The Song of the Lord

 

I assumed I had reviewed the Song of the Lord before, but either I´m just imagining things, or it mysteriously disappeared (and perhaps merged with Brahman)…

It´s difficult to review a religious scripture, but after reading most of the Bhagavad Gita (in the Wordsworth Classics edition) in one sitting, I´m nevertheless tempted to give it a try. I´m not sure what the scholarly consensus says at the moment about the Gita´s date of composition, but the editors of this particular translation place it around 500 BC. Since a few verses sound “Buddhist” (the ones advocating a middle path for ascetics), a post-Buddhist date seems likely, unless of course we´re dealing with later interpolations. The dates and historicity of the Mahabharata, the epic the Bhagavad Gita forms a small portion of, are also hotly debated questions. It´s probably not difficult to suspect that we may be dealing with composite works that evolved over a larger period.

The social milieu of the Bhagavad Gita doesn´t seem Brahminical. The main characters, Krishna and Arjuna, are presumably both from the warrior “caste” (Kshatriya). Of course, Krishna later turns out to be God! The setting of the story is the battlefield of Kurukshetra, where Krishna serves as Arjuna´s charioteer. When Arjuna refuses to fight, Krishna admonishes him and explains that everyone must carry out their caste duty. Ascetics are another important part of the Gita´s social universe. The scripture also states that anyone – even women and outcasts – can carry out devotional worship of the Lord and hence be saved. The Vedic sacrifices (associated with Brahmins) aren´t repudiated, but the reader is told to be indifferent towards the fruits of ritual action. The sacrifice is seen as a spiritual technique, rather than a method for gaining worldly boons.

Famously, the Bhagavad Gita claims that there are several different paths to liberation. I guess this was an attempt to create a “Hindu synthesis” out of the varied strands of Indian religious traditions available at the time: Vedic sacrifices, Upanishadic asceticism with the goal of merging with an impersonal Brahman, theist devotionalism, perhaps even a kind of theist mysticism. In modern times, Western readers have interpreted the message of the Gita as one of universal religious pluralism and hence tolerance. Implicitly or explicitly, this is a polemic against Christianity and the “Abrahamic faiths” more generally. While I suppose you could view it that way, it´s also important not to be anachronistic. While everyone can be liberated by Krishna, the god-man never abolishes caste and is clearly on a first-name basis with rulers and their elite warriors. That´s not how moderns conceptualize “tolerance”! Still, I suppose it´s interesting that a “Hindu” synthesis was attempted already during the Iron Age…

Other modern misinterpretations of Krishna´s preaching seem to include the idea that “karma yoga” (the path of action) is the most important aspect of the Bhagavad Gita, and that this somehow corresponds to the Protestant work ethic described by Max Weber. And “jnana yoga” (the path of knowledge), clearly a reference to asceticism and meditation, has very little to do with getting an American college education! A more reasonable take is that the Bhagavad Gita sees “bhakti yoga” (the path of devotion) as the highest path (it´s even described as “secret”), while nevertheless trying to incorporate karma yoga and jnana yoga into its system. Sacrifices to demigods or spirits isn´t rejected either, but the boons from such worship are said to be temporary and of a lower order than worship of Krishna. The Lord´s devotees should concentrate on Him only. Nor is it wrong to be a normie who simply does his best to follow rules and regulations of society, since such a person might get a better rebirth, perhaps in a spiritual family. There are also temporary heaven-worlds where people might end up after their physical deaths, until their merit is spent, and they have to be reborn on the physical plane again.

The Bhagavad Gita places strong emphasis on the maintenance of social order. As already indicated, karma yoga means the carrying out of one´s caste duty without complaining and without expecting any fruits from such a course of action, indeed all fruits should be handed over to God. Caste circulation is criticized: it´s better to carry out one´s one dharma imperfectly, than to carry out another person´s dharma perfectly. The reader is admonished to follow the laws and regulations found in the Dharmashastras. Krishna is said to appear on Earth under various guises every time the dharmic order is under threat, defending it. More interestingly, karma yoga is also a spiritual method of sorts, since those who follow this path come across as a kind of worldly ascetics. It´s their perfect equipoise that will eventually enable them to merge with the divine.

Within Hinduism, the Bhagavad Gita has been interpreted in many ways. Does the text say that the divine is the impersonal Brahman of which Krishna is merely one manifestation, or does it suggest the exact opposite, i.e. that God is personal? And who is this personal god? Is it Krishna himself, or is Krishna merely a humanoid avatar of the cosmic deity Vishnu? At least from this English translation, I get the impression that the text is deliberately multivalent on these rather crucial points! It´s also panentheist, since Krishna (or Vishnu, or Brahman…) is said to permeate the entire cosmos and somehow be identical with it, while also going far beyond it. Indeed, the world is “in God”, rather than God being “in the world”. A panentheism in which God is nevertheless personal is intriguing, to be sure. My rather strong impression is that the Bhagavad Gita reflects a religious sensibility in which strong and unswerving devotion to a personal god is seen as central. And since he is mostly referred to as Krishna, the Hindu groups who see Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead (rather than just a temporary avatar) aren´t entirely off topic, either.  

From an atheist viewpoint, virtually everything is wrong with this text, including its strong condemnation of atheism (presumably the Charvakas). Christians may have objections, too. The time scale is vast, the universe is said to be cyclical, and the cycles are never-ending. After each destruction, the universe is simply recreated, with “new” creatures who are really reincarnated souls from a previous universe, being forced to work out their karma in the newly minted universe. Only a few souls in each cycle seem to reach liberation, and it´s possible to interpret the text that some demoniac souls either can´t be saved and/or will be completely destroyed (perhaps this is less objectionable to Calvinists who believe in predestination). From a Christian viewpoint, there is no real redemption in the Song of the Lord. Of course, a Hindu might respond that many people are eternally lost in the Biblical drama as well, while many others get a second chance in Hinduism…

With that reflection, I end this review.