South Asia Forum

Anand Manikutty wrote:

Anand Manikutty wrote:Namit Arora in Three Quarks Daily:

Written by mere mortals in a political setting but posturing as the voice of God, the Gita strives to imbue the reader with a host of ideas, beliefs, and values. Classics are ultimately defined by their ability to survive criticism. Critiques of the Gita, too, are necessary in every age, if only to know where we stand in relation to this pillar of cultural thought. My engagement with the Gita has persuaded me that it is an overrated text with a deplorable morality at its core, which should be confrontedundefinednot explained away or swept under the holy mat, as too many Indians have done and still do (admittedly, this is not as bad as sincerely trying to follow the morality of the Gita). Notably, its reflexive admirers even abound among the modern, educated Hindu upper crust, including those who live in the West.

In Part 2, I’ll probe the Gita more closely and also revive a critique of it that existed over two millennia ago, in the thought of the Buddha and then Nagarjuna. I hope that this line of inquiry will also disarm those Hindu religionists who tend to be ultra touchy about critiques of their sacred books from Western perspectives (some of which may well harbor Eurocentric biases). Meanwhile, for a quick refresher on the context and the themes of the Gita, watch this 10-minute clip from Peter Brook’s brilliant 1989 adaptation of the Mahabharata.

It is interesting that Namit is planning to talk about how the epic was received by Nagarjuna and other people from pre-modern times. This is (part of) the usual methodology used by students of Hinduism, but I am not convinced that this approach will yield significant, new conclusions given that these people knew far less than we do now. I am quite convinced that these "traditional scholars" lived such a long time ago that their opinions do not have much bearing on current theories surrounding Hinduism, and so it seems that this methodology (of looking at pre-modern commentaries) has significant shortcomings.

A particularly useful (and, in my opinion, a far more fruitful) approach to studying texts such as the Bhagavad Gita (and Hinduism, in general) is to use recent studies in neuroscience to see how the human brain has evolved ideas of morality, and to see how epics (and other religious texts) have contributed since premodern times in creating and imprinting various (perhaps different) notions of morality in us. This is (part of) the methodology I have used for the Socratic Hinduism framework that I have talked about before.

Why is it useful to look at neuroscience to study how the human brain is wired for morality? Because it seems that some of the notions of morality we subscribe to seem to be pretty strongly wired in us. Milton Friedman once gave an example of how libertarianism works. He said that libertarians don't want to coerce other people into accepting some particular opinion as correct. However, he recognized that there were a few exception even for libertarians. The example he used, IIRC, was of a man who was going to jump off a bridge. Would a libertarian try to save him if he could? Probably. Now if the man proceeded to give reasons why he was committing suicide, would the libertarian then allow him to jump (because the libertarian, true to principle, would agree to disagree)? Probably not. No matter how strongly a person may believe in certain ideas not just politically but even personally, there are certain types of behavior that he may never be able to let go of. Another example of the resistance of people to killing others is evidenced in the trolley problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem). Both these examples would indicate that the human brain has certain notions of morality that it cannot easily let go of. (Note that none of this (scientific) discussion is considered in the least bit to be a heresy in Hinduism, and indeed, I consider the Socratic Hinduism a perfectly valid approach to view Hinduism for both Hindus and non-Hindus.)      

This methodological approach makes the Socratic Hinduism framework quite powerful. It makes it both academic and scholarly, thereby countering one of the major academic criticisms of "traditional" studies of Hinduism (such as by Wendy Doniger). In fact, we do not need to discuss our own beliefs regarding whether or not the events described in the Mahabharatha actually occurred. That is left as a matter of scholarly inquiry for historians. Instead, the idea is that the texts may be used as part of a Socratic discussion wherein by guided questioning, one delves deeper into some of the issues of ethics and moral philosophy that the epic presents. Indeed, the historical role of these religious texts has been to raise these question of ethics and moral philosophy and help people appreciate the complexity of some of these issues. That has always been the role of these texts, and that is what it continues to be under Socratic Hinduism.

Moving on to more pragmatic concerns : in America today, you typically don't find fundamentalist readings of these texts at any of the major universities. The text is generally taught with a spirit of 'tolerance'. In India today, the legal system defines Hinduism as one that recognizes 'multiple' ways (the legal status of Hinduism in India is a different discussion altogether). There is a real separation of religion and state in both countries, and so I don't see very much worrisome, or even concerning, about the particular opinions on war as expressed by the various religious texts of Hinduism (such as the Gita) as well as the various academic approaches to Hinduism (Socratic Hinduism, included). The Gita's impact on policy is likely to remain quite insignificant.

Anand/Monterey

-+-

A follow on comment :

-+-

Namit:

I had earlier this year contacted Avinash Dixit about one of his books ("The Art of Strategy", IIRC). My email was regarding his game theoretic analysis of the 1984 Orange Bowl. Upon reflecting on this, I realize that Krishna's argument is actually isomorophic to that decision situation. I have read the Critical Edition of the Mahabharata, and it is pretty clear to me, and surely even the casual reader, that Krishna had a point that cannot be simply dismissed. A soldier cannot simply leave a battle. People ought to play their roles. You don't need a game theoretic analysis to see that.

I mentioned Wendy Doniger's work in my email to you. I went back and re-read some of Wendy Donier's book "The Hindus". Still, no cigar. (Amartya Sen's father) Kshiti Mohan Sen's book is a much better reference, and is more cite-worthy. It is nothing personal against Wendy Doniger. It is just that Wendy Doniger is wrong a lot of the time, and I have an addiction to being right. :) 

Anyway, looking forward to the second part of your article.

-+-

Cross-posted to SAJA's South Asia Forum : http://www.saja.org/saforum?mode=MessageList&eid=766680&tpg=2

-+-

You would be spending a lot of your life

getting into the history, language and culture at the time of the writing

Of that one book 

the Mahabharatha 

to seriously refute the current scholarly consensus.

You are welcome to do so.

As my neighbor in Texas once said after he showed me his somewhat noisy Christmas lighting equipment

"I hope you are not planning on sleeping for the next couple of months."

I dare say you have not gone into this sort of depth already.

Even Hitchens in "God is *not* great" left Hinduism more or less alone.

Hinduism might be the only religion left standing after his blistering attack.

Hitch does not know enough about Hinduism.

Only some do.

So may be God *is* great after all

-+-