3quarksdaily: The Bhagavad Gita Revisited

NOTE: During a site upgrade, comments on the post The Bhagavad Gita Revisited - Part 1 were "lost". They have since been recovered from an archived copy. You can read them below and post additional comments under the main article.

Comments

What long poem from a few hundred years ago could possibly withstand scrutiny in this manner? In any case, I thought the currently fashionable trend was in fact to use it allegorically and pick and choose the parts that are most useful for our purposes (Hindutvadis and Marxists may pick different parts or find different meanings in the same part, or we could ask Gayatri Spivak to find every meaning in every part and then evaporate)?
In fact, that may well have been the fashionable trend a thousand years ago too..I was forced to rethink my position in a discussion once where my friend suddenly announced that not only must we use the Quran as we see fit, that is exactly what everyone did when they first encountered it..

Posted by: omar | Dec 5, 2011 9:34:03 AM

______________________________________________

3qd continues it's slide. This article is mere name calling. E.g. Quoting the Marxist idiot savant Kosambi calling the Gita: "characterized by slippery opportunism". My response: Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

Most amusing is Arora's solemn scholarly tone. I can see him wearing a white lab coat studying his detested foe (The upper caste Indian) with a magnifying glass. Lighten up Namit.

Posted by: Sundar | Dec 5, 2011 10:12:05 AM

______________________________________________

Bravo Namit

To my eyes, the Gita looks like any other scripture, the Quran let's say or the old and new Testaments. They are rife with contradictions, especially when it comes to violence and it's use. At different times they call for peace or violence, and when this is questioned we are told we are reading them out of context. But in my view they are just opportunistic or even Machiavellian....all of them, what do you think ?

Posted by: Shahzad | Dec 5, 2011 10:58:25 AM

______________________________________________

3QD sure slid with your comment, Sundar.

Posted by: Louise Gordon | Dec 5, 2011 11:56:09 AM

______________________________________________

The story of war and the history of patriarchy. Written by my friend Cooper Zale, the same story from a different perspective:

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/31/889214/-Our-Five-Thousand-Year-Obsession-with-the-Angry-Father-Figure

Posted by: Louise Gordon | Dec 5, 2011 11:59:36 AM

______________________________________________

I agree with the author about the need to critique religious texts in every age. But the sources he has used (Wendy Doniger in particular) make this exercise seem more like an outpouring of vitriol than an academic critique.

For Wendy Doniger's 'scholarship', read https://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?262511

Perhaps when the author explains his views in the 2nd part will one know whether he really intends to critique or simply curse.

Posted by: John | Dec 5, 2011 1:07:24 PM

______________________________________________

I am amazed how the author is able to 'fix' dates ("in 950 BCE", "The Bhagavad Gita (‘The God’s Song’), widely regarded as the philosophical core of the Mahabharata, was composed much later under the realities of a new age. It was merged into the epic’s later drafts, perhaps as late as first century CE.") almost as if he were there! Quite obviously this Namit fellow has lost the plot and seems to have just one single point agenda which is to denigrate what is undoubtedly a great text. Sadly, it shows up.

Posted by: sriram | Dec 5, 2011 1:19:25 PM

______________________________________________

Luise, Sorry you feel that way about my comment. Anyway, I eagerly await Sri Arora's next installment. Hopefully, then he will begin his critique of the Gita.

The first installment has been mostly taken up by Sri Arora congratulating himself on his intellectual daring.

Posted by: Sundar | Dec 5, 2011 1:25:41 PM

______________________________________________

While it is tempting to see the Gita as a militaristic response to Buddhism (and Jainism?) do we have any information about the early reception of the Gita?

Posted by: Paul | Dec 5, 2011 1:42:09 PM

______________________________________________

The Old Testament is filled with scenes of violence, genocide and depravity, and yet it serves as an inspiration to millions of people who view it as the life story of the origins of their faith, and the all-too-human beings who tried to make sense of the world that they lived in and to leave their legacy to inspire (for better or for worse) the generations to come. Viewed in this context, the Gita is a truly remarkable chapter in the larger, older, old Testament-like epic Homeric story that is the Mahabharatha. It was unprecedented for its time in seeking to combine the Vedic and pre-Vedic metaphysics that also spawned Buddhism and Jainism with the practicalities of action; of living in harmony when faced with disharmony. It doesn't require a true-believer to appreciate the beauty of the Gita's philosophical musings. However, like the blind men seeking to describe the essence of the elephant by what they can touch, there are always some who prefer to zoom in on the feces and are (deliberately) oblivious to the magnificent living, breathing enormous being in their presence. Enjoy the proverbial 15 minutes of attention.

Posted by: Sam | Dec 5, 2011 2:43:56 PM

______________________________________________

"An overrated text with a deplorable morality at its core"?
Alas, a doubt.
In case of more,
go to : saja.org slash saforum
(also see last post on indo-euro-americo-asian_list)
to say what it is/they are.
"a deplorable morality". What does it
Mean? Potato Loaves?
This poem is better than Stein's.
Only these Radcliffeans...

Posted by: Anand Manikutty | Dec 5, 2011 7:44:02 PM

______________________________________________

So far I believe Namit has missed much of the point of the Mahabharata and the Gita based on his very cursory background synopsis. The Gita cannot be understood in its political, ethical and moral dimensions without the reading of the Mahabharata.

The Gita tries to touch about the transcendental and the normative world. Does it advocate violence? Yes, if necessary. Again the story of the Mahabharata and the Pandavas up to that moment in time is exceedingly relevant. The war isn't merely about land, it is about law, trust, respect, liberty and freedom.

After being exiled for 14 years, the Pandavas were supposed to get back their kingdom, which they built from a desolete land. They avoided war as much as possible even requesting only 5 villages to govern to which the Kauravas (their cousins) refused. On numerous occasions the Kauravas tried to kill the Pandavas and each time they failed and were forgiven.

In that context, Krishna was sent as an emissary of peace to the Kauravas and his peace offering was rejected. Thus, the Pandavas decided war was the only way to establish their rights.

Krishna sings or speaks the Gita to Arjuna when Arjuna refuses to fight out of despondency, when he realizes that this war will involve killing his friends and family.

I do not know Namit's critique so I will withhold my comments until I can read his critique but for readers I would keep this in mind, the Mahabharata is an epic that attempts to approach its story from many angles: realistic, cosmic (gods, demons and so on), moral (the relative nature of it), political, transcendental and mythological. The sosmic view is that it was the end of age of Dwapara and beginning of the Kali yuga, where this war was the cataclysmic shift of ages. Krishna's cosmic position in the story was to be the agent of that shift. The problem with viewing the Gita as entirely separate from the main book when it comes to non-spiritual ideas is quite clear. Finally, the Gita remained in high accord after it's creation in the philosophical and intellectual world of India. For any Vedanta school to develop, they had to write a commentary on the Gita as part of the prasthana trayi, or three pillars of Vedanta which includes the Upanishads and Vedanta Sutras. It's impact and exposure wasn't small, every vernacular language has its own translation of the gita, like Jnaneshwari of Jnaneshwar in Marathi, Kumara Vyasa Mahabharata in Kannada and others. The oldest commentary is Samkara's from the 8th century CE. Namit heavily underestimates the Gita's reverence in India until colonial period, which leads me to believe he doesn't have much background in the subject.

Kosambi and Ambedkar both had their own political reasons for being anti-Vedic, anti-Hindu, Anti-Arya and so on. Ambedkar even argues that India under the Vedic rule had no moral code or ethical code, it was not until the advent of Jainism and Buddhism that India becomes ethical. I haven't read Narla so my comments on him will be withheld. Either way, I look forward to seeing Namit's Critique.

Posted by: Mukunda | Dec 5, 2011 9:02:16 PM

______________________________________________

It is interesting that Namit is planning to talk about how the epic was received by Nagarjuna and other people from pre-modern times. This is the usual methodology used by students of Hinduism, but I am not convinced that this approach will yield significant, new conclusions given that the people from premodern times knew far less than we do now. I am quite convinced that these "traditional scholars" lived such a long time ago that their opinions do not have much bearing on current theories surrounding Hinduism.

A particularly useful and, in my opinion, a far more fruitful approach to the Bhagavad Gita (and Hinduism, in general) is to use recent studies in neuroscience to see how the human brain has evolved ideas of morality, and to see how epics have contributed since premodern times in creating and imprinting various notions of morality in us. This is (part of) the methodology I have used for the Socratic Hinduism framework (one that I have talked about before on the SAJA forum).

Why is it useful to look at neuroscience to study how the human brain is wired for morality? Because it seems that some of the notions of morality we subscribe seem to be pretty strongly wired in us. Milton Friedman once gave an example of how libertarianism works. He said that libertarians don't want to coerce other people into accepting some particular opinion as correct. However, he recognized that there were a few exception even for libertarians. The example he used, IIRC, was of a man who was going to jump off a bridge. Would a libertarian try to save him if he could? Probably. Now if the man proceeded to give reasons why he was committing suicide, would the libertarian then allow him to jump? Probably not. No matter how strongly a person may believes in certain ideas not just politically but even personally, there are certain types of behavior that he may never be able to let go of. Another example of the resistance of people to killing others is evidenced in the trolley problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem). Both these examples would indicate that the human brain has certain notions of morality that it cannot easily let go of. (Note that none of this scientific discussion is considered in the least bit to be a heresy, and indeed, I consider the Socratic Hinduism a perfectly valid approach to view Hinduism for both Hindus and non-Hindus.)

This methodological approach makes the Socratic Hinduism framework quite powerful. It makes it both academic and scholarly, thereby countering one of the major academic criticisms of "traditional" studies of Hinduism (such as by Wendy Doniger). In fact, we do not need to discuss our own beliefs regarding whether or not the events described in the Mahabharatha actually occurred. That is left as a matter of scholarly inquiry for historians. Instead, the idea is that the texts may be used as part of a Socratic discussion wherein by guided questioning, one delves deeper into some of the issues of ethics and moral philosophy that the epic presents. Indeed, the historical role of these religious texts has been to raise these question of ethics and moral philosophy and help people appreciate the complexity of some of these issues. That has always been the role of these texts, and that is what it continues to be under Socratic Hinduism.

Moving on to more pragmatic concerns : in America today, you typically don't find fundamentalist readings of these texts at any of the major universities. The text is generally taught with a spirit of 'tolerance'. In India today, the legal system defines Hinduism as one that recognizes 'multiple' ways (the specifics of the Indian legal system's treatment of Hinduism is a different discussion altogether). There is a real separation of religion and state in both countries, and so I don't see very much worisome, or even concerning, about the Gita's particular opinions on war. Its impact on policy is likely to remain quite insignificant.
-+-
Posted on SAJA's South Asia Forum.
-+-

Posted by: Anand Manikutty | Dec 5, 2011 10:19:06 PM

______________________________________________

While most religious texts are embarassing Bronze and Iron Age Fiction, I agree the Gita is especially childish.

Even though the Pali Cannon was written 400 years after Buddha's death, in another language, by monastics, on an isolated island (the fidelity of this is very questionable), the rebellion against the Gita and other vedic nonsense still come through.

Codependent origination anyone?

Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 5, 2011 10:52:22 PM

______________________________________________

Does anyone know the number of heretics who have been burned for not accepting that the Gita is the revealed divine words of 'Our Lords Gods' dwelling on Mount Kailasa?

Posted by: ncp170 | Dec 5, 2011 11:55:31 PM

______________________________________________

ncp, you may be asking the wrong question. What if we rephrased it to ask how many people have been killed, maimed or tortured, for any reason, by anyone, in India or China or Arabia or France?
The proportions (per capita killing rate or maiming rate or torture rate) may not be exactly the same, but will not differ by orders of magnitude among regions; though Pinker seems to show that they do differ by a lot as we move through time.
An Indophobe (I am the opposite, in case you are interested) may start counting number of women burned with their dead husbands...that number may be smaller than the Indophobe thinks, but is likely to exceed the number of heretics burned by the church in 2000 years.
The excuses vary.

Posted by: omar | Dec 6, 2011 9:08:19 AM

______________________________________________

I say we bring back the much maligned Spanish Inquisition, just to bring some equanimity to this madness.

Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 6, 2011 11:19:14 AM

______________________________________________

"..number of women burned with their dead husbands...is likely to exceed the number of heretics burned by the church in 2000 years."

Why stop with numbers of heretics burned? When one includes the numbers of witches burned or drowned, women stoned and decapitated, cities razed and heads piled up in pyramids (all glowingly jotted down by chroniclers of that time), and mountain ranges named for the blood of millions of prisoners forced to trek into slavery, all in the name of religion, the numbers would be very lopsided.

It might surprise even an Indophile like yourself that the number of women burned with their dead husbands was/is probably quite small, being a practice that was restricted to a select few communities in Northern India and quite rare enough for these women to be "honored" by their communities in the manner of shaheeds and other "martyrs" in other communities. Not that the numbers would come even close to match as this as a comparator, either.

Posted by: Sam | Dec 6, 2011 12:58:30 PM

______________________________________________

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Posted by: Sam | Dec 6, 2011 12:59:57 PM

______________________________________________

I agree with Omar that selective and allegorical interpretations of sacred texts are very human and even necessary. But I'm not sure what to say to those who are offended by the very idea of contrarian interpretations—and resort to angry defensiveness. Isn't a space for dissenting viewpoints, upheld or debunked via reasoned debate, necessary in modern democratic nations? Below are my brief responses to some points that have been raised. I'll cover them in more detail in Part 2.

I don't hold it against the Gita that it tries to get Arjuna to fight a violent war. Die-hard pacifists aside, the rest of us, in principle, subscribe to the idea of a ‘just war’. This war could be that. It’s possible that Arjuna has lost sight of the larger cause of justice, and has been overwhelmed by the emotional trauma of committing a lesser evil en route, namely, killing his relatives. So what's particularly important are the arguments that Krishna uses to help Arjuna understand his duty to fight. The task of evaluating the Gita then is inseparable from evaluating the arguments Krishna uses to persuade Arjuna. In part 2, I'll look at what he actually says, not what I want to believe.

I happen to think that Krishna's core arguments are terribly bad and anti-human (they could have been good, but they're not—which leaves pacifists like Gandhi no choice but to ignore much of it or to read it "creatively"). For e.g., Krishna tells Arjuna that he can't really kill anyone, because one is never born and one never dies; there is neither slayer nor slain—to imagine so is an illusion of the mind. The Self cannot be pierced by weapons because it is part of an everlasting eternal reality. Arjuna is not convinced. So Krishna ups the ante: why worry about killing your relatives, he says, since death is inevitable for the living? Krishna then moves on to advocating extreme detachment, the kind from where a cow and an uncle appear no different—life from the cosmic perspective, as this ideology imagines it to be—a suitably desensitizing stance good for turning a warrior into a killing machine. And so on it goes, one dehumanizing argument after another, until eventually Krishna resorts to "just trust me! Be devoted to me [the bhakti strand], I will see to it that no harm comes to you if you do as I say."

In short, I have no problem with Krishna trying to get Arjuna to fight a war. I just find his primary arguments to be quite anti-humanistic, puerile, and irrational—and I think it's worth pointing this out. More in part 2!

Posted by: Namit | Dec 6, 2011 1:24:26 PM

______________________________________________

Puerile and irrational, yes, but with regard to your shallow attempt at analysis. Even the Buddha would come out as anti-humanistic, puerile and irrational in this reading based on, essentially, the same view of the cosmos.

Posted by: Sam | Dec 6, 2011 1:55:55 PM

______________________________________________

Sam, not at all! You are mistaken. Despite common roots, Buddhist metaphysics is quite different, perhaps more than Wittgenstein's is from Kant's. The Buddha abandoned Hinduism's atman and Brahman—there is no ultimate reality to speak of in Buddhism, let alone something to attain. Buddhist enlightenment differs from Moksha. The Buddha was anti-hierarchy, and had a different idea of dharma (not dependent on birth). Compassion for other beings was central to his moral landscape. The Bodhisattva stance is very humanistic. There is no God and no Bhakti. There is no close comparison.

Posted by: Namit | Dec 6, 2011 2:23:38 PM

______________________________________________

I am aware that the number of women burned is smaller than most people think, primarily because you needed to have some status to qualify for the honor. All the other killings you refer to would certainly increase numbers by a lot. My point was not that all religions are equally violent (they are not). My point was that humans are a violent species. The killing doesnt have to be in the name of religion. Lot of killing can be done for other reasons and was probably done in India too, but not with the same justifications...but you made me think. I could be wrong.
Were native Indian peasant societies and their rulers equal perpetrators of violence (whatever the excuse)? does the same apply to native Chinese (a similarly densely populated agrarian civilization)? Peasants in the great river valleys far outnumber nomads, but nomads seem to have done more killing, peasants being more killed than killers.
I look forward to seeing more detailed numbers from someone on this question, but it could be that settled agrarian civilizations were generally less violent (per capita basis)than the nomadic hordes? And where should we put Europeans in this equation? Is there an Indian equivalent to the immense death tolls of the religious wars in Europe?
Just to take a relatively recent example, did the Sikhs kill large numbers in the same way as their Islamicate-Turko-Afghan oppressors when they got the upper hand? They did destroy Sirhind totally and their conquest of Kasur was said to be very violent, but what was the overall massacre quotient? what was the usual killing rate when local Indian potentates fought each other prior to the recent North-Western invasions (we probably don't know too much about more distant past invaders)? Were cities massacred in similar proportions as the massacres that occurred in the conquests and reconquests by the Delhi Sultanate? I have not read enough about this. Certainly the Mahabharat is full of exaggerated death tolls in supposed grand battles, but what about massacres? And how to compare various historical time periods that are not parallel to each other?... This needs a more researched response...Google, incidentally, served up these links:
https://website.leidenuniv.nl/~haarbjter/violence.htm
https://www.enotes.com/topic/Religious_violence_in_India

Posted by: omar | Dec 6, 2011 3:05:46 PM

______________________________________________

Namit, which Buddhist metaphysics do you refer to? The Yogacara's? The "Consciousness only" school of Buddhism? The Sautranikas? The Pudgalavadins? Madhyamikas, who for all purposes were the basis of a lot of Gaudapada's Advaita then later Samkara's?

Your understanding of Buddhism is very very simplistic. Nagarjuna's Mula Madhyamika Karikas, the cornerstone for most Madhyamika Buddhism admits the idea of an Ultimate Reality, Shunya, which he then equates with Nirvana. Moksha and Nirvana are essentially the same, whereas most Buddhist schools tend to speak of Nirvana in negatives such as "not this, not that", the Hindu schools do it in both negative such as the idea of "neti, neti" and positive, sat chit ananda ("reality, consciousness and bliss"). Nagarjuna makes bifurcation of conceptions of reality, samvritti = phenomenal world and paramartha = ultimate reality. He then says they are the one and same from the perspective of Shunya. The simplistic view you present of Buddhist metaphysics and ontology is merely a straw man as to show how Buddhist thought and Hindu thought specifically in regards to world view are different and Buddhist thought triumphs.

Again, your views on Dharma are entirely incomplete. Yes, Hindu thought does have the evil of dharma based on birth but thats not the only basis for Dharma or the larger concept of Rta.

Bhakthi is huge in Madhyamika Buddhism, worship of Avalokiteshwara not to mention the Bhakti in early buddhism (refer to B.G.Gokhale). Forget not, that Buddha was considered enlightened in possession of the Ultimate Truth and as such infallible in matters concerning the Ultimate Truth/Reality. Buddhism is as much of a religion as Hinduism is. Two strains in Indian thought have been Brahmanic and Sramanic. Hinduism has elements of both but the importance is sometimes placed more on the Brahmanic notions, the Upanishads were the Sramanic force in Hindu thought. While Buddhism, Jainism and Ajivikas all developed nearly exclusively out of the Sramanic traditions. They all are religions, they have a metaphysical understanding of the universe, doctrines of reality and truth and deities. Please do not assume that Buddha or Mahavira are not deities, they may not be some Creator God but neither is the idea of Brahman. Buddha in many of the buddhist scriptures is omniscient, omnipotent and all the typical qualities of Brahman or even Shiva/Vishnu. There are very strong comparisons and interactions between the two.

Posted by: Mukunda | Dec 6, 2011 3:47:44 PM

______________________________________________

Namit,

If Buddhism is anti-hierarchy, why were the serfs subject to getting their eyes gouged out or their limbs cut off?

Maybe this is a Chinese propaganda YouTube, but whatever it is, the earlier state of Tibet does not appear to be compassionate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nw-G9P4Bz0I&feature=related

Dave Ranning probably has all the answers.

Posted by: Louise Gordon | Dec 6, 2011 3:49:26 PM

______________________________________________

Similarly, Vajrayana Buddhism of which Tibetan Buddhism is descended from is a very deity centric and ritualistic Buddhism that also adheres to the two truths of samvritti and paramartha.

Posted by: Mukunda | Dec 6, 2011 3:52:40 PM

______________________________________________

Mukunda,

I know a thing or two about Nagarjuna and his articulation of Shunya (for what it's worth—maybe not much—both academics I cite in the article later sent me glowing reviews). I disagree with you profoundly on many points and it seems to me that it won't be easy to reach any convergence here, not without expending a lot more time, which I don't have.

Louise,

I was disagreeing with Sam's facile comparison between the Gita's philosophy and the Buddha's. I said there is a world of difference. As to what people do with them, the mileage of course varies. I mean people's lives are shaped by all kinds of factors besides their leading religious philosophies: economics, patriarchy, geography, politics, climate, older customs and beliefs, etc. People tend to "shake well before use." :)

Posted by: Namit | Dec 6, 2011 5:03:29 PM

______________________________________________

I am very skeptical about comparisons of arcane religious theological issues as if they determine war and peace. Even explicit rejection of war (as in the Quakers) was not able to prevent Richard Nixon from waging war. What Buddhist country has a better record of peacekeeping than India (which has no great record of peace as far as i can tell)?
Sinhalese Buddhists vs the Tamil Tigers. Even Islam, according to many Muslims (and that semi-educated Nun whose name slips my mind) is a religion of peace..

Posted by: omar | Dec 6, 2011 6:06:52 PM

______________________________________________

Namit, my facile assertion of common underpinnings to Buddhist and Hindu views of the cosmos don't come even close to your glib assertions of expertise on this subject; the glowing reviews from certain academics notwithstanding. But you are doing a fabulous job in this regard all by yourself, so I look forward to part deux.

Posted by: Sam | Dec 6, 2011 6:52:10 PM

______________________________________________

There is something childlike about Namit Arora. When he says things like "I think Krishna's arguments are terribly bad.... they could have been good..". And not a particularly bright child.

Aspergers perhaps? His web site says: IIT, Silicon Valley. So odds are good for Aspergers.

Sorry I'm getting all personal. But this is just too funny.

Posted by: Sundar | Dec 6, 2011 7:20:26 PM

______________________________________________

"All the other killings you refer to would certainly increase numbers by a lot."

Omar, you had earlier asked ncp, and I quote, "(w)hat if we rephrased it to ask how many people have been killed, maimed or tortured, for any reason, by anyone,.." to his/her (factious?) query about numbers of Hindus burned by fellow Hindus over doctrine. And then you narrowed this down to heretics burned by the church balanced against women committing sati, which seemed a rather odd limitation. But no matter....

Humans are indeed a violent species, and religion has been used to justify violence (as Sam Harris and others have eloquently pointed out), and certain exclusionary-based religions have been even more prone towards applying violence towards nonbelievers (as Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, in particular, have written and spoken about more bluntly and honestly than most).

There are differences, and it is not just a matter of moral relativism (to hark back at another thread). And Karen Armstrong has written and said many things about religion but, like Deepak Chopra, hardly the expert to base anything substantial upon - even if they also get glowing reviews for their bestselling books from some academics.

Posted by: Sam | Dec 6, 2011 7:33:12 PM

______________________________________________

Ah yes, Karen Armstrong, Thanks.
I wouldnt put her in the same class as Chopra. Chopra is an old fashioned salesman and huckster and a good one. I dont think he has too many illusions.

Posted by: omar | Dec 6, 2011 10:06:37 PM

______________________________________________

Ah yes, Karen Armstrong, Thanks.
I wouldnt put her in the same class as Chopra.

I agree, but Armstrong is worse.
Chopra knows he is a con, even if its subconscious.
Sadly, Armstrong doesn't.

Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 6, 2011 10:26:00 PM

______________________________________________

Similarly, Vajrayana Buddhism of which Tibetan Buddhism is descended from is a very deity centric and ritualistic Buddhism that also adheres to the two truths of samvritti and paramartha.

99.999 of Buddhism is superstition based like other religions, with an elite controlling thought and action, in alliance with political elites.

Mahayana is totally superstition based, and most cultures drag feudal and patriarchal pasts into the practice.

However, that small percentage willing to explore codependent origination makes it interesting.

Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 6, 2011 10:38:00 PM

______________________________________________

Gimme.A.Break.

Posted by: Mani Sitaraman | Dec 6, 2011 11:04:53 PM

______________________________________________

"I agree, but Armstrong is worse."
That IS what I meant...well, worse or just tragic. Isnt there something tragic about this? I somehow dont find Chopra and Gayatri Spivak tragic at all. They are having fun. I am not sure she is having any fun at all...

Posted by: omar | Dec 6, 2011 11:14:15 PM

______________________________________________

I couldn't agree more omar.

Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 6, 2011 11:20:00 PM

______________________________________________

I mean people's lives are shaped by all kinds of factors besides their leading religious philosophies: economics, patriarchy, geography, politics, climate, older customs and beliefs, etc. People tend to "shake well before use." :)

Bingo!
Everything is causal based--

Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 6, 2011 11:25:30 PM

______________________________________________

Sundar, would you like to identify yourself so we can judge your contribution on an equal footing to Namit's?

Posted by: Zara | Dec 6, 2011 11:50:24 PM

______________________________________________

"Everything is causal based--"

Not according to Bell's inequality....

Posted by: Sam | Dec 7, 2011 12:33:53 AM

______________________________________________

Golly, it's heartwarming to see folks getting all worked up about literature -- take a bow for that, Namit! For once, I don't even mind some people turning a little nasty. Except that she's a busy woman with a full life, and is probably not here with us tonight, even Karen Armstrong would enjoy this. It all puts me in mind of that subplot in _The Magic Mountain_ wherein Fr. Naphta and Sig. Settembrini decide to have a duel to the death: their disagreements are not only very great but hugely portentous; they are mortally ill with TB; and they deeply believe some ideas are worth dying for.

Lovely!!!! And I do hope _The Eddas_ will be playing here soon. While it's standard New Atheist schtick to say that Christ will one day have all the relevance of Thor, whoever doesn't read Norse mythology is really losing out on an astonishing vision.

Posted by: Elatia Harris | Dec 7, 2011 1:34:24 AM

______________________________________________

I'm with you, Elatia. The Gita as the Great Lacuna.

Posted by: Zara | Dec 7, 2011 1:56:10 AM

______________________________________________

Elatia-
I was eying The Magic Mountain just yesterday for another read, as a beautiful old edition is in my bookcase.

Being of Swedish decent, and having a Swedish ex wife, Norse Mythology was always present.

That horrifying Bronze and Iron Age Fiction from West Asia and North Africa?

I'll pass.

Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 7, 2011 10:11:08 AM

______________________________________________

The infernal hounds are baying at the gates and the armies of the Giants are on the march! To arms..Ragnarok is at hand!

Posted by: Bill | Dec 7, 2011 10:24:24 AM

______________________________________________

Two books that I recently enjoyed immensely (with regards to Norse mythology):

The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún by J. R. R. Tolkien. Wonderful narrative poem in the style of Old Norse...but composed by Prof. Tolkien in the 1930s.

Beowulf translated by Seamus Heaney. Again, in that wonderful terse, alliterative style of early medieval Germanic poetry.

Posted by: Bill | Dec 7, 2011 10:33:17 AM

______________________________________________

As with other texts, the Bhagavad Gita needs to be read selectively and in a highly subjective manner. You take from it what helps you personally. I agree that the morality in the Gita is contradictory and ambiguous, but is there any source in which it's not?

One thing I find enormously satisfying about the Gita is that many of its lessons apply to the simplest things in life. One does not have to talk about lofty moral dilemmas to appreciate the virtues of the poem. To me, the part of the Bhagavad Gita that extols the virtues of detached achievement has been most useful. This approach helps even in the simplest of tasks, like solving a scientific problem or organizing my workday.

Personally I regard the Gita as little more than a metaphor- not to mention beautiful poetry full of interesting analogies- that sometimes provides useful lessons on how to live. Anyone who regards *any* text as an unvarnished source of truth, let alone morality, is already making a mistake. For the rest of us this post preaches to the choir.

Posted by: Ashutosh | Dec 7, 2011 3:18:53 PM

______________________________________________

Never mind that silly Indian nonsense: what I really want to know is, were the Eddas influenced by Christianity? I sometimes wonder if Odin receiving the runes while hung on the tree was sort of a late-pagan response to the crucifixion.

Cattle die, kinsmen die, but a good story sticks around. My favourite is the one about Thor in Utgardh in Snorri's Edda, it really resembles a modern short story.

Posted by: Sagredo | Dec 8, 2011 4:04:50 AM

______________________________________________

Ashutosh, right on brother. Gita is epic poetry and very particular to the time, place and situation of its telling. It is contradictory and it is also an attempt to be syncretic, by trying to merge nyaya, yoga, samkhya with the views of the Upanishads and the Vedas. It's morality is a mixture idealism and realism. That being said, I do love the sanskrit of the Gita some of which is taken verbatim out of the Upanishads. Krishna does once again say the Gita later in the Mahabharata in a section known as AnuGita which is without the provocation towards war and more about philosophy and such.

Posted by: Mukunda | Dec 9, 2011 6:04:08 PM

______________________________________________

I don't see much wrong with your criticism of the Gita, except for the fact that for the most part you are not are not actually criticizing the Gita. You are mainly quoting the critiques of others.

That apart, I also see that you have deep appreciation and admiration of some threads one can weave through the Gita.

What worries me though, is that the criticism and the appreciation do not convincingly add up to the summary you have posed: "Why the Bhagavad Gita is an overrated text with a deplorable morality at its core". The admiration for the Gita that your article betrays your summary as premeditated and insincere.

Posted by: Ankur | Dec 9, 2011 6:48:19 PM

______________________________________________

Namit,

Here are a few other points that you may like to reflect upon in your analysis of the Gita.

It is incorrect to obsess over those parts of the Gita that are derived specifically out of its war setting. The stark and extreme setting of war against one's own, serves mainly as a guide for what to one ought to do in other more mundane settings. The message is to do one's duty with detachment. As a consequence, there are things Krishna says which are bound to be anti-humanist; they do, after all specify the duty of a soldier, which needn't necessarily be humanist. Naturally, Krishna's instructions are not to be applied verbatim to all situations.

Second. The Gita is not a bunch of do's and dont's. It is literature; it is to be read in its entirety (Mahabharat included, someone said above) as a story with a message. The Gita is profound, not because it is a book of formulae for life. It is a book that leaves with one with a certain influence and that influence is its essence and message. I think you are going in with the assumption that the Gita is a book of commandments; if you do so, you are bound to misread it.

Third. The Gita is not necessarily about morality; and profundity is distinct from being about morality. The Gita is about what a man *ought* to do, in particular when commitments from diverse aspects of a man's life come in conflict. It is profound, because it provides a clear voice of reason through this intractibility.

Finally, Hinduism is a quest to realize the potentialities of man. It holds that as the highest ethic, unlike other religions which hold charity and kindness as higher. It has needed several reform movements to dilute the classical Hindu ethic to include compassion. In a sense, Hinduism is highly individualistic and somewhat contemptuous towards society as a whole. The Gita is one of the purest articulations of the "dharma" part of the classical Hindu philosophy.

Posted by: Ankur | Dec 9, 2011 7:38:24 PM

______________________________________________

"Kill them all and let God sort them out. "

The context for this phrase is provided here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnaud_Amalric

I wonder if the above was also inspired by a reading of the Gita.

Not to mention the subservient role of women .....

Posted by: Suresh | Dec 10, 2011 11:19:27 PM

______________________________________________

Although not in the Gita, my favorite one is about Ram's Army of Monkeys building the bridge to Sri Lanka.

Of course, with Talking Snakes and Flying Horses, Christianity and Islam challenge ones ability not to burst out laughing!
But embarrassing and childlike stories are the foundation of Bronze and Iron Age fiction.

Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 11, 2011 11:30:08 AM

______________________________________________

Namit:

I had earlier this year contacted Avinash Dixit about one of his books ("The Art of Strategy", IIRC). My email was regarding his game theoretic analysis of the 1984 Orange Bowl. Upon reflecting on this, I realize that Krishna's argument is actually isomorophic to that decision situation. I have read the Critical Edition of the Mahabharata, and it is pretty clear to me, and surely even the casual reader, that Krishna had a point that cannot be simply dismissed. A soldier cannot simply leave a battle. People ought to play their roles. You don't need a game theoretic analysis to see that.

I mentioned Wendy Doniger's book in my email to you. I went back and re-read some of Wendy Donier's book "The Hindus". Still, no cigar. (Amartya Sen's father) Kshiti Mohan Sen's book is a much better reference, and is more cite-worthy. It is nothing personal against Wendy Doniger. It is just that Wendy Doniger is wrong a lot of the time, and I have an addiction to being right. :)

Anyway, looking forward to the second part of your article.
-+-
Cross-posted to SAJA's South Asia Forum : https://www.saja.org/saforum?mode=MessageList&eid=766680&tpg=2
-+-

Posted by: Anand Manikutty | Dec 12, 2011 8:36:32 PM

______________________________________________

Namit,

You certainly aim for a low bar, if not the wrong one. Neither Doniger nor Pollock is schooled in Indian philosophy. And while Pollock has a middling reputation as a Sanskritist, Doniger has none. It's impossible to take a book with a title like "Hindus,an Alternative History" seriously. Substitute Buddhists/Christians/Muslims above and find one scholar who won't laugh at it. Doniger is so ill-informed that she could not produce even an MS-Encarta article on Hinduism!

I did read your article on Nagarjuna, and as with this one, I find it is entirely informed by popular third-hand accounts of what people think Nagarjuna proposed and taught. In short there isn't anything in it that would stand in a rigorous traditional style tarka. Here too I find you have simply borrowed from popular accounts. And that shows up in howlers like this one,

"This means that the philosophy it [Gita] espouses is often not in accord with the moral ambiguities of the larger epic [Mahabharata]"

If you are familiar with the tail end of the epic you would know that Gandhari cursed Krishna for the destruction of her progeny and foretold the death of the entire Yadava clan.

Anyway this is still interesting, and I will wait for Part-2 of your article. Enjoy the New Year!

Posted by: Mustermark | Dec 13, 2011 12:01:39 AM

______________________________________________

Just to point out that one of the themes in the Mahabharata is that Krishna treated his cousins Duryodhana and Arjuna equally. In fact, Krishna actually gives Duryodhana a Vishvaroopa darshan (in the pre-war period, while trying to avert the conflict) before he gives Arjuna the darshan on the battlefield, during the teaching of the Gita.

So, if the Gita was inserted into the Mahabharata much later, it was inserted really artfully,

Posted by: Arun | Dec 16, 2011 6:51:35 AM

______________________________________________

Ah, since I can post comments, I will continue - the point to notice is that the Vishvaroop darshan Krishna gave Duryodhana (and the entire Kaurava court) had absolutely no effect on Duryodhana's determination that "as long as I live, even that much of our land which may be covered by the point of a sharp needle shall not, O Madhava, be given by us unto the Pandavas".

If you read the Gita by itself, without considering how it has been embedded in the epic, it would seem that Arjuna has a choice to avoid the war. But actually Arjuna has no real choice in the matter; the only choice he has is how he faces the inevitable. Without understanding that, the Gita's morality indeed can be questioned.

Posted by: Arun | Dec 16, 2011 7:24:33 AM

______________________________________________

"Until its elevation by modern European scholars as the ‘Hindu Bible’—an aspect of their constructing ‘Hinduism’ as a coherent religion they could relate to—the Gita was revered by only a small minority of Indians. " --
Somehow the above statement destroys any respect that I have for the writer.

On a side note, it is interesting that 1000 AD, Alberuni has virtually a complete synopsis of the Gita in his Indica. So maybe it was the Muslims that elevated the Gita for the Hindus? (along with bringing them civilization, that is).

https://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2006/09/al-biruni-and-bhagavad-gita.html

Posted by: Arun | Dec 16, 2011 8:13:11 AM

______________________________________________

Some more - yes, Gandhi read the Gita in his own way. Which is why he advocated that the Jews resist Hitler only non-violently. In reality, Europeans faced the situation that Arjuna did - they understood that the great war would be ruinous to their civilization, but that it could not be avoided. Blood, sweat and tears were called for. But of course, since this is a European tale, instead of that of morally primitive Hindus, the approach to WWII is different. The Niall Ferguson comment re: Pankaj Mishra, linked below, about "the Indian inferiority complex" seems applicable to Namit Arora as well. The inferiority complex is in picture because he seems to have swallowed undigested the framework emanating from western academia; because the proof he knows his Buddhism is glowing reviews from western academics (if one understands these philosophies, one stands on one's own, and doesn't need anyone's praise. It is as though Sachin Tendulkar says, I'm a great batsman because the UK Guardian sportswriters say so.)

https://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/7482658/on-being-called-a-racist.thtml

Posted by: Arun | Dec 16, 2011 9:46:37 AM

______________________________________________

Some people may find this useful and relevant to what is coming next.

(PDF file)
https://sites.google.com/site/colonialconsciousness/Chapter_4_Heathen.PDF

It is the Chapter 4 link on this page:

https://sites.google.com/site/colonialconsciousness/theheatheninhisblindness

Posted by: Arun | Dec 16, 2011 12:04:04 PM

______________________________________________

LOL!

Posted by: prasad | Dec 16, 2011 12:58:41 PM

______________________________________________