Louis Dumont’s concept of hierarchy can illuminate not only the famous ‘two powers’ passage in Gelasius I’s letter to the emperor Anastasius but also later history of papal Church–State theory.

The fifth chapter’s topic is ‘Sāṅkhya in the Bhagavad-gītā’, and it focuses on a major and significant contribution of the Gītā to philosophy, which is the detailed articulation of the guṇas; this topic is described extensively in chapters 14, 17 and 18, and mentioned in other chapters as well. As this metaphysical concept is rationally perceived, secular and non-sectarian, it makes a significant contribution to the study of the Gītā and serves as one of its philosophical foundations. The guṇas serve as the foundation of the ethical ladder, as they enable a wide range of phenomenological categorizations, and deepen the understanding of the term prakṛti. Moreover, the underlying logic of their understanding serves as a source of ethical inspiration and upliftment in ascending the karma-yoga ladder. The chapter argues that there is a potential ethical doctrine to be extracted from the guṇa humanistic ethics, which promotes the ideal person as grounded in sattva guṇa, resembling the ideal Confucian gentleman called junzi.

The Donation of Constantine mattered more in the thirteenth century than in the Carolingian era.

The eighth chapter looks into ‘Concepts of Divinity in the Bhagavad-gītā’; The Gītā is rich with theological descriptions of divinity, whether these refer to the supreme as Kṛṣṇa or the personal God, as Brahman or the impersonal divinity, as the universal person, as the avatāra, as an internalized concept or the witness in the heart and as immanent concepts of divinity revealed through nature. This chapter offers a critique within the realm of philosophy of religion and argues that definitions such as pantheism, deism and theism do not grasp the personalistic themes of the text. A personalistic way of reading the Gītā is suggested, and as such, the concept of ‘the person’ is discussed and an alternative definition of personhood, one that befits the Gītā, is offered. It is also argued that as the Gītā considers itself to be poetry (Gītā means poetry or song), the Gītā’s poetic aspects should also be considered, and not just the philosophical ones. A critique of direct language is offered, and it is pointed out that as opposed to poetry, it is difficult for direct and philosophical langue to grasp personal expressions. The chapter offers a new categorization according to which the concepts of divinity are divided according to the three metaphysical levels underlying the book.

The fourth chapter is titled ‘Yoga in the Bhagavad-gītā’; yoga no doubt occupies a central place in the Gītā and is one of the fundamental constituents of its structure; the chapter is engaged with dhyāna-yoga, which in many ways resembles Patañjali’s classical yoga system. While the Gītā tends to use the term yoga interchangeably with karma-yoga, and while the text focuses primarily on karma-yoga, jñāna-yoga and bhakti-yoga, the techniques of Patañjalian-type yoga are outlined throughout the entire sixth chapter, albeit subsumed under devotion to Kṛṣṇa. This chapter indeed takes the Yoga-Sūtra or similar such ideas as a point of departure, highlights its similarities to dhyāna-yoga and argues that the Gītā not only maintains similar views but expands and elaborates them. As opposed to the very concentrated and internalized mode of yoga articulated in the Yoga-Sūtra, themes and ideas that are described in the Yoga-Sūtra in a concentrated sūtra style receive a more elaborate description in the Gītā. These core doctrines are expanded and present in all other three yoga paths, that is, karma, jñāna and bhakti. As such, a study of these core yoga concepts, such as the ladder principle, mental restraint and samādhi, is required in order to understand the other three paths presented in the Gītā.

The early development of the indulgence system reinforced the papacy’s hierarchical position without significantly bringing it money or power over others.

Lay patronage of churches was consistent with the principles of the eleventh- and twelfth-century ‘reform’ movements.

Papal canon law from Late Antiquity was interpreted for a Carolingian ruler by a papal letter presenting an ideology of lay elites uncontaminated by ideas of sacral kingship.

More than Conciliar legislation, papal case law was able to cope with complexity.