tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17725419.post389829078975757818..comments2024-01-18T14:17:41.990+05:30Comments on Some Glimpses: Group IdentityUshahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14706092288384012069noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17725419.post-76667151646005258602010-06-13T03:19:24.869+05:302010-06-13T03:19:24.869+05:30On tweaking the interpretation of Gita's messa...On tweaking the interpretation of Gita's message, you might find the first chapter of Amartya Sen's -The Argumentative Indian - interesting. He raises the same questions you raise, and with a leaning to be sympathetic to Arjuna's concern for consequences as opposed to just duties, with a concern for peace being the foremost consideration that prompts Amartya's re-opening of the historical argument. Recently read the book's intro. He's a liberal ideologue, and your aruguments seem to fall back on a liberal ideological framework too. <br />The main thing he proposes is that there has always been encouragement for heterodoxy (as opposed to orthodoxy leading to blasphemy) of opinions - the argumentative tradition as he calls it - in India. A lot of his book claims to do social history, but most of it is assertions that are of a familiar liberal strain. Some of the details are interesting. <br /><br />My reading of the message in Gita also differs from both yours and Amartya's. In fact, if anything, Krishna seems to goad Arjuna to act without caring for consequences, in a place beyond attachments to any group or individuals. He preaches the creed of action beyond all mortal considerations of life and death, for the cause of justice. Thats why the superhuman effort. In my interpretation, the message also shows Arjuna that the scope of such action goes beyond all good and evil, while still retaining what can perhaps be called a kind of morality that is born out of action - the warrior's dharma. The identity of the true warrior is not different from his dharma. This is not to say that the message has not been interpreted either to justify or to recall the terror caused by destructive acts. Amartya Sen quotes Robert J. Oppenheimer, the scientist who invented the nuclear bomb quoting from the Gita to describe the terror unleashed by the bomb on Hiroshima, all in support of a "just cause." US government routinely plays the game of good cop vs. bad cop with rougue states of its invention. Good versus Evil - another simplistic interpretation. Peace/Good was not realistically a choice for Arjuna. The war was forced upon him along with the rest of the Pandavas. What was left to him was to follow the warrior's course of action, in a place beyond good and evil (it does not mean that his actions were morally exempt, but that his actions were guided by the virtue of action itself when faced with unjust and oppressive circumstances). That definition or interpretation of Arjuna's role as the warrior who acts is free of ideological confines precisely because it does not serve any ideology primarily, but seeks to be manifested through action. Karma Yoga. Arjuna was no mere follower. In fact, he was the main actor. Action is thus always better than words, in the truest and best sense. krishna's words prevented Arjuna from wallowing in depression or co(a)g(o)nizing over something he had no real control over and brought him to play a part in shaping the consequences, by raising the status of action to a "dharma."Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09796292871255083360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17725419.post-25345902429421968492010-05-14T21:07:30.694+05:302010-05-14T21:07:30.694+05:30Unfortunately, a lot of today's problems are c...Unfortunately, a lot of today's problems are caused by interpreting old texts literally, or worse, misinterpreting them to squeeze out the message you want to hear. And ofcourse, people are not recognizing changes in contexts - they were written at a time when peace wasn't an important issue, when women's lib hadn't been thought of, when science hadn't advanced so much, when nation states didn't exist etc.<br />While reading the Gita, I would interpret 'fight the battle' as 'discharge your duty', where one has to figure out what one's duty is based on current ideas.<br />And in all this misinterpretation, the problem doesn't lie with the texts or with the religious teachings, fundamentalists are often fired up by more local and recent causes. <br />The final point I make is very hotly contested, and we can make peace even if our opinions differ here :)Sushmitahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07369846608987660644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17725419.post-37051445081346827492010-05-14T11:51:48.939+05:302010-05-14T11:51:48.939+05:30Thanks for the feedback, ppl!
@Anu: Yes, that is c...Thanks for the feedback, ppl!<br />@Anu: Yes, that is coming soon; I had hoped to have written it by now but sadly haven't had the time to write.<br />@Shanti: I like the single quotes around innocent, tho I didn't use that word anywhere if you'd noticed<br />@Sushmita: Gita is just as much a sophisticated text as peace is an "advanced" concept. And, I had stated upfront that my interpretation was very simplistic and that too of one sloka of the long poem. I don't read the text as an enticement for war but interpret that sloka as a justification for imminent violence.Ushahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14706092288384012069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17725419.post-46676988051519589492010-05-14T08:16:18.106+05:302010-05-14T08:16:18.106+05:30Two things-
1. 'Peace' is a very advanced ...Two things-<br />1. 'Peace' is a very advanced concept. If one's survival and sustenance is threatened, then there is no alternative but to fight. One can start talking about peace when groups reach agreements to not attack each other, when society collectively reaches the understanding that they stand to gain more by not fighting than by fighting. Peace can be ensured when people think about ensuring 'justice' for each other.<br />2. About the Bhagawat Gita, one can say that the authors hadn't realized the importance of peace. But that doesn't make the philosophy of the text irrelevant. It can be read in an allegorical way, and then it is a thoughtful discourse on how to approach one's duties, detachment etc.<br />And finally, I have a small complaint with the tone you take in the post. There is an assumption that the Gita is ready to falter as soon as you raise the smallest of questions. 'Say, Arjuna decided that his allegiance lay with peace ... What could Krishna have done then?' One shouldn't approach a text probing to find a crack. On the other hand, you should try and stretch your mind to understand and draw lessons out of it.<br />And ofcourse, it is very shallow when people read the Gita as an incitement to war.Sushmitahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07369846608987660644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17725419.post-39705388211671597822010-05-12T21:17:18.228+05:302010-05-12T21:17:18.228+05:30Hmmm... it's the Mahabharata again! The perpet...Hmmm... it's the Mahabharata again! The perpetrators of evil and the destroyers of those evil-doers are all part of the great epic. But yes, I'd definitely like to hear your views on Nirupama Pathak and other 'innocent' kids... BTW, I loved the way you simplified the entire philosophy behind the Gita :).memorieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01593321535464029539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17725419.post-81448897611730905912010-05-12T09:11:21.075+05:302010-05-12T09:11:21.075+05:30very interesting... never thought of things this w...very interesting... never thought of things this way..... but aren't u diverging from the topic u began with?????? would love to hear what brought on these thoughts!Anuradha Shankarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10460310200883662583noreply@blogger.com