Reading Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita from the Perspective of Hinduism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mikhail Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita (1966-67)(1) has been praised highly for both its literary merit and its spiritual significance. Many critical studies explain complex nature of interrelationship between natural and supernatural in novel. The unexpected roles that otherworldly beings play in novel, resulting satire, and fantastic in plot create a certain inevitable puzzlement about structure and meaning of novel. Attempts to explain implications of spiritual elements underpinning fantastic span through various belief systems, but given complexity of Bulgakov's novel, a coherent, conclusive explanation has been elusive. Central to my reading of Bulgakov's novel is recognition that divinity's presence in The Master and Margarita is more complex than its apparent Christian representation. This reading draws upon an older religious tradition, namely, Hindu system of belief, to establish correspondences between Hindu images of God and Bulgakov's portrayal of otherworldly entities. Because these correspondences are scattered across a variety of Hindu myths and beliefs, it is difficult to draw a coherent picture and claim that Bulgakov based his fictional divinity on any specific Hindu system. However, various ancient beliefs of Hinduism can be seen to illumine relationship between different worlds that are brought together, role of God and devil, and nature of divine intervention in lives of ordinary mortals in Bulgakov's novel. I will restrict myself to portrayal of devil, Master, and Margarita, whom I will compare to relevant images from Hindu mythology. Hinduism offers much potential for such an exploration through its myths and legends. In Hindu mythology, God is incarnated in this world in different forms, at different times, and for different purposes.(2) Hindus firmly believe God's declaration that he will manifest himself whenever forces of evil threaten to destroy positive human virtues. Similar to Hinduism, other religions have also offered a means of closing distance between man and God by admitting various celestial beings such as demi-gods, angels, saints, and others. In Hinduism and Christianity, is a common belief that there has been a divine descent through which God has sent his surrogate to earth and graced us with His presence in a being known as God-man.(3) In Christianity incarnation is Jesus Christ, as both human and divine, while in Hinduism there are several such incarnations. Following this prototype, at very beginning of Bulgakov's novel, divine incarnation that appears in Moscow is a devil. This devil, Woland, fulfilling a role similar to that of God-man in mythology, takes it upon himself to expose moral degradation of 1930s Moscow. Bulgakov's depiction of devil contains unmistakable allusions to, and echoes of, not only Christianity, but also other ancient, pre-Christian systems of belief and their gods. Woland, who has been shown to exhibit traits not only of Christian devil, but also of pre-Christian gods,(4) is reminiscent of messengers of God and intermediate beings who moved between heaven and earth upon his service in ancient, pre-Christian religions.(5) There have been many attempts to explain Woland's role in Moscow and Pontius Pilate's in Jerusalem in novel through Old and New Testaments, apocryphal texts, and Rabbinical literature, including ancient Middle Eastern mythology. In this context, it has been observed that although novel is profoundly religious,(6) the variety of critical commentaries has already shown impossibility of reducing Bulgakov's novel to one single interpretation.(7) It is clear that novel's spiritual conception is broader than that of Christianity.(8) Bulgakov is a religious writer, but question of which religious view of life and world he adhered to, remains unanswered. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".