THE MEANING OF PEACE IN THE BHAGAVAD GITA AND THE NEW TESTAMENT

Robert Luyster, Professor, Department of Philosophy and Director, Council on Peace Education, U of Connecticut

What are arguably the two most
crucial religious documents in the
development of Asian and European
cultures —the Bhagavad Gita and the
New Testament — were each created
some two thousand years ago. Both
suggest that they are the teachings of
a divine Lord embodied in the midst
of human affairs. Indeed, both
locate the Lord in the very epicenter
of impending war, conflict and crisis.
In both he proposes to offer inspired
guidance to all human beings
embroiled in the same predicament,
pointing out the route to eternal
peace and fulfillment. Remarkable
similarities for what one may not
unreasonably regard as the principal
scriptural foundations of their
respective traditions.
Yet, notwithstanding, on a matter so
fundamental to the human condition,
where one might expect still further
agreement between the two teachings,
in many respects the two visions of the
nature of human peace and its
attainment could not be more basically
dissimilar.
In the synoptic gospels of the New
Testament, while the coming of the
Kingdom of God is described with
great urgency by Jesus, its actual
character is less clear. The ending of
this age will be marked by endless
warfare among nations and groups, all
of which will be quelled by God s reign
upon earth. Among Jesus
requirements for membership in this
Kingdom, therefore, is the demand that
his followers be at peace (eirene) with
one another (Mark 9.50). Similarly,
blessed are the peacemakers, for they
shall be called sons of God, he remarks
in the Beatitudes (Matt. 5.9). Your
reward is great in heaven (Matt. 5.12),
he promises them. Apparently only
those who can live peacefully with each
other, that is, are suitable candidates for
a kingdom in which conflict no longer
prevails.
These indications are slight,
however, for it is not in the teachings of
Jesus but the teachings about him by
Paul that a true Christian theology of
peace will arise. Whereas Jesus had
focused on the implications of
historical conflict and the imminent
ending of history for mankind, Paul s
vision, by contrast, is both
psychological and cosmic in scope.
The war that concerns Paul is that
within man, between his spirit and his
flesh. Sin dwells in the flesh and
thereby enslaves the spirit. The result,
according to Paul, is death: if you live
according to the flesh you will die, but
if by the Spirit you put to death the
deeds of the body you will live
(Romans 8.13). In his mercy, however,
God has sent his Son identifled by
Paul as Jesus who through his
obedience to God s righteous will has
overcome the power of both sin and
death. For all those who have faith in
Jesus, therefore, his miraculous
resurrection will be repeated: they will
all be raised from the dead as he was.
Therefore, since we are justified by
faith, we have peace with God through
our Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 5.1).
The reconciliation with God
established by Christ s resurrection
achieves not only the psychological
unification of human nature but the
overcoming of estrangement even at
the cosmic level: For in him all the
fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
through him to reconcile to himself all
things, whether on earth or in heaven,
making peace by the blood of his cross
(Col. 1.19-20). As a consequence even
Jew and Gentile have been joined in
one body (the church): For he is our
peace, who has made us both one, and
has broken down the dividing wall of
hostility . . . that he might create in
himself one new man in place of the
two, so making peace. . . . And he
came and preached peace to you who
were far off and peace to those who
were near (Eph. 2.14-17).
This insistence upon the necessity
of Christ s sacrificial death and
resurrection for the achievement of
human peace is found throughout the
New Testament. Thus in the
anonymous Letter to the Hebrews we
find the same conceptual connection:
Now may the God of peace who
brought again from the dead our Lord
Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep,
by the blood of the eternal covenant
(Heb. 13.20). Similarly, in the account
by John of Jesus miraculous
resurrection appearance to the disciples
his first words to them Peace be with
you (John 20.19) — imply and
presuppose the whole Pauline
perspective on the significance of that
event.
Composed at about the same time
the Hindu Teaching of the Blessed
Lord (Krishna), the Bhagavad Gita,
presents both strong affinities and
contrasts to the New Testament in its
notion of peace. Both ground their
interpretation of peace upon the union
of the worshipper with God, though
both exhibit a rather different
understanding of God and the nature of
that identification. As we have seen, in
Christianity God is conceived as an
active participant in the historical
process: he is interpreted as having
incarnated himself in mortal flesh in the
person of Jesus of Nazareth, offered
himself as sacrifice in that form in
order to make expiation for the
collective sinfulness of mankind. His
resurrection demonstrates, it is held,
that by this action the swiay of sin, and
its inevitable result, death, have been
broken. The dividedness of man
himself, his relationships and that of
creatures everywhere with each other is
thus abolished and in consequence
peace is once again a human
possibility.
In a somewhat analogous way,
Krishna in the Gita is also held to be an
human embodiment (avatar) of the
supreme being, who intervenes in our
history when unrighteousness appears
to be gaining the upper hand. But,
given this, differences immediately
suggest themselves between the two
doctrines of divine epiphany, for
Krishna s actions in his own person do
not systematically effect the
overcoming of man s conflict-ridden
state and the consequent inevitability of
universal peace. Krishna s action is in
itself inconsequential except insofar as
it offers a divinely inspired paradigm
for our own, with special emphasis
upon one s inward relation to one s
action. The achievement of peace is
the immediate result of a private
spiritual orientation within each
individual.
In one respect this might appear to
resemble Paul s notion of the individual
decision whether or not to place his
faith in Jesus as Christ, but the Gita s

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND PEACE, 1999 39

teaching is quite different. Here there
is no serious question about Krishna s
status as Lord. The problem instead is
whether the individual will choose to
emulate the spiritual model of a Lord
who not only acts in the world, but
does so unlike Jesus ~ in a state of
absolute disinterest in the results or
fruits of his action. Krishna does
intervene in human history, but only to
offer us a supremeexample of human
action that is unconditionally detached
from itsobjects, aims and effects. For it
is in this very detachment from all
worldly concerns and ties that the
inner, very personal peace offered
bythe Gita will consist.
The saving action of Jesus is the
sole action required for the Christian
freedom from thralldom to sin and
death. We need only accept inwardly
the cosmic effects of that indispensable
fulcrum of man s redemption-history
(heilsgeschichte). But freedom
(moksa) in the Gita consists rather in
fi-eedom from history itself, from life in
the worlditself or at least attachment
to that life in a meaningful way - under
any circumstances. It s consequence is
hardly physical resurrection, but on the
contrary the guarantee of freedom from
a physical resurrection that occurs not
merely once but repeatedly (samsara).
Again, the freedom of the follower
of the Lord Krishna is obtained in the
first place by worldly activity, but only
a certain, highly qualifled and speciflc
kind, for though he is active he is
always inwardly apart from his action:
These actions do not bind me, since I
remain detached in all my actions,
Arjuna, as if I stood apart from them
(9.9). Nevertheless, however inwardly
apart he may be, Krishna does not
renounce it in order to retreat to the
forest or a hermitage; he remains in his
social station, performs his prescribed
duty and advises us to imitate him.
Always perform with detachment
(asaktah=a-saktah: non-attachment )
any action you must do; performing
action with detachment, one always
achieves the Supreme (3.19). This
detachment is the absolute precondition
for what the Gita understands as peace
(santi): Rejecting the fruits of action . .
. brings peace (12.12).
Yet such detachment, in turn, is
only obtained through systematicand
unrelenting spiritual discipline (yoga).
Relinquishing the fruitof action, the
40 IHE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND PEACE, 1999
disciplined man attains peace; the
undisciplined man is in bondage,
attached to the fruit of his desire
(5.12). Or, again: Without discipline,
there is no peace (2.66). This
discipline, while its form may vary
considerably as knowledge, action or
devotion to Krishna, nevertheless
depends essentially upon a strict
control of the mind (manas): Only he
who disciplines himself by controlling
his mind obtains the peace of the
highest nirvana that abides in me
(2.15), Krishna teaches.
Still, the violent desires of the
senses are constantly attacking the
mind (2.60), as wind seeks to
overwhelm a boat on the water (2.67).
These desires have the effect of
confusing the mind; nevertheless, one
must subdue them: A faithful man
achieves knowledge by restraining his
senses; and by gaining knowledge, he
soon flnds perfect peace (4.39). It is,
thus, desire (kama) which is the
ultimate obstacle to peace and our
greatest enemy on earth (3.37-41). It is
desire which pervades and infects the
senses; desire which is, finally, the
principal threat to the achievement of
peace. Only he who conquers desire,
then, can know true peace. Even as
waters fill the sea, yet its depths are
unmoved, so too with the man
unaffected when desires enter; such a
man alone wins peace, not the desirer
of desires (2.70).
Desire, however, is by no means
only sensual, for we may desire many
worldly rewards beyond physical
pleasure. The result of unremitting
spiritual discipline, however, is an
unshakable sameness (sama) in the face
of all worldly fortunes: wise men are
the same in pleasure and in pain, proflt
and loss, victory and defeat (2.15, 38;
4.22). Indeed, discipline and sameness
are inseparable: In success and failure,
be the same; spiritual discipline [yoga]
means sameness and indifference
(2.48). This sameness applies not only
to internal dispositions,however, but to
the external world as well. Wise men
see sameness in a. . . priest, a cow, an
elephant, a dog or an outcaste (5.18).
It may at first seem extraneous to
these rigorous psychological
considerations, even a gratuitous and
unnecessary concession to personal
religious pietism, when we go on to
learn that somehow devotion to
Krishna is a necessary element in the
achievement of peace in the Gita.
Through knowing me, Krishna
promises, perhaps surprisingly, the
wise man finds peace (5.29). Or, in
even more exaggerated form: With
your whole being take refuge in him
alone, and by his grace you will attain
an eternal state, the highest peace
(18.62).
The explanation of what may
otherwise appear spiritually
inconsistent lies in the nature of
Krishna as a god, as compared with the
Christian version in the New
Testament. As we have seen, the
Biblical deity, the shaper of heaven and
earth, is nonetheless separate and
distinct from his creation. By mankind
s ruptures within its own nature, its
communities and with its maker, it
destines itself to perdition unless he
who effected its creation should also
achieve its redemption. But Krishna,
while also infinitely above nature, is
also immanent within it, as its inner self
and being (7-10). Any opposition
between Krishna and the natural world
or its inhabitants would be a form
self-alienation, a lack of spiritual self-
knowledge.
In Christianity, at the most
fundamental cosmic level, there are
two: God and creation, often likened in
the Bible to the potter and the pot.
Conflict is at bottom rebellion of the
sons of God against their heavenly
father. Their disobedience disrupts the
unity of time and eternity and
culminates in conflict at every human
level. Peace can only be restored when
the Christian God visits his errant
children in his own form, as God the
divine Son, and offers himself as a
sacriflce, whose purpose is to expiate
the offense and again make possible a
relationship with the transcendent. The
New Testament bases itself upon the
historical veracity of this supernatural
intervention: it is alone through the
actual blood of the Lamb of God that
we are cleansed and saved. Peace
represents man s reconciliation with
himself, his world,his Author.
In the Gita two are not: there is only
One. Any ultimate opposition between
Krishna and his worldly manifestation
is precluded from the outset, as is any
genuine opposition or separation within
that manifestation itself All dualism or
plurality is finally misleading, even
delusory. Let us at this point, theti,
return to the apparent inconsistency of
personal devotion to Krishna in the
iight ofthe preceding rather impersonal
emphasis upon strict spiritual discipline
and the mind s control of the senses.
We had determined that the
culmination of yoga in any form was
the peace that results from an absolute
inner and outer sameness to all worldly
phenomena. But another path to that
transcendent peace lies, we discovered,
in knowing God.
Yet when we recall that Krishna is
MYSTICISM AND PEACE: AN EAST-WEST PERSPECTIVE
Professor T.M. Srinivasan, Pb.D., Tempe, AZ
INTRODUCTION-Mysticism bas
fascinated bumanity from time
immemorial: the question of who we
are and what is tbe goal of life has
occupied tbe investigations of tbe
best minds during many millennia.
Tbis is not surprising since tbe
buman condition is tbe most
pervasive riddle of all times and in
spite of all our tecbnological
achievements, we are not any closer
to solving tbis riddle: wbat life is
and, wbat deatb is. Clinical
definitions of life and deatb are clear
and concise; we can work witb tbose
definitions for belping a patient.
However, tbe oft repeated question
"Is tbis all to life" seems to evade an
answer. As tbe proverbial
millennium comes to a close, (not
witb a big bang but witb a whimper,
to quote T.S. Eiiiot), not a few are
looking for answers to tbese
questions. Since tbese questions bave
piagued tbe buman mind for a long
time, surely some pbilosopbers and
god-men and women bave found tbe
answers. Tbe answers do not depend
on tecbnological innovations nor
sopbisticated linguistic jargon.
Furtber, sucb a fundamental
question sbouid not have any
dichotomy and tbe answers shouid be
some wbat similar if tbe minds have
gone beyond tbe normal
transactionai reaim.
In this paper I focus on the ideas of
two of the more profound thinkers of
this question, one from India and
another from Germany are presented.
In spite of the separation of time and
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND PEACE, 1999
the One, we understand concomitantly
that to remain the same in the presence
of all material manifestations is merely
to remain the same before that which is
itself always the same: In all
contingent beings I am the same, and
thus no one is hateful or dear to me;
men who are devoted to me are in me
and I am within them (9.29). If
Krishna is within us then we are, of
course, like him, always the same. Our
peaceful state is merely our own
portion of his self-knowledge. He is
always what he is and cannot ultimately
background as well as apparent
philosophical diversity of the East and
the West, their philosophical
outpouring are not only similar but
reach the same inner recesses of our
being where neither word nor thought
exist. More about this presently.
SHANKARA AND ECKHART
The name Adi Shankara is very
familiar to many in India. He was the
foremost philosopher of Non-dualistic
philosophical system of India, lived
roughly twelve hundred years ago and
rejuvenated Hindu thought in the brief
30-odd years he lived. He wrote
extensive commentaries on all the
major Vedas and the Upanishads. He
circumambulated India three times,
founded four mutts or monasteries
which still flourish in different comers
of India. He defeated all the famous
masters of Buddhism at that time in
public debates and thus earned a
massive following. He was thus
instrumental in stopping the spread of
Buddhism in India, and Hinduism to
take its rightfl place after overcoming
the shortcomins that had arisen from
the Vedic times to the advent of
Budhism.
Meister Eckhart is from the
medieval Germany, was born about
1260, roughly four hundred years after
Shankara [1,2]. He wrote four treatises
in German. The first one is called Talks
of Instruction, on self-denial and
obedience to God. The second one was
called "The Book of Divine
Consolation", after which came "The
Nobleman" and lastly, "On
oppose himself or be what he is not.
Any appearances to the contrary are
based upon human lack of self-
understanding. Peace lies not in the
possibility of the miraculous, physical
rebirth of an external and alien being,
but in the recognition and resurrection
of humanity s own buried being.
Robert Luyster,Professor, Department
of Philosophy, Director,Council on
Peace Education Tel.: 860-429-1285
Email: luysterfi^uconnvm.uconn.edu
FAX: 860-486-0387
Detachment". The teachings of Eckhart
describe an ascending process for the
human soul from dissimilarity,
similarity and identity to ultimately,
breakthrough. Initially, at the stage of
dissimilarity, there is nothing outside of
God; the human soul is nothing. In the
second stage, the Nobleman realizes
similarity between God and the soul. In
the third phase of identity, God is no
longer outside of human, there is
complete identity and merging of the
two. In the last stage of breakthrough,
humans go beyond God to a Godhead,
which is the origin of all things. He
wrote "If I were not, God would not be
God. His philosophy amalgamates
Greek, Neoplatonic, Arabic, and
Scholastic elements..." [Encyclopedia
Britannica, Vol. 4, pp.351-352, 1989].
It is indeed remarkable that two
persons who contributed to their own
theology so enormously and lived in
different parts of the world 400 years
apart should have so much in common.
These philosophers wrote about the
Ultimate Reality and means of
achieving the same. The fundamental
bases of the two philosophies are that
the world and all evolutes of nature are
indeed impermanent. There is only One
Principle that is beyond space and time;
the One that transcends all and is ever
present. Out of this one comes all. The
One permeated all and enlivens all of
the material universe we see and
experience. This Eternal One is wholly
pure, always exists and is of bliss
supreme. It is indivisible; hence, it is
beyond ordinary knowledge. Why?
Ordinary knowledge (knowledge based
on senses, which constitute all
41