The provocative way to read the Bhagavad Gita
This interpretation of the Gita, then, is the first step towards liberation. And when you combine this with the different paths of discipline, you can break through the illusion or maya.
One of the best translations of the Bhagavad Gita (Gita) is by Barbara Stoler Miller. Her translation captivates the mind with its poetic clarity and evokes a sense of wonder (scroll to the bottom for seven wisdoms from the Gita).
The Gita, written around 500 BC, is revered as one of the most influential texts in history and one of the most sacred Hindu scriptures.
It’s a 700-verse dialogue between Prince Arjuna and Krishna discussing the purpose of war, right action (karma), devotion (bhakti), the role of knowledge (jnana), duty (dharma), discipline (yoga), illusion (maya), Ultimate Reality (Brahman), and enlightenment (moksa).
The four ways to read Gita
There are at least four ways to read the Gita: literally, tropologically, typologically/allegorical, and anagogically.1
Read literally, it’s Prince Arjuna seeking advice from his charioteer Krishna on war and coming to terms with killing his fellow man.
Tropologically, it’s about how to live a life dedicated to the discipline of action (karmayoga), the discipline of knowledge (jnanayoga), and the discipline of devotion (bhaktiyoga).
These two ways of interpretation are fairly obvious and hold tremendous value. They are much more exoteric than esoteric. In the episode I did on the Gita, I mainly focused on a tropological reading because that’s foundational to apprehending the depths of the Gita and crucial in attaining the transcendental truth.
The provocative way
The next two readings, typological and anagogical, are more esoteric and more mystical. But I’m only going to mention typological here.
Typologically or allegorically, YOU are Prince Arjuna seeking to understand the different paths to enlightenment and ultimate liberation (moksha). But… YOU are also Krishna revealing the knowledge to Arjuna.
Now you might wonder how that makes any sense. Isn’t Krishna an avatar of God? And wouldn’t that mean you’re God because, in chapter 11, Krishna reveals himself as Vishnu, the Ultimate Reality or Brahman? Yes, that’s what I’m saying. Reading the Gita in this way suggests that you are God.
But what reasons are there to read it typologically? There’s one main reason. Within Hinduism, Atman == Brahman, and Brahman == Atman.2
Brahman means That Which Is, Existence Itself, or Ultimate Reality. Put simply, God.3 And Atman means the Self or You. So if Atman == Brahman, then it makes sense you should read it typologically, and understand you’re both Arjuna and Krishna.
This interpretation of the Gita then becomes the first step towards liberation. And when you combine this with the different paths of discipline, you can break through the illusion or may.
What is the illusion? The illusion is to think that you aren’t Brahman (see footnote 2 and 4).
Of course, for some people, this is heretical. Something so controversial that if we were in the Middle Ages, they’d recommend death by burning for suggesting something like this. For others, it’s thought-provoking. Something they’ve never considered. And for a small few, they’re laughing because they know this is the only path to liberation.4
I recommend getting a copy of the Gita and reading the text for yourself. Do check out the episode as well.
Wisdom from the Gita
“Without discipline, he has no understanding or inner power; without inner power, he has no peace; and without peace where is joy?”
“Relinquishing the fruit of action, the disciplined man attains perfect peace; the undisciplined man is in bondage, attached to the fruit of his desires.”
“Armed with discipline, he purifies and subdues the self, masters his senses, unites himself with the self of all creatures; even when he acts, he is not defiled.”
“Discipling himself, his mind controlled, a man of discipline finds peace, the pure calm that exists in me. Gluttons have no discipline, nor the man who starves himself, nor he who sleeps excessively or suffers wakefulness. When a man disciplines his diet and diversions, his physical actions, his sleeping and waking, discipline destroys sorrow.”
“When suffering does not disturb his mind, when his craving for pleasures has vanished, when attraction, fear and anger are gone, he is called a sage whose thought is sure.”
“Impartial to joy and suffering, gain and loss, victory and defeat, arm yourself for the battle, lest you fall into evil.”
“When he gives up desires in his mind, is content with the self within himself, then he is said to be man whose insight is sure, Arjuna.”
Till next week,
Peace!
You'll know these four terms if you’ve studied early Christian theology. I’m borrowing them here because they’re familiar to me and aided in the interpretation of the Gita. (Broadly speaking, these different ways of reading Christian scripture fell out of fashion after the rise of the Historical-Critical Method—a terrible mistake in my opinion. Similarly, in Hinduism, the rise of fundamentalism is partly due to reading these sacred texts only in the exoteric literal way. Because if the typological and anagogical interpretations or their equivalents were employed, people would soon realize that fundamentalism is flawed.)
Brahman is understood in two ways. First is “Nirguna Brahman”. Here, it means beyond comprehension, beyond description, and far beyond language. Nothing positive can be said about Brahman. The only thing you can truly say is “That”. Here you’ll notice similarities to the apophatic tradition in Christianity. The way second way is “Saguna Brahman”. Saguna means “with quality”. So what you can say about Brahman is “saccidanada”. Namely that Brahman is Being or That Which Is, Consciousness, and Bliss. This sounds eerily like Thomas Aquinas’s understanding of God as Existence Itself.
It’s important to note that this understanding of God is vastly different in every respect from most modern Western philosophers’ and theologians’ understanding of God. Modern philosophers (like Alvin Plantinga, David Hume, Richard Swinburne, J.L. Mackie, Gottfried Leibniz, William Rowe, Paul Draper… the list is long) tend to conceive God in an anthropomorphised form. God is like a man except God is infinitely wise, powerful, has necessary existence, and has foreknowledge. So when atheist philosophers demonstrate that God doesn’t exist or criticize arguments for God, they’re correct in showing that this anthropomorphized concept of God doesn’t exist.
The well-known phrase in Hindu theology “Tat Tvam Asi” drives home the point that YOU are Brahman, but you’ve forgotten this truth. Hence these different paths towards liberation are what help you break from this illusion. “Tat Tvam Asi” means “That you are or you are That”. And as I mentioned in footnote 2 “That” is Nirguna Brahman. So YOU are That.