Bhagavad-Gita or Budda-Gita?

I know this post will generate a lot of controversy. I hope the Hindu fundamentalists will not come after me.

I want to establish that the Bhagavad-Gita as we know today is not what Krishna taught Arjuna, and to try and provide some convincing arguments that it is in fact a Buddhist teaching.

*****

I was first introduced to the Gita some time in the early 90s. Right from the beginning I had some discomfort with Gita – it always seemed to me that there is some inconsistency in it. If I put myself in the shoes of Arjuna, the Gita does not answer Arjuna’s question.

At a very practical level, Arjuna’s question is quite simple. He was standing in the middle of the battle ground – he sees his friends, fathers, relatives, teachers lined up in the opposition, and it disturbs him greatly. He drops all his armor, and decides to exit. His contention is there is absolutely no justification for war – no matter how serious the injustice caused, no matter how important the need might be for a new social order – war is not a means to accomplish that end. This is the gist of the first chapter of the Gita (called Arjuna Vishada Yoga).

Now what does Krishna do? He starts of in a very metaphysical manner. His point is that you don’t kill anything. The birth and death are the natural cycles of the cosmos. Everything that is born must die at some time. The ‘Atman’ has no birth and no death, and the reality is that in every being we see, there is a hidden ‘Atman’ that is indestructible.

From there he goes on to establish the theory of Karma. The birth and death, and in between the cycle of life is in accordance with the law of Karma. We must all enjoy the fruits of our Karma, but we have no right to put any expectations about the returns and so on. Basically his point is that you have a right to do your duty, but no right to demand anything.

Does this really answer Arjuna’s question? Mind you - Arjuna was not an idiot – he was one of the most learned men of his time. And, he was a man of action. One cannot easily distract him, however dejected he might be. He was one of the very few in his time who learned ‘Brahmastram’. This meant that he knew the technique of ‘Brahman’ – in other words, he knew how to direct the divine energy for a specific purpose. He knew and understood the unity that pervades all of creation. This would mean that he knew and understood – and even practiced – the law of Karma, and the birth & death cycle of living beings.

Even such a man of real knowledge contends that war is not an acceptable means. So, what is point of repeating what he already knew as an answer?

Let’s assume for the time being that Arjuna is like any one of us. Suppose you are in a room full of mosquitoes, and they are having a real feast of your blood, and you are in tremendous discomfort. Suppose at that time, some great philosopher tells you that the mosquitoes cannot really bother your ‘Atman’ – which is your true self, what would you do? No matter how ‘gentle’ you are – I think that philosopher would be in some trouble.

This was the first inconsistency that troubled me about Gita. Alright – I have to clarify what I mean by inconsistency. The Gita is a great text of philosophy – I have no contention about that. The Gita can be split into two parts – the first chapter is part one, and the rest of the seventeen chapters form the part two. The first chapter is the question, and the rest of it is the answer to that question. The second part – is completely consistent in itself. But, the two parts are not consistent with each other. In simple terms, the answer provided does not satisfy the question that is put across.


There are other inconsistencies as well.

Krishna goes on to explain the virtues of non violence. This is a bit strange in the context of the great battle for which he was preparing Arjuna. And, then he goes on to explain different systems of ‘sadhana’ or ‘practice’ for self realization. He discusses about the benefits of vegetarianism, about ‘trigunas’ and so on.

What was the need for Self Realization in the context of a war?

Vegetarianism was not practiced in the Vedic times and what was its place in the story of Maha Bharata war?

The concept of ‘trigunas’ and the associated ‘value judgment’ is not a Vedic concept. We don’t find any such reference in any of the Upanishads. The Upanishads do not make value judgments. On the other hand, the Isopanishad goes to the extent that we should practice both – what ever those ‘both’ may be. There was never any concept of good and bad, divine and evil, spiritual and non-spiritual in the Vedic literature. The value judgment is an introduction of Buddhism.

One could argue that my ‘doubts’ indicate only my limited comprehension. I agree that I have very limited capacity. However, a prophetic text like Gita should make sense at any level of understanding? I mean, what ever might be my understanding of Arjuna’s question, the answer must also make sense in accordance with that understanding.

Anyway, this was what bothered about Gita for a long time. I found the answer recently, which was a greatly relieving experience.

Before, I provide all the evidence in support of my claim; first allow me to paint a simple scenario.

Let’s replace Arjuna with Emperor Asoka, and let’s shift the scene of the battle from Maha Bharata war to Kalinga War. Let’s also shift the time of preaching from ‘before war’ to ‘post war’.

Let’s for a moment imagine the state of Emperor Asoka after the great Kalinga War. Millions of people were killed. An entire culture was completely decimated. Many cities and towns were raged to ground. The emperor was standing in the middle of the battle ground – which was an immense graveyard. The pungent and revolting stench of blood was every where in the air. There were thousands of dead bodies lying around all over the battle ground. Vultures and other scavengers were fighting fiercely with each other, and enjoying their deadly feast. Women and children – who ever survived – were crying horribly searching for their dear ones.

At that moment, the emperor realizes what great price humanity had to pay in order to fulfill his ambitions. The realization of the gravity of his heinous act must have struck him like a lightening. His sorrow must have been immense. The only course of action that he contemplated was suicide.

If at that time, suppose he met a great spiritual teacher, and that teacher taught him the seventeen chapters of Gita to him – would that make sense? Would that teaching had the innate capability to establish a golden period of peace, prosperity and democracy? Would that teaching had the power to transform a power hungry dictator into one of the greatest statesman the history has ever known? And, would that remove the inconsistency between the first chapter of the Gita and the rest of it?

I think so.

*****

I am fully aware that I cannot put forward such a controversial theme about a sacred text and offer only a simple conjecture as proof. I shall defend my theory with scholastic evidence, and provide all the necessary references.

To be continued….