This is an essay I wrote for a seminar, “Christ in Light of Hindu Theology” at the Graduate Theological Union in 1997. Professor Francis X. Clooney, S.J., who later became my doctoral supervisor, led the seminar. This is an exploratory essay, preliminary thoughts on a theme that could be developed further.
While reflecting on some of Bede Griffiths’ observations about the Bhagavad-gita in his Christian commentary River of Compassion I was somewhat dissatisfied with his perhaps too simple contrast of the Gita with the Judeo-Christian perspective in regard to time and historicity. As he writes, whereas cosmic religion (i.e. Indian religion) is cyclic in its view of time, “the religion of Israel concerns God’s revelation not in the cosmos but in history, and this is constantly emphasized in contemporary Biblical studies.”[1] With ideas culled from Marcus Borg’s bookMeeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus and the Heart of Contemporary Faith I am tempted to explore a possible softening of this distinction, especially in light of what Borg calls “macro-stories” of the Bible, in the interest of bringing the two traditions closer together for mutual benefit.[2]
In the context of current discussion on narrative theology, Borg identifies three basic narratives which define the Judeo-Christian faith experience — the Exodus Story, the Story of Exile and Return, and the Priestly Story. In summarizing each of these, he is prompted by an observation of William James in the last chapter of his book The Varieties of Religious Experience that all religious traditions make essentially two claims about the human condition. The first claim involves a description of the human predicament, a recognition that “something is wrong with our lives.”[3] The second claim is to offer a solution to the problem. Borg sees the Exodus, Exile, and Priestly stories, (stories of bondage-to-liberation, exile-return, and sin-guilt-forgiveness respectively,) as “constituting a pastoral ‘tool kit,’ each addressing a different dimension of the human condition.”[4] Thus I would suggest that if (using the language of “cosmic religion” versus “historical religion”) we find it valuable to acknowledge a “cosmic” (i.e. non-linear or “holistic”) dimension to human existence,[5] additional stories out of such cosmic religion could be added to this “pastoral tool kit,” from outside the Biblical tradition, not least of which would be the narrative of the Bhagavad-gita, situated within the greater narrative of the Indian epic, the Mahabharata. As narrative, both the Mahabharata and theGita within it have their beginning, middle, and end — their own linearity, or direction — and therefore “history” — which, persisting in human culture as profound literature, comprehend in linear (story) fashion significant features of the human drama.
I would characterize the Gita, as a narrative, as a story of “confusion-to-determination,” which, by its dialogical structure, urges us to focus on discipleshipas its forward moving principle. Looking at how Arjuna comprehends discipleship in the Gita in turn suggests that we consider the narrative(s) of Jesus in the context of discipleship. As much as these two pictures of discipleship contrast with each other, perhaps they also complement each other in some way for our own personal understanding and practice of discipleship. (If we are putting together pastoral tool-kits, certainly they should be of use in discipleship-construction and -maintenance!) In this context, by viewing these narratives in proximity to each other, the different dimensions of our own human condition might take on greater depth, allowing us to more deeply fathom the grace of the Lord who reveals himself in a variety of responses to humanity’s predicaments.
Whereas the human problem is expressed in Biblical narrative as bondage, exile, and sin/guilt, Bhagavad-gita opens with the problem of confusion. Arjuna, suffering what today we might call a nervous breakdown, has enough presence of mind to seek understanding and clarification from his charioteer and guide, Lord Krishna about his proper duty as a warrior and human being. Faced with the prospect of killing his relatives on the battlefield, Arjuna is emotionally distraught, but he is not bereft of reasoning power; thus it is clear to him that nothing short of a spiritual transformation will resolve his dilemma. His sensitivity to moral issues and preparedness for such a transformation become his qualifications for discipleship to Krishna.
To instill transcendental understanding upon his disciple, Krishna sustains a didactic time-out before the ensuing great battle of the Kuruksetra war. In the course of instruction we, the readers or hearers, are urged to take up the weapons of transcendental knowledge in our own great battles against illusion. Thus Krishna shows the way for us to become, as R.C. Zaehner writes, “athletes of the spirit” as we practice the disciplines of karma-yoga, jnana-yoga, and dhyana-yoga with increasing bhakti, or devotion, gaining reinstatement in our positions of eternal discipleship or servitorship to the Lord in full submission to his will.
Looking at Jesus as teacher, Borg stresses his challenging spirit — challenging with alternative wisdom the conventional wisdom of his countrymen, his disciples, and ourselves as that which prevents us from attaining the goal of life. Conventional wisdom is the wisdom of maintaining the status quo in family, wealth, honor, purity and religiosity.[6] As Jesus sometimes urged rejection of family in favor of recognizing one’s true Father, so Krishna calls on Arjuna to fight his family members in battle, trusting that their “deaths” will be but changes of the “clothing” of their bodies. Arjuna’s conventional morality privileges family maintenance by domestic religiosity, or artificial renunciation of duties in the face of moral dilemma. As a well educated warrior and as a pious soul, Arjuna’s concern to act correctly is paramount. Krishna undermines his notions of right and wrong as he induces Arjuna to acknowledge a higher, more complete conception of morality which comprehends the purposes of God, which include a transformation of the self. Arjuna’s predicament, if considered a moral one, could be seen as his attempt to find moral integrity beyond the first of three dimensions of morality as outlined by C.S. Lewis in his lectures Mere Christianity:[7] Arjuna’s failure to find harmony between individuals (the first dimension, according to Lewis), prompts him to seek morality in the second, that of “harmonizing the things in each individual.” But the seriousness of his inquiry allows him to learn of the third dimension of morality, that of the “general purpose of human life as a whole.” Krishna, as the supreme guru, subverts Arjuna’s superficial morality with a deeper morality which comprehends the “general purpose of human life as a whole,” namely surrender to and devotion for the Lord, who is the higher Self of every individual self.
Similarly, as part of the “priestly story,” but also as a subversion of that story, Jesus repeatedly challenges conventional wisdom and morality to point to ultimate purpose, instatement in the kingdom of God. As Borg points out, in the course of his ministry Jesus challenges the Jewish conception of holiness and purity with his own message of compassion. “It is in the conflict between these twoimitatio deis – between holiness and compassion as qualities of God to be embodied in community — that we see the central conflict [that which makes the “plot” of the story move forward] in the ministry of Jesus: between two different social visions. The dominant social vision was centered in holiness; the alternative social vision of Jesus was centered in compassion.”[8] Jesus’ alternative did not, of course, entail a rejection of holiness, but rather the revelation of a higher conception of holiness. Similarly dharma is not rejected by Krishna; rather he reveals its essence to Arjuna by elaborating the process of gaining divine intuition or communion with God, which is the essential element of holiness.
To move from confusion and ignorance to knowledge and determination, Arjuna must undergo schooling. Unlike Jesus, who calls his disciples to him to take up his mission, Krishna is requested by Arjuna to accept him as Krishna’s disciple.[9]Initially Krishna mildly reproves Arjuna for speaking “wisdom-words” while ignoring the spiritual constitution of the soul, the most elementary spiritual lesson. But Arjuna is an attentive student, asking intelligent questions and readily revealing his doubts. As a well-trained warrior, he is accustomed to discipline and able to absorb his teacher’s precepts. He is pious, “not born of the demonic nature,” and from the beginning he is bound in friendship to Krishna. When overwhelmed by the vision of Krishna’s universal form (in the eleventh chapter), Arjuna is appropriately humbled, begging Krishna to resume his four- and then two-armed form, a request Krishna immediately obliges. The bonds of reciprocation between guru and disciple are strong, such that Krishna can confidently unfold the force of his argument: One should mold his or her life in such a way as to be fully attentive to the will of God. “Bear Me in mind, love Me and worship Me, sacrifice, prostrate yourself to Me: so will you come to Me, I promise you truly, for you are dear to Me.”(Bg. 18.65).
The contrasts between Krishna’s relationship with Arjuna to Jesus’ relationship with his original twelve disciples is striking. Jesus’ disciples are, from a mundane perspective, uncultured or even socially outcast persons. They do not always comprehend Jesus’ instructions[10] and sometimes they neglect his instructions. One of the disciples betrays Jesus to his executioners, and even after he has risen from the dead, when the disciples worship him they are, in some sense, doubtful.[11]And yet, Jesus accepts them as his disciples despite all their faults, and even commissions them as his apostles. For Jesus, compassion is the power that overrides all error and all shortcomings: our very existence is one of shortcoming, which only becomes complete, redeemed, by acceptance of discipleship to him as he who is sent by God.
Does this third “meta-story” of the Bible — sin-guilt-redemption — have any place in the Gita narrative? Bede Griffiths seems to see this as the central culminating story of the Bible, noting the increasing historicity of the Biblical story, leading from early times shrouded in myth and legend to the descent of Jesus, which marks a finality, pointing to the end times to come.
I am suggesting that this might be an artificial distinction borne from the predominant Christian notion of the centrality of the “priestly story.” Marcus Borg, perhaps in contrast to Griffiths, notes several problems with placing this “priestly story” in a favored position over the two previously mentioned stories,[12] the last one being simply that “some people do not feel much guilt… Guilt is not the central issue in their lives. Yet they may have strong feelings of bondage, or strong feelings of alienation and estrangement. For these people, the priestly story has nothing to say.”[13]
Arjuna, who is addressed by Krishna as “sinless one” (anagha, Bg. 3.3), might be counted amongst those who do not feel guilt, yet have strong feelings — in this case feelings of confusion and doubt about the best course of action. In the Gita, our original problem is identified as lust, which is described as a covering over the true knowledge of the soul (Bg. 3.37-39). From this perspective, sin results from lust, which enshrouds the soul in ignorance.[14] Ignorance is the tendency toignore the divine council which is the “alternative wisdom” constantly afforded the enlightened soul by the Lord’s presence in the heart, but also available to the sincere soul willing to accept such council through discipleship. Thus in the Gita redemption becomes reinstatement in a condition of responsibility (response-ability) — the ability to act decisively and respond appropriately to God’s actions in harmony with his will. At the conclusion of the Gita, Arjuna says, “Destroyed is the confusion; and through your grace I have regained a proper way of thinking: with doubts dispelled I stand ready to do your bidding”(Bg. 18.73, Zaehner trans.).
What, then, can be said of compassion in the Gita? Indeed, in the Gita, compassion is compared to a shining lamp — a lamp which has a “destructive” function: “Out of compassion for them, I, dwelling in their hearts, destroy with the shining lamp of knowledge the darkness born of ignorance”(Bg. 10.11);[15] thus by means of spiritual knowledge the Lord calls us to become mature “athletes of the spirit,” to follow Arjuna’s example of discipleship to act firmly and decisively out of selfless devotion to God. As an athlete practices to become qualified in physical feats, so we may become qualified in submission to God, a condition free from doubt and confusion.
Marcus Borg notes that four common elements in the three macro-stories of the Bible emerge when seen as equally important. The last of these is that they are all describing journeys. Even the priestly story, seen as a journey, “means that God accepts us just as we are, wherever we are on our journey.”[16] Or, looked at in another way, Borg suggests, Jesus’ offering his life is the once for all sacrifice which subverts the priestly story and affirms the journey stories. “In addition,” he writes, “the New Testament has a journey story of its own — the story of discipleship.” This he describes as a “journeying with Jesus” which means “listening to his teaching — sometimes understanding it, sometimes not quite getting it. It can involve denying him, even betraying him.”[17] Borg offers us the image of Jesus feeding the five thousand in the wilderness: “If we think of the Eucharist as like those meals in the wilderness, it becomes a powerful symbol of journeying with Jesus and being fed by him on that journey. ‘Take, eat, lest the journey be too great for you.’”
Arjuna’s discipleship can also be seen as a journey. Mam evaisyasi satyam:“Truly you will come to me”(Bg. 18.65). Krishna promises Arjuna that he will come to him; several references to being on or keeping on the path are there, and the devotee is repeatedly urged to gain spiritual vision, by which one can see one’s way forward. There is a sense of progression, advancement in devotion — a forward motion which definitely suggests a journey, in which Krishna’s instructions are like guideposts on the way. Arjuna was guided to make a momentous decision, namely to go ahead and perform his duty as a warrior and fight in the battle of Kuruksetra, but in transformed consciousness of purpose. Jesus similarly calls his disciples to follow him and bear witness to the redemption of the world. Thus the followers of Jesus may find insight in the Bhagavad-gita, in the example of Arjuna, how to become and remain determined as Jesus’ disciples, and the followers of Krishna may learn from Jesus’ example that, recognizing one’s own shortcomings, one can be assured of the Lord’s compassionate protection in one’s journey toward becoming a fully dedicated servant of the servants of the Lord. “Cosmic religion” and “historical religion” may not be so far apart if we look at them both in terms of their respective stories of discipleship.
[1] Bede Griffiths, River of Compassion: A Christian Commentary on the Bhagavad-gita, (New York: Continuum, 1995), 68.
[2] I should acknowledge that a fair amount of comparative work has already been done on the Gita and Christian theology, including attempts to integrate the two, both by persons with Christian backgrounds and persons with Hindu backgrounds, with varying conclusions. Here I offer but a few observations from a position which might be said to be culturally somewhere between the two traditions.
[3] Marcus J. Borg, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus & The Heart of Contemporary Faith, (San Francisco: Harper, 1994), 122.
[4] Ibid., 122.
[5] I don’t know to what extent this is possible for a Christian, but I would think at least certain wisdom literature within the Bible could accommodate it; especially I am thinking of passages in Ecclesiastes.
[6] Borg, 81.
[7] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, (New York: Collier Books, 1984), 57.
[8] Borg., 49.
[9] An 18th century Gaudiya Vaisnava commentator to the Gita, Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, inserts additional lines to the dialogue, such that Krishna is portrayed as initially refusing the position of guru. Paraphrasing, he says “Arjuna, you don’t need a guru; you just need to fight!” To which Arjuna replies with text 8 of Ch. 2: “Even were I to win sovereignty over the gods themselves, my grief would not be dispelled.”
[10] All these shortcomings of the disciples are especially emphasized in the Gospel of Mark, as pointed out by John H. Hayes in his book Introduction to the Bible,(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971), 339.
[11] The conventional translation “and some doubted” has been challenged convincingly by Keith H. Reeves in his paper They Worshipped Him, And They Doubted: Matthew 28:17, delivered at the SBL Regional Meeting, GTU, March 24, 1997. Whether the disciples were doubtful of Jesus’ divinity, or whether they were actually seeing him, or of their own qualifications as his disciples, we are not told my the author of Matthew.
[12] Borg, 130-131. He lists six “distortions” in the understanding of Christian life: 1) The priestly story leads to a static understanding of the Christian life, “making it into a repeated cycle of sin, guilt, and forgiveness;” 2) it “creates a quite passive understanding of the Christian life,” stressing the idea that “God has already done what needs to be done,” as well as a passivity toward culture, as a “politically domesticating story. The stories of bondage in Egypt and exile in Babylon are culturally subversive stories;” 3) it makes Christianity primarily a religion of the afterlife; 4) it “images God primarily as lawgiver and judge. God’s requirements must be met, and because we cannot meet them, God graciously provides the sacrifice that meets those requirements. Yet the sacrifice generates a new requirement: God will forgive those who believe that Jesus was the sacrifice, and will not forgive those who do not believe… The priestly story most often turns the subversive wisdom of Jesus into Christian conventional wisdon;” 5) the story is hard to believe. “The notion that God’s only son came to this planet to offer his life as a sacrifice . . . is simply incredible. Taken metaphorically, this story can be very powerful, but taken literally, it is a profound obstacle to accepting the Christian message…” His sixth point I explain above.
[13] Ibid., 131.
[14] Ninian Smart, prof. of Religious Studies at UC Santa Barbara, is fond of refering to this as the “doctrine of original ignorance.”
[15] Translation: A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, Bhagavad-gita As It Is, (Los Angeles: BBT, 1985); Zaehner translates “destroy” as “dispel.”
[16]Borg, 133.
[17]Ibid., 135.