In my continuing effort to read more of the source material covered in David Loy's Nondualism book, I picked up the copy of the Bhagavad-Gita that I still had from freshman year. It's amazing what a difference 25 years can make in one's thinking. All the marginalia indicate that I was obsessed with comparing the Gita to Plato's Republic (which I'd just read for the first time as well). Certainly, there are some comparable elements. You can find support in both books for a division of society based on the varying "nature" of individuals -- ie. support for a form of caste system. In addition, both books definitely describe a sort of hero's journey where the philosopher begins in confusion and gradually journeys towards the true source of reality. Plato narrates this journey in the cave allegory. The Gita builds it directly into the structure of the dialog between Krishna and Arjuna. The story begins with the great hero Arjuna's doubt on the eve of a momentous battle. He's not sure he even wants to fight, given the senseless violence he sees in it. Krishna gradually convinces him that he must fight by gradually unfolding a series of teachings which climax halfway through when Krishna's directly reveals the totality of his divine form. The denouement fleshes out the intellectual understanding of this form and ultimately Arjuna decides to return to the field of battle (and presumably slaughter all his enemies, but, you know, now killing them with kindness, so to speak). In other words, the similarities between The Republic and The Gita are pretty superficial. If there's any book of philosophy that doesn't imply that society should be organized and that philosophy should reveal the truth, it was written pretty recently. These are not very distinctive points of resonance.
In fact, if you read the Gita with the concepts of nondual philosophy in mind, the books bear almost no resemblance to one another. Yes, the Gita does have a few passages that could be read as supporting the Indian caste system. But actually, these parts cut against the much larger theme that individual action should be looked at through a nondual lens. Every action should be undertaken as a sacrifice to Krishna, and should not concern itself with its possible fruits for the actor. This viewpoint substantially changes the interpretation of the idea that, "everyone in society does what they must, or what they are naturally suited for". A nondual concept of action that divorces the individual's intention from their action, and emphasizes that emptiness of the actor, might be compatible with a caste system, but, properly understood, it's a long way from justifying that system. And yes, our hero Arjuna moves from confusion to certainty, from doubt to the apodictic. But in true nondual fashion, the knowledge he receives is not knowledge of the universe, but that he is the universe, that he and everything else arise inseparably within Krishna. So in both cases, the proposed correspondence between the two books is actually closer to a contrast. Makes you wonder how professors can stand to read the drivel that freshmen must invariably write. R.I.P. Mark Mancall. I'm sorry for what I put you through.
In any event, The Gita is the most interesting follow up to Loy's book that I've read so far. It's a much clearer work than any of the Taoist texts. While there are some confusions and crosscurrents, you don't need to strain to see a nondual philosophy at its core. It asks the fundamental question of why act at all in a particularly stark way. And it answers it equally clearly -- "you" don't act at all, only Krishna acts, or better yet, simply is. When you realize you aren't separate from the universe, the apparent individual choice involved in acting falls away. The whole point of the dialog is clearly to bring Arjuna to this nondual realization rather than "convince" him to act in a conventional sense.
In addition, unlike the Taoist fragments, The Gita is a fully constructed piece of literature. And it's great. It's short, dramatic, poetic, and climaxes in a really powerful scene where Krishna reveals the mind-boggling chaos of his totality. I gave it 5 stars. Or maybe that was Krishna's own review?
No comments:
Post a Comment