fundamental issues. Hence, both these scriptures cannot be said to be of the same religion.
At several places in the Vedas, emphasis is laid on desires and wishes. In many verses desires and wishes are expressed and prayers are made to fulfill the wishes. For example Yajurveda 40/2 mentions,
कुर्वन्नेवेह कर्माणि जिजीविषेच्छतँ समाः। एवं त्वयि नान्यथेतोऽस्ति न कर्म लिप्यते नरे॥
One, only doing Karma here, should wish to live a hundred years. No way is there for you but this. So Karma cleaves not to man.
Yajurveda 40/16 says,
अग्ने नय सुपथा राये अस्मान्
By goodly path lead us to riches, Agni, you God who knows all our works and wisdom.
Atharvaved 14/2/38 says,
तां पूषञ्छिवतमामेरयस्व यस्यां बीजं मनुष्या वपन्ति
या न ऊरू उशती विक्षयाति यस्यामुशन्तः प्रहरेम शेपः
O Men, you are the strengthener. You inspire into this lady well-wisher of you and your family, the spirit of procreating children. The woman is such an entity in whom the men sow semen-seed, who desiring progeny spreads her thigh towards her husband, and in whom the husband like you and us thrust the organ with the desire of children. [Translation Acharya Vaidya Nath Shastri, Published by Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha]
Atharvaveda 7/76/6 says,
धृषत पिब कलशे सोममिन्द्र वृत्रहा शूर समरे वसूनाम् |
माध्यन्दिने सवना आ वृषस्व रयिष्ठानो रयिमस्मासु धेहि ||
“O Indra; you are fearless bold and the destroyer of all obstacles coming in the war of wordly affairs. Please protect Soma, the soul who is residing in your pitcher, the body and shower upon us your blessings in all the time of noon when we perform Yajna. You are the master of all wealth and so grant us riches.” [Translation Acharya Vaidya Nath Shastri, Published by Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha].
One can produce a long list of such mantras where material desires and wishes are expressed. However, the above will suffice for the moment.
In contrast to this the Gita denouces keeping desires and expressing them. It vehemently ridicules those who pray to God for fulfillment of desires. For example, Gita 2/47 says
“let not the fruits of action be your motive”
Gita 2/49 says,
दूरेण हय अवरं कर्म बुद्धियॊगाद धनंजय, बुद्धौ शरणम अन्विच्छ कृपणाः फलहेतवः !
“O Dhananjaya, indeed, action is quite inferior to the yoga of wisdom. Take resort to wisdom. Those who thirst for rewards are pitiable.”
This denouces the Vedic prayers as pitiable.
Gita 3/19 says,
तस्माद असक्तः सततं कार्यं कर्म समाचर, असक्तॊ हय आचरन कर्म परम आप्नॊति पूरुषः !
“Therefore without attachment, do you always perform action which should be done; for by performing action without attachment man reaches the Supreme.”
These blatant contradictions between the teachings of the Vedas and the Gita. One encourages works in order to seek rewards and the other talks of Nishkaama Karma or works without seeking rewards.
“There is no doubt that Gita rejects the Vedas and Vedic principles. It contains many teachings opposed to the Vedas. A book which compares divine Vedas to a small pit of water and claims that the Vedas teach nothing but three modes of material nature, how can we accept such a book?”
Some others topics were also included, I am posting those, to which I replied. I was waiting for his response upon my answer but he didn’t respond, so I stopped the discussion.
Reply:- ( It is based on Sri Aurobindo’s commentary on Gita )
///One can produce a long list of such mantras where material desires and wishes are expressed. However, the above will suffice for the moment. In contrast to this the Gita denounces keeping desires and expressing them. It vehemently ridicules those who pray to God for fulfilment of desires.///
It is not the contradiction b/w Gita and Veda .
The Gita lends itself easily to this kind of error, because it is easy, by throwing particular emphasis on one of its aspects or even on some salient and emphatic text and putting all the rest of the eighteen chapters into the background or making them a subordinate and auxiliary teaching, to turn it into a partisan of our own doctrine or dogma.
Thus, there are those who make the Gita teach, not works at all, but a discipline of preparation for renouncing life and works: the indifferent performance of prescribed actions or of whatever task may lie ready to the hands, becomes the means, the discipline; the final renunciation of life and works is the sole real object. It is quite easy to justify this view by citations from the book and by a certain arrangement of stress in following out its argument, especially if we shut our eyes to the peculiar way in which it uses such a word as sannyasa, renunciation; but it is quite impossible to persist in this view on an impartial reading in face of the continual assertion to the very end that action should be preferred to inaction and that superiority lies with the true, the inner renunciation of desire by equality and the giving up of works to the supreme Purusha.
Others again speak of the Gita as if the doctrine of devotion were its whole teaching and put in the background its monistic elements and the high place it gives to quietistic immergence in the one self of all. And undoubtedly its emphasis on devotion, its insistence on the aspect of the Divine as Lord and Purusha and its doctrine of the Purushottama, the Supreme Being who is superior both to the mutable Being and to the Immutable and who is what in His relation to the world we know as God, are the most striking and among the most vital elements of the Gita. Still, this Lord is the Self in whom all knowledge culminates and the Master of sacrifice to whom all works lead as well as the Lord of Love into whose being the heart of devotion enters, and the Gita preserves a perfectly equal balance, emphasising now knowledge, now works, now devotion, but for the purposes of the immediate trend of the thought, not with any absolute separate preference of one over the others. He in whom all three meet and become one, He is the Supreme Being, the Purushottama.
But at the present day, since in fact the modern mind began to recognise and deal at all with the Gita, the tendency is to subordinate its elements of knowledge and devotion, to take advantage of its continual insistence on action and to find in it a scripture of the Karmayoga, a Light leading us on the path of action, a Gospel of Works.
Undoubtedly, the Gita is a Gospel of Works, but of works which culminate in knowledge, that is, in spiritual realisation and quietude, and of works motived by devotion, that is, a conscious surrender of one’s whole self first into the hands and then into the being of the Supreme, and not at all of works as they are understood by the modern mind, not at all an action dictated by egoistic and altruistic, by personal, social, humanitarian motives, principles, ideals. Yet this is what present-day interpretations seek to make of the Gita.
We are told continually by many authoritative voices that the Gita, opposing in this the ordinary ascetic and quietistic tendency of Indian thought and spirituality, proclaims with no uncertain sound the gospel of human action, the ideal of disinterested performance of social duties, nay, even, it would seem, the quite modern ideal of social service. To all this I can only reply that very patently and even on the very surface of it the Gita does nothing of the kind and that this is a modern misreading, a reading of the modern mind into an ancient book, of the present-day European or Europeanised intellect into a thoroughly antique, a thoroughly Oriental and Indian teaching.
That which the Gita teaches is not a human, but a divine action; not the performance of social duties, but the abandonment of all other standards of duty or conduct for a selfless performance of the divine will working through our nature; not social service, but the action of the Best, the God-possessed, the Master-men done impersonally for the sake of the world and as a sacrifice to Him who stands behind man and Nature.
Therefore it is a mistake to interpret the Gita from the standpoint of the mentality of today and force it to teach us the disinterested performance of duty as the highest and all-sufficient law.A little consideration of the situation with which the Gita deals will show us that this could not be its meaning.
The action which Arjuna must do is one from which his moral sense recoils. It is his duty to fight, you say? But that duty has now become to his mind a terrible sin. How does it help him or solve his difficulty, to tell him that he must do his duty disinterestedly, dispassionately?He will want to know which is his duty or how it can be his duty to destroy in a sanguinary massacre his kin, his race and his country.
He is told that he has right on his side, but that does not and cannot satisfy him, because his very point is that the justice of his legal claim does not justify him in supporting it by a pitiless massacre destructive to the future of his nation. Is he then to act dispassionately in the sense of not caring whether it is a sin or what its consequences may be so long as he does his duty as a soldier? That may be the teaching of a State, of politicians, of lawyers, of ethical casuists; it can never be the teaching of a great religious and philosophical Scripture which sets out to solve the problem of life and action from the very roots.
Undoubtedly, the Gita does, like the Upanishads, teach the equality which rises above sin and virtue, beyond good and evil, but only as a part of the Brahmic consciousness and for the man who is on the path and advanced enough to fulfil the supreme rule. It does not preach indifference to good and evil for the ordinary life of man, where such a doctrine would have the most pernicious consequences.
The Gita can only be understood, like any other great work of the kind, by studying it in its entirety and as a developing argument. But the modern interpreters, starting from the great writer Bankim Chandra Chatterji who first gave to the Gita this new sense of a Gospel of Duty, have laid an almost exclusive stress on the first three or four chapters and in those on the idea of equality, on the expression kartavyam˙ karma, the work that is to be done, which they render by duty, and on the phrase “Thou hast a right to action, but none to the fruits of action” which is now popularly quoted as the great word, mahavakya, of the Gita. The rest of the eighteen chapters with their high philosophy are given a secondary importance, except indeed the great vision in the eleventh. This is natural enough for the modern mind which is, or has been till yesterday, inclined to be impatient of metaphysical subtleties and far-off spiritual seekings, eager to get to work and, like Arjuna himself, mainly concerned for a workable law of works, a dharma. But it is the wrong way to handle this Scripture.
The equality which the Gita preaches is not disinterestedness,— the great command to Arjuna given after the foundation and main structure of the teaching have been laid and built, “Arise, slay thy enemies, enjoy a prosperous kingdom,” has not the ring of an uncompromising altruism or of a white, dispassionate abnegation; it is a state of inner poise and wideness which is the foundation of spiritual freedom.