I Really Want to Know You, I Really Want to See You, Lord

I Really Want to Know You, I Really Want to See You, Lord

In the most recent reading of the Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna asks Krishna to reveal himself in his true form. In the Eleventh Teaching, Krishna complies, and he reveals himself in a magnificent yet frightening form. In Judaism and early Christianity, a direct encounter in which one laid eyes on God would result in death because human beings are incapable of understanding and processing the power of a deity. I am reminded of Tim's thoughts last week, in which he wondered what was the significance of choosing to have a dialogue between a mortal and a deity. I believe that discussion must continue for this week as Krishna not only reveals himself in dialogue but also in form as well. What are we to make of this?

Do you choose your destiny?

Do you choose your destiny?

“He really sees who sees

that all actions are performed

by nature alone and that the self

is not an actor” (p 118)

“When one is free of individuality

and his understanding is untainted

even if he kills these people,

he does not kill and is not bound” (p 145)

The Bhagavad-Gita contains many parallels to what is taught in the Western tradition. The human soul is trying to reach salvation with the help of one immutable God, and though the path may differ slightly the end goal is to reach perfect union with the God and all other creatures of the world. The question also arises of fate versus free will. Krishna tells Arjuna: “When it sustains acts/of mind, breath, and senses/ through discipline without wavering,/ resolve is lucid” (p 147). Lucidity and lucid knowledge, according to Krishna, means that one understands that the infinite spirit and has reached the highest level, and thus salvation. In order to reach salvation, one must have the understanding of the self as separate from the body, and the way to do this is to discipline the body and allow it only the amounts of food, breaths, etc. necessary for basic survival while engaging in contemplation. Each man seems to have the ability to control these actions, though it takes practice and is difficult

The preceding quotes, however, indicate that man has no control over his actions and the wise man is one who merely understands this. The Christian tradition teaches that each man is wholly responsible for his actions, and the fate of their soul rests on these actions. The conventional Western understanding of morality relies on a comprehension of the morality of actions and the ability to freely choose to commit or not commit a certain deed. Is there a morality at stake in this text, then, if people have no agency over there own actions?

The question also arises concerning the individual’s ability to reach the understanding necessary for salvation on their own. In the case of Arjuna, Krishna presents himself and explains how one ought to live his life, and for what reasons. The Christian tradition teaches that God instills grace into the human beings that understand his way and will achieve salvation, but Krishna is not clear about his role in the saving of souls. Can an individual intuitively come to the conclusion that one must meditate in order to understand the truth? Problems arise when a group of people must have access to a certain teaching in order to know the right way of life. Though Krishna says that even the sinner can reach salvation, is there a certainty that all individuals will be given the chance through exposure to Krishna? If an individual cannot control his individual actions, how can he control his salvation? Are certain people simply fated to be saved?

Word Count: 426

Krishna Christ?

Krishna Christ?

          Reading the Bhagavad Gita through Christian eyes is an interesting experience. For two religions that seemingly have many differences, the essential tenets of the Gita seem remarkably similar to Christianity.

         There are, of course, obvious differences. The idea of reincarnation is the one that most obviously sticks out. Many could argue that Krishna’s insistence that Arjuna go to war could also be against the basic tenets of Christianity. However, war and violence pervade the Old Testament, and many wars have been fought by Christians who believed that the Bible justified their actions. Specific instructions from God, as in the case of Abraham, have been far stranger than fighting a war against ones kinsmen.

         Krishna advocates a love of every living thing because of the recognition that each living thing is connected to the greater spirit, something that sounds a lot like the Christian idea of loving living things because they are God’s creation (End of Chapter XIII). Krishna’s discussion of meditation makes it sound very similar to forms of Christian prayer. Even Krishna’s revelation to Arjuna(Chapter XI) is reminiscent of God’s revelation to Moses, and, perhaps if we stretch, Jesus’ revelations to the apostles.

         Perhaps the most interesting parallel is the fact that each religion essentially ends up with the same moral system and instructions for how a person should act. In Christianity, we love God and thus are led to love each other. Our love of God is what motivates us to act justly. In Krishna’s moral system the idea is essentially the same. We are to meditate upon Krishna and allow that to guide our actions.

         At the beginning of Chapter XVI, Krishna offers a list of characteristics necessary for leading one to eternal life. Piety, humbleness, truthfulness, slowness to wrath, charity, tenderness towards all that suffer, a contended heart, patience, fortitude, purity, an unvengeful spirit are all listed. All of these are characteristics also sought by Christianity.

         If Christians are unintentionally following the way of Krishna, what does this mean if Krishna’s religion is correct and ours isn’t? In Christianity, acceptance of Jesus as God’s son is a necessary tenet of gaining eternal life, however with Krishna’s view of incarnation, Christians may be sitting in a relatively good position.

         Although Krishna does say that those who pray to other gods will “fall back to earth”(Chapter IX), it also seems that living the Christian way of life may prepare us for a better position to start from in our next life. We already have the way of living down, and thus once we focus our sights on Krishna we will be set for eternal life. In all honesty, we might have the right way to go about it, because in Christianity we only get one chance. If this way doesn’t succeed, at least Krishna will put us in a better situation next time around to gain eternal life, but if Christianity and the Christian God are correct, then we have nothing to worry about.

Approximately 470 words

Arjuna: The chosen one.

Arjuna: The chosen one.

This is a comment to Rob's post.

As I was reading, the same question cropped up in my mind. I noted that in 11.52 Krishna says that the other gods want to see his totality but Arjuna is the only one to have ever been granted this vision.

Krishna says in 16.5 that Arjuna is of the divine half of men, but I don't feel that explains why he is granted the vision of Krishna.

Krishna constantly reiterates that only those men who are disciplined and completely devoted to him can really have a chance of seeing him, but doesn't the fact that Arjuna contests having to kill his kinsman reveal that he has not reached the level of discipline and devotion required to merit a vision? In fact, it is not until after he sees the totality of Krishna that Arjuna professes his complete devotion.

So if Arjuna doesn't feel at one with the will of Krishna, and cannot separate the action of killing his kinsmen from some feeling of remorse (dare I say, passion?) how does he become the chosen one?

Who is Arjuna?

Who is Arjuna?

My overall question for this reading is why did Krishna choose to reveal himself to Arjuna? Was there some special trait or characteristic of Arjuna so that Krishna choose him? My question was prompt by 11.47, in his Krishna talks about revealing his higher form to "grace" Arjuna. In other ethical stories deities usually appear to a person because of their special devotion or worship of the deity, i.e. Moses in the Old Testament. I guess it is difficult to understand this context as we are so unfamiliar with the territory and scope of the Gita. Does anyone know much about the Arjuna of Hindu theology, or is he only in this one Hindu book?

Free from individuality?

Free from individuality?

What is the distinction between the individual and the self, and why is one apparently negative and the latter positive?

Three passages apply to this: 16.18 (p. 129), 18.17 (p. 137), and 18.53,57-59 (p. 142-3). In the last he says:

If I am in your thought, by my grace
you will transcend all dangers;
but if you are deafened
by individuality, you will be lost.

Your resolve is futile
if a sense of individuality
makes you think, "I shall not fight"--
nature will compel you to.

In this passage, we see the stark contrast Krishna describes between individuality on the one side, and Krishna, duty, grace, etc. on the other. In 18.17 and 18.53 he speaks of 'freedom from individuality' in the senses of not being responsible for one's actions and of being one with Krishna, respectively and in a way which relates the two. It would seem that individuality is something very unattractive to Krishna, and in his glowing encomium of the demonic man, Krishna describes individuality as one in a list of traits:

Submitting to individuality, power,
arrogance, desire, and anger,
they* hate me and revile me
in their own bodies, as in others.
--16.18 (p. 129) *the demonic men

Miller draws a distinction between the self (atman, p. 162) and individuality (ahamkara, p. 158), saying that the latter is akin to individual identity whereas the former is "the animate, spiritual principle of life." The result being, for Miller, that "implicitly this means that liberation from empirical existence involves the negation of individuality.

I think I spoke without proper foresight when I spoke today on this; I didn't mean to spend time on how this can be spun one way or the other. I do think this topic could be useful, however, to come to a fuller understanding of, first, what exactly it is the Gita considers to be essential to the nature of humans, and second, what the end result or ideal would look like for a disciple, especially since now we have more resources regarding Krishna's opinion on the self and individuality. It could also be useful in light of Tolstoy's opinion on the individual will and in anticipation of other authors' opinions on individuality; last and not least, Krishna's words above put an interesting caveat onto our discussion today regarding the "individualistic" nature of this philosophy, in the sense that it is "soul-oriented" and not "society-oriented."

Existence: United Divisions

Existence: United Divisions

"Know that through lucid knowledge one sees in all creatures a single, unchanging existence, undivided within its divisions" (138, 20).

I had a lot of trouble understanding this passage. In particular, I don't understand what Krishna means when he says that the single, unchanging existence is "undivided within its divisions". In general terms, Krishna seems to be referring to the divine, pervasive essence of the infinite spirit. In fact, the notion of something that is united yet has divisions remains me of our recent discussion topic in Christian Theological Traditions: the Trinity. Is Krishna simply trying to say that in spite of their physical separation, all existing things are one in so far as they contain some part of the divine essence of the infinite spirit?

So-crates

So-crates

When reading the Bhagavad-Gita, I was struck how similar the structure was the the Platonic dialogues. Both texts involve one character (Socrates or Krishna) explaining a philosophical system by answering the questions of another character. I think that we would all agree that this concept generally works for Plato, but how do we feel about using it for a more spiritual text? Is it permissible to have a sacred scripture that forces the diety to explain the spiritual system to a mere mortal? Or does this text seem more sacred and legitimate, because it tries to explain this rationally through the traditional method used in antiquity?

Maybe I get this part?

Maybe I get this part?

"Abandoning attachment to fruits/of action, always content, independent,/he does nothing at all/even when he engages in action" (4.17, p54)

Ok so I think I may finally get something in this. This quote, which is an echo of earlier teachings, is one of the first things I actually think I understand in these Eastern writers. I understand this as saying that when gain is not sought, when things are done for others and for the common good, it's not like acting but more just living 'the way,' because acting implies doing something out of the ordinary and if one is living the way then everything he does is ordinary so there is no action... or something. So maybe it's harder to explain than to understand, but my question is this; am I actually understanding at all? Or am I missing some different point that is much more complex? Or am I just making too big of a deal out of this "revelation" and I need to try to understand the more important stuff, which is by nature of being more important, harder to "get?" I'm just wary of my lack of confusion...

When reading the Bhagavad-Gita, I found the introduction to be extremely helpful. The background information that was provided about a religion and faith that I was unfamiliar with was eye opening, and informative. In particular, something that was said quite early on the in the intro caught my attention:

"The dramatic moral crisis that is central to the Bhagavad-Gita has inspired centuries of Indian philosophers and practical men of wisdom, as well as Western thinkers such as Thoreau, Emerson, and Eliot. Interpretations of the Gita, as it is commonly referred to in India, are as varied as the figures who have commented on it."

The "Moral Crisis" that is referred to is something that I am still trying to figure out. It could have a variety of meanings in my mind. The title of the book alone, "Krishna's counsel in time of war" seems to be a moral crisis within itself. Authors like Thoreau, Emerson and Eliot do point to the ides of internal conflict through external pains, how might have the Gita pointed them in the right direction? We see later in the introduction, on page 16, that the idea of an "Oriental" learning style was not taken lightly...

"I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia"

Although it might have taken a while for the Western culture to warm up to the idea of these thoughts, it truly did benefit some of our best thinkers. The idea of the internal struggle that is portrayed through the Gita is noted to be extremely valuable...How has the text changed and molded the way we think about modern political and philosophical thought? What are its impacts in society, and how might we use this text to our own advantage?

(I know, broad question, but I am curious as to the Gita's true effect on our society!) 

Anybody else want a wish-granting cow?

Anybody else want a wish-granting cow?

I'd love to talk about the philosophy in this text, but I'd also like to talk about it as a piece of literature. What do we make of all the characters in the text, as well as the context, the layout of the story with its exposition that leads to the climax and the eventual resolution, and all of the rhetorical flourishes? We largely skipped over the literary aspects of our last two Eastern texts, but this one is such an intentionally beautiful piece of writing that I think a discussion of its literary elements might help our discussion of the philosophy.

The Implications of a Morality Revolving around Sacred Duty

The Implications of a Morality Revolving around Sacred Duty

I am concerned about the possible implications for a morality that revolves around sacred duty. Does this type of morality make all good and evil action relative?

Disciplined by understanding
one abandons both good and evil deeds;
so arm yourself for discipline–
discipline is skill in actions.
(2nd Teaching, 50)

If a man's sole responsibility is to sacred duty, then it seems to me that anyone who commits his actions (or crimes) as a sacrifice for Krishna is a "man of virtue." I am really troubled about the passage below. Does this type of war philosophy and the heavy importance on discipline to sacred duty open the door to a whole host of problems of individual responsibility? Or is this just my Western perspective getting the better of me and not being able to understand how in the Gita morality and religion are inextricably intertwined?

If he is devoted solely to me,
even a violent criminal
must be deemed a man of virtue,
for his resolve is right.
(9th Teaching, 30)

Even a violent criminal?

Even a violent criminal?

The motivating force of the plot is the question of whether Arjuna ought to engage his kinsmen in battle. Throughout his lamentation to Krishna, Arjuna appeals to the notion of evil: "Evil will haunt us if we kill them" (p. 28). It seemed strange to me that Krishna so directly and unequivocally incited Arjuna to rise to war (p. 31). By way of explaining this, he assures Arjuna that since "Death is certain for anyone born," (p.35), he has no reason to be saddened. It seems that through detachment and devotion to Krishna, the aspiring yogi can remove his or her self-interest yet still partake in action: as a result, he or she becomes more in tune with the whole idea that "Death is certain" and can act in fulfillment of his or her duty.

Nevertheless there is something curious in all this. Krishna seems keen to stress that not only war, but also violence and evil are extraneous to the issue of what one should do:

Even if you are the most evil
of all sinners,
you will cross over all evil
on the raft of knowledge.

Just as a flaming fire reduces
wood to ashes, Arjuna,
so the fire of knowledge
reduces all actions to ashes.
(p.56)

If he is devoted solely to me,
even a violent criminal
must be deemed a man of virtue,
for his resolve is right.
(p.89)

Why doesn't the meaning of being devoted to Krishna preclude being evil? Sometimes it appears that it does:

But when they cease from evil
and act with virtue, they devote
themselves to me, firm in their vows,
freed from the delusion of duality.
(p. 77)

The duality he is referring to here is between desire and hatred. Yet, in defying that duality, he paints another one, namely between evil and virtue. People who do not take refuge in Krishna are "vile, deluded sinners" (p.75).

So how is it that it makes sense to say that those who do not follow Krishna are sinners, yet that there can be sinners who follow Krishna? In other words, how can it be that "a violent criminal" could ever be a disciple of Krisha, especially given that relinquishing the fruits of actions is one of the keys to discipline? Does the idea of a detached criminal make any sense, especially given the tranquil mind of the yogi (p. 66-67)?

The answer to these questions might lie in the notion of dharma, or sacred duty. Krishna seems to understand his role, i.e. "to protect men of virtue / and destroy men who do evil, / to set the standard of sacred duty" (p. 52), as working against chaos and for order. Miller suggests that Arjuna's victory would be "the triumph of order over chaos" (p. 5). Furthermore, Miller notes that dharma, meaning "that which sustains," need not be universal, but can vary according to class and over factors (p. 3). Hence it would be possible, if it were the criminal's dharma to be such, for a violent criminal to be detached from his actions and submitting to the will of Krishna.

But there is still something that does not quite add up here. Why should it be harmonious or ordered for a violent criminal to act as such? for war to occur? If I were Arjuna, I would wonder: even if I became disinterested in the fruits of my actions; even if I were disciplined; even if as a result I act only in accordance with sacred duty; even if all of these people would die anyway, how is it that it is my sacred duty to kill?

(Fixed: minus the quotes and the citations, it's roughly 450 now.)

To Act or Not to Act!

To Act or Not to Act!

We encountered the concept of "non-action" once before in The Way of Lao-Tzu. In that context, non-action was essential to preserving a harmony with all things. One who acted "unnaturally" or "with force" upset this harmony, and for this reason, the followers of Lao-Tzu strove to act only in a way "flowing with the moment." In The Bhavagad-Gita, we encounter a different understanding of "action" v. "non-action". Early on in the poem, Krishna explains to Arjuna that:

The worlds would collapse 

if I did not perform action; 

I would create disorder in society, 

living beings would be destroyed. 

(3.24) 

While action upset universal harmony in The Way of Lao-Tzu, action preserves harmony in The Bhavagad-Gita. This point is elaborated upon later on in the poem when Arjuna asks Krishna which is more appropriate, action or renunciation of action. In response to this question, Krishna explains: 

Renunciation and discipline is action

both effect good beyond measure; 

but of the two, discipline in action

surpasses the renunciation of action. 

(5.2) 

Krishna clearly advocates action over renunciation of action because it is through action that one fulfills his duty, or dharma. Than again, Krishna does not condemn the renunciation of action. In regards to the renunciation of action, Krishna comments:

Armed with discipline, he purifies

and subdues the self, masters his senses, 

united himself with the self of all creatures; 

even when he acts, he is not defiled. 

Seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, 

eating, walking, sleeping, breathing, 

the disciplined man who knows reality 

should think, "I do nothing at all."

(5.8-5.9)

Krishna acknowledges that there is value in the renunciation of action. In what way, if any, is the renunciation of action in The Bhavagad-Gita related to the concept of "non-action" found in The Way of Lao-Tzu? What does the inclusion v. omission of action as the stabilizing force of the universal harmony tell us about each text's worldview/goal for humanity? Does the presence of a worshipped divinity in The Bhavagad-Gita at all have to do with why action is advocated so strongly?