Erudite Gitacommentators throughout history have unpacked its wisdom-filled verses in
multiple ways. By examining the context, tone, word usage and similar details,
they reveal the many levels and layers of meanings in its verses.
Yet all such
reading between the lines follows a cardinal principle: the deeper meanings
supplement or complement or contextualize the text’s direct meaning – never
reject it. Rejection of the direct reading comprises violence to the text, for
the interpreter’s voice silences and supersedes the author’s voice.
Such
unscrupulous usurping of authorial authority is evident in the commentary of an
(in)famous modern commentator to the Gita verse (09.34). In the whole Gita,
this verse is one of the clearest calls for committed devotion to a Personal
Absolute Truth. It uses the first person pronoun mam and its variants five
times, thereby leaving no ambiguity about the object of devotion.
Yet this
commentator claims that the intended object is not Krishna, but some unborn
Absolute within him.
Does the
context justify such a depersonalized reading?
Not at all.
The text is preceded and succeeded by sections that emphasize the ultimacy of
the Personal Absolute Truth (09.24;10.08). Moreover, the verse’s call is
reiterated in the conclusion of the Gita (18.65), which uses again five first
person pronouns and 70% identical words.
When the text
features self-evident lucidity that is confirmed by its context, an indirect
reading that contradicts the direct reading comprises not reading between the
lines, but replacing the lines. This kind of reading is a product of the
interpreter’s brain, not the author’s brain. It won’t connect us better with
the author; instead, it can block the connection from being formed or, worse
still, even break an existing connection.
To go close
to the Gita, it’s best to keep such commentaries far away.
http://www.gitadaily.com
No comments:
Post a Comment