Idea of Benevolent Monarchy - Plato and Arjuna

While the idea of monarchy as a good form of government may seem ridiculous to many members of modern Western cultures, it is not as alien to Western thought as they may initially think.  Arjuna's position as head of a kingdom would not necessarily, or even probably, immediately negate all the positive aspects of his personality, and if he remained as wise and enlightened as he appears to be in the Gita, he might actually do more good for his kingdom (at least during his lifetime) as another form of government like democracy could.

Plato, in his writings on government, actually favored a sort of monarchy over democracy.  He thought that countries should be ruled by 'philosopher-kings' - wise, public-spirited rulers who led their lives by the dictate of reason alone.  Arjuna very nearly fits this picture, albeit in a slightly more religious manner.  As most consider Plato to be an incredibly significant figure in the history of Western thought, it might be worth giving the Gita's views on government a little consideration before dismissing them out of hand.

Focal Points of Religion

As we move on from our study of Hinduism to monotheistic religions like Christianity, I think it is interesting to reflect on the difference in structure between the two types of religion.  Hinduism, while incorporating many deities, is so abstract and idea-centric that it almost seems more like a philosophy than a religion per say.  In stark contrast to this, Christianity (and its close cousins, Islam and Judaism) is focused on a single god more than on any one code of morality.  Hinduism certainly includes elements of deity-centric thinking (as in the Bhagavad Gita's use of Sri Krishna to illustrate various principles - although one can not believe in the existence of Krishna and still very well be part of the religion), and Christianity includes elements of idea-centric thinking (the ten commandments, etc. - although these, too, are somewhat flexible depending upon which branch of Christianity one belongs to) but in general the focus appears to be quite different.  It will be interesting to compare and contrast the two different types of religion.

Response: Over-saturation of Religion

In response to Lauren Feeney's post "Take a Chance and See" (February 8, 2012):
I listened to the song, and did appreciate the instrumentation.  It sounds rather like traditional Celtic music, which is a style I very much enjoy.  The female singer also had a nice voice, and I didn't mind the male singer too much either.

However, I cannot say that I agreed with the lyrics, nor can I see how someone who was not religious could do so easily; the reason for this is that the lyrics were basically completely about Christ.  In fact, I have found this to be the case with most religious music, and that makes it somewhat difficult for me to identify with the music.

This over-saturation of religion is not confined to music; I have noticed it in many other areas as well, such as art, storytelling, and perhaps most annoyingly charitable organizations.  While I appreciate the efforts of these last, and do not personally find the idea of religion (well, most religion; the WBC is an exception) objectionable, it disturbs me that any money I donate to these organizations may not end up helping whatever cause they work for - I could be funding a new church, or even something I do object to, like anti-gay marriage demonstrations.  Religion is not, I believe, a bad thing at all, but it would be nice if it were a little less interwoven with basically everything else.

Response: Westernization of Ideas

In response to Ryan Walters' post "Meditation" (February 6, 2012):
I think this may be a case less of the concept of meditation changing over time, and more one of the concept becoming muddled through the process of Westernization.  While many Eastern civilizations practiced (and practice) meditation, few if any ancient Western societies did the same.  Meditation mainly appeared much later in the west, as an imported idea from Eastern societies such as India and China.  I am not entirely sure what the modern conception of meditation is in more Eastern countries, but I'd guess that it is at least closer to the concept expressed in the Gita than is the currently common Western conception.

Response: Contradictions?

In response to Peter Mitchell's post "Textual Bias" (February 4, 2012):
I don't really see any contradictions here, actually.  The idea of there being different paths that one can take to achieve Moksha is, I think, not exactly what the Bhagavad Gita seems to be saying.  Instead, I think that it advises doing whatever it is you feel is best (which may include several different paths, not just one), and then eventually realising the futility of that pursuit (again, it could be any of the three suggested) and working towards elimination of the ego.

It is true that Sri Krishna appears to advise less strongly against selfless service than the other two paths, but I think that may be because he sees that Arjuna already has little to no interest in pleasure or worldly success.  Thus, he sees that the path Arjuna must follow is the one which leads through selfless service.  Arjuna will have to try serving others until he realises that doing so is not the ultimate goal for him, and then he can move on to achieve Moksha.

I could be totally wrong about this, so if anyone has better ideas about this possible contradiction please feel free to say so.