Agreed? OK.
This wisdom is made meaningful only with interpretation. Here comes the
conflict. What kind of 'interpretation?' Were there economic incentives
in ancient times for interpretations? If so, what were they? Are they
still valid? If not, could we give a different interpretation? Can we
ignore these classics completely? Finally, should classics be
"reinterpreted or retold" from time to time?
A word of caution: If you do not agree that Bhagavadgeeta as a "classic,"
please do not read further. It is better to agree to disagree in the
beginning itself.
I would like to address these as much as I can, and bear with me and my
editorial comments( some may sound acerbic!) for some of the slOkaas.
The Geeta, has had great influence on the aadi saMkara, raamaanuja,
Aurobindo, Lokamaanya Tilak, Mahaatma Gaandhi, and the nut who
assasinated the Mahaatma; Naathooram Vinayak Godse! Obviously, the
book must have some things, which all of the above guys liked, and
hence a few things that grossly contradict each other. Otherwise,
the aacaaryaas with different messages, the political leaders with
different approaches could not have been drawn to it, unless they
were all doing public relations stunts! One thing is for dead certain:
They all belonged to the upper strata, the leisure class. Hence,
you can not avoid an economic incentive for interpretation.
Believers call the book universal. A beautiful euphemism, in deed.
The truth is that it is the most flexible of all classics that has
been put together by the upper class for the upper classes, and to
the lower classes only to obey, that too through the good will of the
upper classes. Several seemingly contradicting schools of thought were
cleverly incorporated into it, including the Buddhist idea of karma.
How can anything or anyone go wrong? Since it is the most flexible
classic, anyone can interpret anything to suit to one's taste and
necessity, with one single exception: one has no right to deny the
validity of class(caste) system. The point is this: Several people have
added to the tome at several times according to their convenience.
I heard that Dr. vEda vyaas, Ph.D, I.A.S.,(not to be confused with
Mr. vEda vyaas of yore!) recently researched and discovered some
eighteen(?) lost slOkaas that belonged in the 'original' text of the
Geeta! Let us not get into it now, or into the sanctity of that peculiar
number 18!! ( Personally, I like twenty-four better, because aSOka cakra
has 24 spokes, and I admire aSOka for his compassion better than many
of our gods!)
Here is a slOka that has been beaten to pulp in these news groups.
maaM hi paartha vyaapaaSritya-yEpi syuh paapayO nayah
streeyO vaisyaa-stathaa soodrast-Epi yaanti paraM gatiM ( 9:32)
Now, the meaning. The God himself is telling Mr. arjuna. Even the
sinful breeds such as women, vaisyaas, and soodraas, if they take
refuge in Me, they too will be Saved! For the believers in the sanctity
of the 'word' the interpretation was already give by learned folks. But, for
the non-believers, it sounds like Rev. Jim Bakker's sermon on TV and they
hate it. Can anybody be more casual and degrading than this! Admitting
that such discrimination was imposed and perpetrated in ancient times by
the ruling classes is no sin! Actually, it is magnanimous thing to do,
although it is a middle class notion, in deed!
In case anybody has any doubt, God himself sayeth again:
caatur-varNyaM mayaa srushThaM guNa karma vibhaagasah
tasya kartaara-mapi maaM vidhya-kartaara-mavyayaM (4:13)
What does it mean? The four caste(class) division has been created by
Me. Though I am the creator of the system, Mr. arjuna! you must
know I am the non-doer! I do not know, what Lord kRshNa means by his
assertion that He is the non-doer!
I would not hide behind some divine mumbo-jumbo interpretation. I would
simply agree that such inconsistencies exist in the Geeta. As a matter of
fact, inconsistent passages can be found in all sacred books of all
religions.
Let me show you some more that needs fixing(!) for the present times.
SrEyaan svadharmO viguNah paradharmaa-tsanusThitaat
swabhaava niyataM karma kurvaan-napnOti kilbiSaM (18:47)
It means this: Even if performed imperfectly, stick to your
occupation, fellow! Do not butt into others' (meaning upper caste folks')
business, even if you could do better! He who does his assigned
work, even in a lousy way does not incur sin! (Meaning, stay within
your prescribed perimeter. Do not try for a three pointer from
timeline, and try to show off!). Even if one talks of guNa based
class - structure, this does not jive! Admit the inconsistency!
One of the funniest inconsistencies is that arjuna sees all his relatives
in the battle field. He is the most confused soul. Pity the fellow! He
does not want to kill his cousins, nephews, uncles, grandpas, gurus etc.
He is like any normal human being with some human compassion!
Now look what the Lord sayeth in the second chapter!
''hatOvaa praapyaSi svrgaM jitvaanaa bhokshyasE mahiM.'
Meaning: Hey buddy, what the heck you are talking? If you die you
get the heaven (of course raMbha, mEnaka, tilottama et al., will be
there for you!). And, if you win, you get all the earth. So, stop
this nonsense. Get up, and fight!
And the Lord adds as a bonus point to arjuna in the eleventh
chapter. See for example, 11:33 and 11:34. I give only the 'gist.'
The Lord says something like this: These guys bheeshma, drONa, karNa,
all of them are already dead! You are only an instrument; I have
already had them for breakfast and lunch. See, in my tummy, if you do
not believe! Lo and behold! Mr. arjuna sees all these people and many
more in the Lord's tummy!! Probably you and me too; but anyway,
our names are not in the present Gorakhpur edition of the Geeta!
The book is supposed to be teaching us ahiMsa, and kRshNa is preaching
arjuna to kill, kill, and kill. And, on top of it he is saying they are
already dead! Now, any interpretations, theological or economic, you name it,
of such inconsistency does not hold water.
After the eighteen day war (gee! 18 again!! I think we fought with the
Chinese also for eighteen days and lost the war!), arjuna,in aswamETha
parva, asks Lord kRShNa to repeat the great universal knowledge bestowed
on him.
The Lord says: 'It can not be repeated even by Me!'
For a change, I will quote arjuna'a request and the Lord's response
from tikkana.
ca: aniki doDangunappuDu madaatma galangina konni tatvabO dhana
mahaneeya vaakyamulu daatta krupaMdaga neevu seppitE
manamuna vaani ardhamulu maadhava nilpaga jaalanaiti na
vvinutavaca-ssudhaarasamu veenula niMkoka maaru niMpavE
For which the Lord sayeth:
tE: brahmapada vEdanamunaku barama hEtu
bhootamulu naaTi vaakyamul buddhi danma
haardhamulu nilpavaiti sakyaMbe iMka
navvacanaulu seppanga nalaghu Saurya
The upper classes have had several benefits from the Geeta. They
were not satisfied. Greed! They inflated the original with anu-geeta.
This anu-geeta is nothing but brahminism and extolling the brahminical
virtues! But, luckily for us all, nobody takes the anu-geeta, seriously!
Just like that, some uninterpretable inconsistent stuff could be weeded
out!
Mr. vEda vyaas himself said somewhere:
yad ihaasti tadanyatra, yan nehaasti na tat kvacit!
Meaning: What you have in this tome, you may find elsewhere;
what was not in this tome could be hardly found anywhere! Let us take
the cue from bhagavaan vEda vyaas and drop some irrelevant passages!
In the first place, they have been placed in the Geeta by
some 'politically' motivated time-serving upper-class guy some
time ago!
Lots of clever people quote it literally, and try to derive from it
all that was never there! Or try to get from it a lot of free ethics
and morality mileage. That would satisfy their egos. To respect our
classics is admirable; but falling back on them for everything,
including what they are not is a cop out! Geeta, as is now can at best
be enjoyed for its aesthetic beauty! But, certainly not for its
'ethics' that are shrouded in religious superstitions!
The recent prosaic version of the New Testament and the Rafiq
Zakaria's(?)'translation' of several Quoranic Suras attempted
interpretations that suit the present times! There is no need to
defend every word in it as if it were from the Lord's mouth! After
all, the dynamics of language, the changes in the means of production
and distribution, the over all changes in global economic structure
demand an overhaul, recasting, and reinterpretation of all the
classics! And, certainly the Geeta fits the bill!
Otherwise, the collective human wisdom would be wasted if not lost
forever!
Best Regards.
-- Venkateswara Rao Veluri