BHAGWAT GITA OF HINDUS — HOW PRACTICAL AND ETHICAL IS ITS ADVICE?
Bhagwat Gita is one of the holiest book of hindus. They swear by it — literally. In Indian courts, every witness has to swear by this holy book. Most hindus see it not only as a holy book but also one of eminent practical advice for several aspects of daily living even today. Intrigued by so much good press, I too read it. It astonished me to find out that it contained very little that made sense or provided utility. I saw that the philosophy propounded there was not sustainable for any society and had too many internal inconsistencies.
Here, I’ll introduce you to Gita at two levels — its overall philosophy and its chapter details.
The Overall Philosophy
For the non-Hindu — What is the story of Bhagwat Gita?
The warrior prince Arjun loses his kingdom in a gambling bet to his cousins. As part of the bet, he was to go in exile for 14 years and take his kingdom back on return. However, when he returns, his cousins claim that he he did not live there as per the decided terms and refuse to return his land. He hires the services of Lord Krishna and decides to fight for his kingdom. Lord Krishna is seen by hindus as God.
Magically, this exiled man Arjuna raises an army of millions. The battlefield is setup for a massive war between two cousin families.
When prince Arjuna surveys the battlefield, he finds scores of near and dear ones on the opposite side. Even his beloved teachers were on the other side. He gets emotional and laments. He declares that he intends to forsake his claim since he does not find sense in killing so many beloveds just for that.
Lord Krishna provides Arjuna several reasons to fight . SrimadBhagwat Gita is the book containing the advice of Lord Krishna to Arjuna to shed his emotions and inhibitions to fight.
So, how does Lord Krishna convince Arjuna, the advice which is said to be useful even today, not only when you are in a dilemma but even in other daily choices?
He tells Arjuna that he was free to kill, because this world in unreal (maya). He (Krishna) is in everything and everything is essentially him. Death means nothing since it is inevitable and a movement back to him. A man being made to move from this world to the other, is, therefore a non-issue.
This raised my hackles. How can a society survive if it treats killing so flippantly? Even Arjun did not seem so convinced so he further raises the fear of punishment by God which would inevitably come for something done as evil as killing. It is here that Lord Krishna lets out the core of his advice, which is also quoted by many as the best in SrimadBhagwat Gita. He says — Kill, but do so unattached to the outcomes of your killing. Any act done without the motive of attraction or repulsion comes under the exception clause of God. While he does punish evil done out of attachment or revulsion, if the same act is done without such motives, the rule of punishment for it does not apply. So, dear Arjuna, get up and kill.
To me, this seemed preposterous. Punishment is called for, based on the act per-se, not on the motives of the doer. Lack of a clear motive may move a judge in case the crime is not fully established. However, lack of motive is no excuse, if the crime is proven and the doer does not dispute doing it. Who cares why you killed, as long as the other person is dead and you are clearly the cause?
Lord Krishna further tells Arjuna tells Arjuna that he will be spared the punishment since he would be doing it out of an obligation to follow the hindu varna (the 4 caste division of hindus) system in which a warrior caste (Khastriya) is supposed to fight a righteous war. While the case system is itself anathema to me, what revolted me here is the lack of logic. Arjuna was to be excused the punishment, since it was his warrior duty to fight a righteous war? But who decides what exactly is a righteous war? Those who were opposing him would certainly be seeing the other point of view as a righteous act, wouldn’t they?
When the decision of righteousness is to be made subjectively by the decision maker, it becomes a very questionable yardstick. Here, millions of warrior castes (Khastriyas), those on side of Arjuna, felt his point of view was righteous. On the other hand, another millions those who were on the other side felt that the opposite point of view was righteous. Interestingly, the teacher of Arjuna, Bhishma pitamah, felt that Arjun’s war was unrighteous and hence it was righteous for him to fight Arjuna. Elsewhere, Indian scriptures claim that Lord Krishna fought on the side of Padavas, but his own army fought from the other side, i.e. on the side of Kauravas. In effect, the army fought its own king. Strange notions of Kshatriya righteousness, to say the least! Quite a tangle.
One more weakness of Lord Krishna’s argument struck me. Even if one concedes that lack of motive ensures that one is not punished for the killing, is being absolved of punishment a good enough reason to kill? Is the fear of punishment the only thing that should hold citizens back from something as gruesome as killing?
It all seemed too war-thirsty to me. That’s not a good mode of thinking — or preaching.
I also felt that Lord Krishna’s arguments were simultaneously on two planks which were self-contradictory. He uses whichever plank suits him at that point of the argument. At one point, he says — Fight without any motive. At another point, not very far from this first advise, he says — Fighting is beneficial for you in all cases, whether you survive the war or perish in it. If you die, you’ll get the utmost reward of heaven, If you win and live, you’ll enjoys the riches and pleasures of this material world. Now, aren’t the expectation of heaven and fun in this material world, pure motives? How can anyone doing an act for these be said to be doing it free of motive? In any case, is the world real or unreal?
When I exchanged these doubts of mine on SrimadBhagwat Gita with friends and relatives, they told me that I had not understood the true message of Lord Krishna. Only a learned teacher can explain the secrets to me.
I am not very impressed by a teacher who advice is so confused that it requires the services of another guide. And how does the second guide know what the original author meant but did not say so implicitly? Did the original author leave any secret notes?
No, I am not convinced that SrimadBhagwat Gita is a useful book for people to live their lives better today or was even even then. It seemed more a smart, successful attempt by a mentor to get the mentee to agree to whatever the mentor wanted.
I have no comments on the holy part of the book. Let the believers believe in it being the word of God. If one treats him as the unquestionable God, there are, of course, no questions. But one who says that Lord Krishna should be treated as God since he gave us this wonderful book, have something to answer.
Chapter Details
I’ve come to the above conclusions by reading its chapters directly, not by reading its interpretations by others. Isn’t that the best way to understand an author. I read the originals directly because, long back, I’ve learned that the only way to understand an author was to read the original book, even if in translation, and to avoid (at all costs) the vast secondary literature of commentary, criticism and interpretation which surrounded them.
I found the first 11 chapters to be of relevance. Rest are a repeat of the previous ones. A summary of the first 11 chapters is as below.
1. Chapter 1 — Arjun finds his relatives in the opposing line-up and feels it is not worth it or right to kill them for worldly pleasures. He argues that destruction of part of family leads to evil in those that survive. Therefore, those who do this act i.e. destroy part of family go to hell.
2. Chapter 2 — Krishna tells Arjun that death means practically nothing since that is only one part of an inevitable journey.
a. The body is the transitory part; it is the soul that is permanent. Any sorrow for the body, therefore, is wrong. It is only a momentary feeling, the type that is temporary in nature. Since the person does not perish but merely changes form, no one can be blamed for killing it. Nor should anyone grieve for the body.
b. He further tells Arjun that as a Khastriya, it is his duty to fight. If he does not do so, he shall be laughed at in this world. But if he indeed does fight, he will get to enjoy on this earth as well as in heave.
c. He then goes on to convince Arjun that if he does indeed kill with the mindset that Krishna proposes, he would no longer be held accountable for his act of killing.
d. And what is that mindset that frees a man from the result of his acts? It is doing the act after detaching oneself from desire of the fruit of that act. Do it this way and you’re no longer held accountable for whatever you do. This way you achieve that station which is free from all further sorrows.
e. Arjun seeks clarification so Krishna further tells him that one should treat two opposite outcomes of any decision, or any to opposites e.g. pleasure and pain, as same. Such a person does not give in to the demand of bodily sensations, which are, in any case, ever changing.
Chapter 3. Here, Krishna emphasizes that not acting is not an option.
a. Those that act out of desire to satisfy bodily sensation, are bad people and those that act purely out of desire to please God are good people. Pleasing god and sub gods (devtas) through yagnas is a good thing because if you do that, they’ll reciprocate and shower you and others with goodies.
b. Those who eat only whatever is offered in Yagnas are absolved of their bad deeds but those that eat to satisfy their body, verily eat evil.
c. He then establishes the benefits of Yagna — Food is a necessity, which comes only if there is rain, which comes only if Yagna is performed. Anyone who does not live by what is in the vedas, is surely wasting his time.
d. All you need to do is to carry out the duties ordained for you by the (vedic) system,, without any attachment to their results. You are NOT the doer of anything. Things happen due to the very nature of nature itself. If you act as I ( nature) direct, you’ll not be held responsible for what you do. ( Your’s is not to question why; your’s is but to do and die)
Chapter 4. In this chapter, Krishna emphasizes his everlasting nature and ever-presence.
a. Whenever evil triumphs, I emerge to quell it.
b. It is all about ‘action with renunciation of expected results/outcomes’.
c. You can reach me by subsuming your bodily desires in me.
d. Those who do Yagnas properly also reach me. Yagnas are the way to absolve oneself of one’s wrongdoings and evil acts too.
e. Knowledge of me will enable you to see that nothing is alien to anyone, since all are part of me.
f. Once you understand my true nature, you’re forgiven even if you are the nastiest of criminals.
g. The skeptics have no redemption. They’ll only fall.
Chapter 5. Here, Krishna clarifies the new doubt of Arjun i.e. which of the two is better and advisable — renouncing action or action done in Krishna’s love-
a. Krishna says that out of the two options above the latter is better, while both are workable options. The key lies not in action or inaction, but in doing it in the service of God. Such a person differentiates himself from (the acts of) his five senses and is thus not held accountable for the acts done by them.
b. Non-expectation of results is another key.
c. Treat everyone alike — good guys and bad guys.
d. He who is neither attracted nor repulsed by anything, verily enjoys everything.
e. One who accepts Me as the supreme in everything, enjoys the physical pleasures of this world.
Chapter 6. Here again Krisha is emphasizing the importance of equanimity — the characteristic of treating two opposites (e.g pain & pleasure, victory & defeat) alike. He also lays down the basic techniques of Yogic meditation — a way of controlling the wavering mind. He further tell him that even if does not eventually succeed as a Yogi, its good effects will ensure that the next birth is in a rich/good family. In such a way, after several births, in each of which he progresses a little. Finally, he reaches God/salvation.
Chapter 7. Here, Krishna establishes his omniscience- he is everything and everything is he. Everything — god, bad and ugly — get manifest due to him alone though he is not bound by them. Good people come to him — bad people don’t. He alone guides people in their pursuit of different sub-gods (devtas), which too are his manifestations. However, those who pursue the sub gods reach a level that is lower to what is reached by those that pursue him (Krishna) directly. I never manifest myself to fools. Only those who have conquered desire, get to reach me.
Chapter 8. Here, Krishna explains points about soul (atma, brahma). He says that he resides inside each person. Anyone who thinks of him in his last moments, reach him. That is why everyone should always keep thinking of him (since the person may die at any moment). Those who do reach him, never return to this world (no rebirth). Again, he dwells here on basic Yogic procedures. He further says that those who die in the periods of light, day and the 6 months if the Sun in that hemisphere reach him, never to return to earth. On the other hand, those that die in periods of darkness or when the Sun is way from that hemisphere, go to the moon territory from where they return to the earth once more.
Chapter 9. Here, Krishna repeatedly claims that he alone is everything, and everything is basically him. He further claims that if anyone pleases him, he is bound to reach his goal of liberation. He also says that even if the most wicked person worships him, he is to be considered as righteous.
Chapter 10. In this chapter, Krishna gives more and specific details of his immanence and transcendence — something that he does repeatedly throughout the book.
Chapter 11. Here, Krishna reveals his regal, all pervading form. Through it, he emphasizes that the warriors whom Arjuna is reluctant to kill, are already in the mouth of death, as represented by him.
The chapters after chapter 11 repeat the same as above, so I’ll skip them.
Now you decide how much of a holy book this is, or what relevant advice it proffers to citizens. Is that advice really useful to him as well as good for the society?
