I’m reading the Baghavad Gita as part of my working through the Brodsky reading list or challenge, which I wrote about recently on my blog. I’m reading the “new translation” edition from W. W. Norton & Company, translated by Gavin Flood and Charles Martin. In the introduction, they give a synopsis of the story and explain its place in the larger work Mahabharata, its teachings, and the historical context of the work. Based on what I know about the Gita after reading this introduction, I can see that this will be a challenging work.

Like my father, who is also reading through the list (he’s on the Old Testament at the moment), I will focus a lot on the ethical and philosophical aspects of the work. You can see his notes on the Gita on his blog.

Synopsis

The Pandavas and Kauravas are two rival factions of cousins who are on the eve of war over rightful succession of the kingdom. Arjuna, a Pandava, frets about killing his family, the Kauravas, the night before a big battle. He confides in his charioteer, Krishna, who is a minor prince. Krishna has an army, but he let his forces join the Kauravas while he joined the Pandavas. Krishna convinces Arjuna that fighting the battle is his duty as a warrior, arguing from many angles, but eventually revealing that he (Krishna) is an incarnation of the god of the universe Vishnu.

The teachings

My first impression is about dharma. It has a variety of meanings, from “duty, law, truth, ethics,” and virtue, among others (“The Teachings,” para. 1). Continuing on, “it is the dharma of grass to grow, of birds to fly, and of warriors to fight,” with the last one suggesting the proper course of action for Arjuna. This description immediately reminded me of the basis of Aristotle’s argument of human happiness—telos. Like dharma, telos is the natural end to which a thing reaches. Aristotle argues that humankind’s telos is flourishing or happiness and that we achieve that by exercising reason. I’m curious what other parallels might found as I read more of the work.

One thing I found curious is that Krishna’s first argument as to why he should fight is how others would see his choosing not to fight, considering his status as a warrior. It’s not something I would consider as holding very much weight in terms of an important philosophical decision such as this one. It sounds a lot like he’s saying he should keep up appearances. What does make more sense to me is the appeal to a hierarchy of responsibilities and duties. Krishna argues that his responsibility as a warrior is bigger than the responsibility to his family alone, which makes sense to me.

Krishna moves on to a more philosophical argument, arguing that the soul is “unchanging, reincarnated into body after body, as a man might discard old clothes and put on new ones” (para. 7). If true, then the next statement that the wise know that happiness and suffering are the same would also make sense. Believing in reincarnation seems too presumptuous to me, though. The idea that the self and the physical world are separate is familiar from Christian depictions of the soul. But the idea that we need to realize the separate nature of them makes me think that somehow the self dies when we achieve this. It’s kind of like when a character in a story gains ultimate knowledge of the universe and changes in the process, forgetting his friends and losing his humanity in the process. Maybe like Castiel when he becomes God.

Lastly, I want point out the similarities between Krishna and Jesus Christ. Krishna eventually tells Arjuna that he should “abandon duty and dedicate himself to Krishna, who will release him from all evils” (para. 11). He also comes to earth when “virtue (dharma) is on the decline.” This sounds to me a lot like a Judgment Day.

Historical context

The intro points out that the devotional aspects of the religion are more inclusive than the religion of sacrifice predating it. But it seems as though we’ve substituted one kind of sacrifice for another.

I found the stages of life amusing: student to father to retirement and renunciation where a man leaves home to find liberation from reincarnation. Or, maybe, to leave home to get drunk and play Mahjong. Both seem like possible paths to take.

Finally, I was surprised to learn more about the relationship and tension between Buddhism and Hinduism. The two religions differ on how to break the cycle of reincarnation. The Buddhists argue that action itself must be renounced, not just the fruits of action as claimed in the Gita.

In conclusion, with so much to talk about just from the introduction, this book ought to be an interesting read. The overview of the story and the historical context were helpful, and I found a lot I would like to think about. I’m ready to dive deeper into the story.