Morality and the Bhagavad-Gita - Essay Example

Morality and the Bhagavad-Gita The Bhagavad-Gita, transalated as “Song of the Divine One,” can be read as a concise guide to Hindu philosophy. Composed of seven hundred verses, the work is composed of a conversation between Krishna and Arjuna that takes place right before battle. The work can be challenging and can seem contradictory to Western audiences, but that is merely because there are so many philosophical differences between Eastern and Western cultures. While it may be very different in world view than what Western audiences might be familiar with, it helps to think of it as having a Western equivalent: “Hindus find in it much the same kind of inspiration and guidance which Christians find in the New Testament” (Shideler 308). While the Christian bible contains lists of do’s and don’ts, The Bhagavad-Gita takes a different view to morality. The views expressed in the work stem from the Eastern circular notion of time, as opposed to the Western linear view of time. This, among other reasons, is what makes the work difficult to Western audiences. In the Christian bible, killing another person is expressly forbidden. In The Bhagavad-Gita, taking the life of another person isn’t suggested or recommended expressly, but it isn’t viewed as absolutely right or wrong either. Of course, this is not to say that the Hindu religion doesn’t seek peace in general, either. The work begins with Arjuna pondering a moral dilemma: “Evil they may be,/ Worst of the wicked./ Yet if we kill them/ Our sin is greater./ How could we dare spill/ The blood that unites us?” All of the questions answered and asked from this stem from this original question. To Western audiences, there is an expectation of a religious work to tell you how to act. There is simplicity in something being either right or wrong. If we do not know easily if a particular action is right or wrong, that might cause a certain amount of anxiety. As time is viewed as linear in the West, there is a certain progression that is expected. The longer a person lives, the more that person knows, and the more that person is able to choose the correct path in order to lead to where this person wants to go. However, in the East, since time is circular, there is not this same progression expected: “In the Hindu view, history is a great turning of the wheel, the flowing forth of the manifestations of Brahman and its return to itself” (Shideler 309). Krishna answers Arjuna by stating that the path itself, whichever choice happens to be made, is not what is important: “The wise see truly./ Take either path/ And tread it to the end./ The end is the same.” Coming from a background that states that there is only one path that will lead a person to paradise, this idea is particularly confusing. Because of this, the term war is sometimes just considered to be allegorical, but this comes from trying to view this Eastern text from a Western context: “We are, therefore, inclined to treat the description of war in the Gita in its literal and not allegorical sense” (Upadhyaya 161). While the Gita might use many metaphors and allegories, it is not best understood by treating everything as metaphorical or allegorical. Since there are not direct moral platitudes given, it might be mistakenly assumed that this is an amoral text. However, upon closer consideration of the “path” exert, we can see that the Gita advocates action as opposed to right/wrong. Instead of sitting around and wondering whether or not a particular action is the correct one to take, or even not taking any action because there is a quandary about which action should be taken, action is what is recommended as the correct path to take. Without action, there is no possibility of people experiencing life: “Through this experience man’s life is given direction in the present and in the future” (Alberson 309). Life is this sense might seem to a Western audience as being without direction; this is because of the linear view of time. If time is linear, then it would need to have a direction. Is time is viewed circularly, then it doesn’t have a direction; every direction would just end up leading back to the same place. Since time is circular and all actions lead back to the same place which in turn will end up cycling through again and returning again to the same place, actions lose their right/wrong quality. As the Krishna states, “Death is certain for the born. Rebirth is certain for the dead. You should not grieve for what is unavoidable.” In Eastern philosophies, peace is promoted, and one should always avoid harming another creature if possible. At the same time, it is realized that there is no way to completely avoid harming living creatures; it is merely a part of living. Since this is the case, it is not considered to be immoral to harm another creature; action is the only thing that is thought to be important, not the consequences of the action. If something is alive, there is no way to avoid death for that creature. At the same time, it should be remembered that though that creature will die, it also will be reborn. It is unavoidable. Actions lose morality because there is no possibility of the action to have positive or negative consequences; all actions lead to the same place in a circle. Things are not right or wrong; in the end, everything basically just is what it is. These are difficult ideas for people from Western cultures to understand. Of course, at the same time it is difficult for people from Eastern cultures to understand the linear concept of time. There really is no way to consider either one to be right or wrong; they are just different ways of viewing the world. Being told which way to act or being told that the action is what is important are simply different ways to view actions. Whether Eastern or Western, these philosophies end up just being different ways for people to guide themselves through their lives, whether that means in way straight, linear path or in a circular path that will continually repeat itself over and over again. It might be easier to understand “Thou shall not kill for some,” as there is no thinking on one’s own that is involved, but for others there are many more aspects to be considered in whether an action should be taken. Perhaps that is the most difficult aspect of Eastern philosophy for Westerners to understand; instead of being told what to do, people must figure out for themselves what is the most appropriate plan of action. Of course, action is always desirable over inaction. Works Cited Alberson, Hazel S., “Dilemma and Resolution in Bhagavad-Gita and Job.” College English, Vol. 18, No. 8 (May, 1957), pp. 406-413 Coomaraswamy, Ananda K., “The Four Causes in the Bhagavad Gita.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 57, No. 4 (Dec., 1937), pp. 415-416. Sankaracharya, Sri, The Bhagavad Gita with the Commentary of Sri Sankaracharya. Chennai, India, Samata Books, 2004. Shideler, Emerson W., “Meaning of Man in the Bhagavad-Gita.” Journal of Bible and Religion, Vol. 28, No. 3 (July 1960), pp. 308-316. Upadhyaya, K.N., “The Bhagavad-Gita on War and Peace.” Philosophy East and West (Apr., 1969), pp. 159-169. Read More