Binod Kumar Agarwala

THE METAPHYSICAL PRINCIPLE IN THE BHAGAVADGĪTĀ 2.27

Introduction

The metaphysical principle in the bhagavadgĪtĀ 2.27. Uncover the core metaphysical principle in Bhagavadgītā 2.27, debunking traditional and modern misinterpretations. This analysis links it to yajña karma and collective institutional action.

Abstract

A metaphysical principle is stated in Bhagavadgītā 2.27, which deals with the relationship between the first and the last of the six vikāras (modes) of bhāva (being). But, none of the traditional commentators of the Bhagavadgītā could grasp the exact meaning and significance of this metaphysical principle. These commentators turned the metaphysical principle erroneously into a theory of cycle of birth and death in the saṃsāra governed by law of karma. The traditional commentators are not actually faithful to the nuances of the terms and syntax of the verses due to their prior doctrinal commitments, which prevent them from seeing the meaning present in them. The modern commentators like Angelika Malinar see Bhagavadgītā 2.27 as part of a Kṛṣṇa’s speech of consolation for grieving Arjuna. This reading is also problematic. If Kṛṣṇa’s speech in Bhagavadgītā 2.11-30 is a speech of consolation then given the kind of metaphysical statements are included in the speech, it would also automatically become a speech for justification of killing and war. It will be argued in the present essay that the metaphysical principle stated in Bhagavadgītā 2.27 is necessary for explaining the idea of yajña karma, which is collective institutional action.

Review

The proposed paper, "THE METAPHYSICAL PRINCIPLE IN THE BHAGAVADGĪTĀ 2.27," presents an intriguing and potentially significant re-evaluation of a pivotal verse in the Bhagavadgītā. The author identifies a core metaphysical principle within BG 2.27, claimed to address the relationship between the first and last *vikāras* of *bhāva*. Crucially, the abstract asserts that both traditional and modern scholarly interpretations have fundamentally misunderstood this principle. It challenges the prevalent reading of the verse as a theory of *saṃsāra* and *karma* or as mere consolation, positing instead that the verse's true import lies in its necessity for explaining *yajña karma* as collective institutional action. A primary strength of this work lies in its ambitious and critical stance towards established exegeses of the Bhagavadgītā. The author's critique of traditional commentators for their "prior doctrinal commitments" and lack of fidelity to textual "nuances," as well as the problematization of modern interpretations that might inadvertently justify violence, suggests a rigorous and independent engagement with the source text. This approach promises a fresh perspective, moving beyond well-trodden paths to uncover what the author believes is a more accurate and textually grounded understanding of BG 2.27. The commitment to a close reading of terms and syntax, challenging centuries of commentary, indicates a potentially valuable contribution to Indic studies. To fully realize its potential, the complete essay would need to meticulously elaborate on its central claims. It will be crucial to see how the author's proposed interpretation of the metaphysical principle, as distinct from *saṃsāra* or consolation, directly and demonstrably leads to an explanation of *yajña karma* as collective institutional action. Furthermore, the paper should clearly articulate how its reading avoids the pitfalls of "prior doctrinal commitments" that it attributes to others, providing a robust, text-based argument for its own innovative conclusion. If successful, this re-interpretation could not only reshape understanding of BG 2.27 but also offer new insights into the philosophical underpinnings of action and ethics within the Bhagavadgītā as a whole.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.