Sambodhi 2003 Vol 26

SR No.: 520776
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Jitendra B Shah, N M Kansara
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 2003
Total Pages: 184
Language: English, Sanskrit, Prakrit, Gujarati
Classification: Magazine, India_Sambodhi, & India
File Size: 4 MB

Page 179

173
T. S. NANDI
SAMBODHI
and M. G., and other minor questions.
The last chapter deals with M.G.'s place in the realm of interpreters of the B.G.
This is followed by a rich Bibliography suggesting the great pain undertaken by the writer of course with meticulous care on his part, in going through all works that have helped his cause. This is followed by Glossary I & II and Index I & II.
Thus far on the effort of the writer of this valuable book. Our personal views may not be out of place here as Dr. Betai and M.G. both have inspired us to make some observations.
For us, as the colophon of the B.G. informs, the B.G. is first and last a work on "brahma-vidyā" i.e. theoretical presentation of ancient spiritualism and a "yoga-sāstra" i. e. science or technique that leads an aspirant to the supreme goal of self-realisation. It is neither a work “religion as understood in the common parlance, nor a work on 'ethics' as understood today.
For us, the genuine and authentic interpretation of the B.G. has come only from the great ancient ācāryas, Adi Sankara, Śri Rāmānuja, Śri Vallabha and their worthy disciples. We also include in the category of the great ācāryas the two moderns vig. Tilak Mahārāj and Sri Aurobindo. These two are and will remain some of the greatest spiritualists humanity has ever produced.
M. G. for us belongs to the category of the next line of interpreters who are no doubt aspirants of spiritual excellence, but are more grounded in social and other activities, active politics included. They try to reach the high-way or 'rājamārga' of spirituality through by-ways and sub-ways. Their effort to interpret the B.G., therefore, in our opinion is bounded to remain more personal and less catholic and therefore less perfect. Such people, in our opinion, have a right as any human being or an indian has, to approach, read and understand the B.G. with their intelligence and specialities whatever there be, but could have avoided putting their personal estimation in press for the still lesser people who install them as personal gods in their imagination. For them the views of the former are final, no matter how imperfect they may be. For example M.G.'s views on Krishna, or Vinobajee's views controverted ably by Dr. Betai (pp. 46). But for our jubilation of Dr. Betai's thrashing of the former, we would not have even mentioned his name.