|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Feb 8, 2018 6:08:39 GMT
Hello all.
So, I am reading the Bhagavad Gita (translation by Eknath Easwaran), and I have some questions that maybe someone with more insight into the Gita or Hinduism in general could enlighten me on.
So, in chapter 2, Arjuna confesses his trepidation about fighting his cousins in the soon-to-come battle, and implores Krishna to give him a reason to fight. Krishna goes on to say that Arjuna's fears are unfounded, due to the fact that his atman, that is his immortal Self, will live on regardless of whether Arjuna lives or dies on the battle field, as will the atman of everyone else on the battlefield. In the introduction to this edition, Easwaran defines the atman as:
So, basically if I understand it, Brahman is the godhead that underlies our physical reality, and atman is our eternal, divine connection with Brahman that lies at the core of our being. Krishna says that Arjuna does not realize this, and so is fearful of battle, and that by practicing yoga (not just the physical aspect, but the more comprehensive mental aspects as well) Arjuna can overcome this lower level of consciousness and transcend the petty concerns and fears of mortal life to reach a more enlightened realization of the immortal Self.
So, this is all well and good, but then Krishna goes on to say that it is Arjuna's duty to fight because he is a warrior, and it is his dharma as a warrior to fight bravely in battle. Attaining a connection with his atman will clear Arjuna's mind of concern and allow him to fulfill his dharma more successfully, I think. Easwaran defines dharma as:
So, Arjuna is a warrior, and his dharma is to be brave and fight for his clan (in this case his brother, who seeks to take the throne of Kurukshetra in the larger story of the Mahabharata, of which the Bhagavad Gita is only a small part). BUT, Arjuna must first realize his atman, that is his eternal Self, which connects him with all living things in the eternal godhead of existence, in order to overcome his fears and concerns.
So my question is this. If Krishna says that Arjuna should seek to attain an awareness of the Self (atman) and transcend his mortal consciousness, then why the fuck should Arjuna care about fulfilling his dharma as a warrior and fighting on the battlefield? Will fulfilling his dharma, in conjunction with yoga, help Arjuna attain connection with his atman? What if he dies and is reincarnated as a farmer: must he then fulfill the dharma of a farmer in order to help reach a connection with his atman? What is the 'thing' that 'the essence of a thing' in the definition of dharma refers to? Something intrinsic to each persons atman, or is it a separate set of laws for certain types of livelihoods (warrior, priest, artisan, farmer, etc.)?
tl:dr - Krishna implores Arjuna to stop being a pussy and do yoga to attain enlightenment so he can kill his cousins on the battlefield. But if Arjuna attains enlightenment, why the fuck should he care about defending his honor as a warrior (i.e., fulfilling his dharma)?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 8, 2018 10:36:45 GMT
Chapter three addresses Arjuna's question. Two paths for two types of people, philosophical speculation and devotional service were already mentioned in chapter two. Chapter three says that each is inadequate without the other, that it is better that duties be performed with detachment from the results of performing them, a sort of paradox indeed. It says that the philosophically detached are not exercising control over their bodies sufficient to maintain them. It also says that the performance of duties without philosophical speculation can lead to attachment to the fruits of those activities, which leads to delusion.
The idea then is that it is important to perform devotional duties with detachment, not for money or for things or sense gratification, but because it is the role in life, for a sort of common good, or for the "Lord." Killing for money is wrong, killing for any personal gain is wrong. The book suggests it can be necessary to kill to uphold some cosmic ideal such as what we call "justice." I must say the circumstances on that battlefield do not appear to me make a good argument for killing. It seems there are other means of resolving those differences that have not been properly explored first.
|
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Feb 8, 2018 11:12:16 GMT
Loosely put, karma yoga (a physical act) is just as important and valid as attaining enlightenment as is the mental aspect of yoga. Doing righteous deeds and fighting against injustice is karma yoga in action and is a form of worship itself. Its no good preaching righteousness if you fail to act on it.
If Arjuna didnt care and did nothing, that is a action in itself and is negative because he is not acting positively.
The answer to this is most likely yes because both are important forms of "worship."
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 8, 2018 17:12:03 GMT
Loosely put, karma yoga (a physical act) is just as important and valid as attaining enlightenment as is the mental aspect of yoga. Doing righteous deeds and fighting against injustice is karma yoga in action and is a form of worship itself. Its no good preaching righteousness if you fail to act on it. If Arjuna didnt care and did nothing, that is a action in itself and is negative because he is not acting positively. The answer to this is most likely yes because both are important forms of "worship." I think Bhagavad-Gita is highly principled sacred text, but it is difficult for people who only speak English to understand even with good translations. |
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Feb 8, 2018 18:00:53 GMT
Chapter three addresses Arjuna's question. Two paths for two types of people, philosophical speculation and devotional service were already mentioned in chapter two. Chapter three says that each is inadequate without the other, that it is better that duties be performed with detachment from the results of performing them, a sort of paradox indeed. It says that the philosophically detached are not exercising control over their bodies sufficient to maintain them. It also says that the performance of duties without philosophical speculation can lead to attachment to the fruits of those activities, which leads to delusion. The idea then is that it is important to perform devotional duties with detachment, not for money or for things or sense gratification, but because it is the role in life, for a sort of common good, or for the "Lord." Killing for money is wrong, killing for any personal gain is wrong. The book suggests it can be necessary to kill to uphold some cosmic ideal such as what we call "justice." I must say the circumstances on that battlefield do not appear to me make a good argument for killing. It seems there are other means of resolving those differences that have not been properly explored first. Hmm, so doing yoga will cleanse you of desire and allow you to fulfill your dharma more effectively, which will allow one to attain a conscious connection with their atman? Being detached from mortal concerns, while still being able to physically function and do your duties regardless of results leads to realization of the Self? Still doesn't make too much sense to me, especially given the context of the war that's being fought. I haven't read the rest of the Mahabharata (and I won't: it's too damn long), but it seems to just be about a dynastic struggle for a throne. Hardly a war worthy of the lofty ideals and deep considerations that Krishna seems concerned with. I agree with you that resolution could've been explored in other ways prior to picking up weapons. |
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Feb 8, 2018 18:15:27 GMT
Loosely put, karma yoga (a physical act) is just as important and valid as attaining enlightenment as is the mental aspect of yoga. Doing righteous deeds and fighting against injustice is karma yoga in action and is a form of worship itself. Its no good preaching righteousness if you fail to act on it.If Arjuna didnt care and did nothing, that is a action in itself and is negative because he is not acting positively. The answer to this is most likely yes because both are important forms of "worship." Ahhh, so actually fulfilling his dharma by fighting in the war is in itself doing karmic yoga, and strengthening Arjuna's bond with his atman? I suppose I've just been colored by my idea of yoga as physical exercise and mental meditation to not have considered it to have a more robust component. |
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Feb 8, 2018 18:46:34 GMT
Loosely put, karma yoga (a physical act) is just as important and valid as attaining enlightenment as is the mental aspect of yoga. Doing righteous deeds and fighting against injustice is karma yoga in action and is a form of worship itself. Its no good preaching righteousness if you fail to act on it.If Arjuna didnt care and did nothing, that is a action in itself and is negative because he is not acting positively. The answer to this is most likely yes because both are important forms of "worship." Ahhh, so actually fulfilling his dharma by fighting in the war is in itself doing karmic yoga, and strengthening Arjuna's bond with his atman? I suppose I've just been colored by my idea of yoga as physical exercise and mental meditation to not have considered it to have a more robust component. Pretty much yes. The westernized version of what yoga is only scratches the surface. Krishna says in the Gita Taken from a commentary analysis: |
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Feb 9, 2018 6:17:26 GMT
Alrighty, so I've read chapter 3, in which Krishna tells Arjuna that he must fulfill his dharma in a selfless state of mind, that is not caring about the results of his actions. So, in order to attain a closer connection to his atman, Arjuna must kill his cousins and their cohorts on the battle field without and hope for glory or whatnot. Seems somewhat sociopathic to me. You're a warrior, and the dharma of a warrior is to fight and kill on the battle field. In order to fulfill your dharma successfully, practice karma yoga, and attain a closer connection with your atman, you must kill and maim with no selfish desire for the potential outcomes...yea, sounds kind of sick-in-the-head. No empathy or concern? Again, if you have a connection with your atman, why the hell should the mortal duties of a particular dharma even matter? Hell, Krishna even mentions the discipline of jnana yoga: that is the contemplative, passive path towards enlightment as a potential path towards reaching a conscious level with Arjuna's atman, but then Krishna just drops it in favor of karma yoga. Later on, Krishna says:
But, isn't Arjuna fighting to put his brother on the throne of Kurukshetra? That is, if Arjuna follows his dharma, and selfishly fights as a warrior, won't he be fighting to fulfill his brothers dharma and not his own (his brother's dharma being the successor to a royal seat)? Is not Arjuna trading his honor for the another's? And, is his brothers intent honerable, or is his brother pursuing earthly, selfish desire? I imagine a lot of this is lost on me because I have not read a whole lot of the Mahabharata backstory, so the whole war seems like a petty dynastic struggle instead of a righteous, holy war.
|
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Feb 14, 2018 8:21:47 GMT
Alrighty, so apparently no one else aside from myself, Arlon, and charzhino gives a shit about the Bhagavad Gita.
Whatever, that's cool.
So, after reading chapters 4 - 7, I see that Krishna advocates the retrospective life AND the proactive, dharma-fulfilling-life karma-yoga for Arjuna: that is, the path of detached service to a goal that is beyond human care/suffering. Why the battle of Kurukshetra is such a battle is a question I pose to the more knowledgable of this board. So far, this seems like a petty dynastic battle, which Arjuna's brother being desperate for the prize, regardless of what others say. Why should the Hindu sages be so one Arjuna's and Krishna's side. The Indus Valley Civilization was pretty much wiped off the map. The justification and decision for such moves would be very interesting to hear.
|
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Feb 14, 2018 11:30:54 GMT
I dont know in too much detail but I think the battle was unjust from the opposing side and Arjuna was meant to be on the "good side " fighting evil.
There is another interpretation that the battle of Kurukshetra was never literal, and that the whole Gita is a symbolic representation of the metaphorical battle taking place constantly in the minds of every human being striving towards enlightenment.
|
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Feb 16, 2018 5:27:03 GMT
There is another interpretation that the battle of Kurukshetra was never literal, and that the whole Gita is a symbolic representation of the metaphorical battle taking place constantly in the minds of every human being striving towards enlightenment. Yea, that's how Easwaran interprets the text. He talks a bit about it in his introduction to my version of the Gita. He seems to imply that many Indians believe it to have been a historical event. Also, I was kind of drunk when I made that last post. Not sure why I brought up the Indus Valley Civilization... |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Feb 16, 2018 12:41:58 GMT
Seeing through this reality allows Arjuna to be all the more fearsome of a foe. Not being tied to action (or this reality), his actions are free. Krishna gives him the gift of removing his doubts and helping him not take this illusion in dire seriousness.
He can play his role and act out his actions without worry now because he can see it as a play, the whole world is teetering on the edge of the Gods mouth of fire, the God being his teacher Krishna disguised in flesh.
IMO anyway...
I like Easwaran a lot but when it comes to the Gita I prefer the Flood/Martin version. When I get home I'll post a quote from it where Krishna removes his human mask.. it's more poetic and frightening than in the Easwaran version.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 17, 2018 11:52:44 GMT
I dont know in too much detail but I think the battle was unjust from the opposing side and Arjuna was meant to be on the "good side " fighting evil. There is another interpretation that the battle of Kurukshetra was never literal, and that the whole Gita is a symbolic representation of the metaphorical battle taking place constantly in the minds of every human being striving towards enlightenment. I like the movie Life of Pi . Have you seen it? |
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Feb 17, 2018 12:49:40 GMT
I dont know in too much detail but I think the battle was unjust from the opposing side and Arjuna was meant to be on the "good side " fighting evil. There is another interpretation that the battle of Kurukshetra was never literal, and that the whole Gita is a symbolic representation of the metaphorical battle taking place constantly in the minds of every human being striving towards enlightenment. I like the movie Life of Pi . Have you seen it? Nah Ive been meaning to watch that though. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 20, 2018 4:32:43 GMT
Seeing through this reality allows Arjuna to be all the more fearsome of a foe. Not being tied to action (or this reality), his actions are free. Krishna gives him the gift of removing his doubts and helping him not take this illusion in dire seriousness. He can play his role and act out his actions without worry now because he can see it as a play, the whole world is teetering on the edge of the Gods mouth of fire, the God being his teacher Krishna disguised in flesh. IMO anyway... I like Easwaran a lot but when it comes to the Gita I prefer the Flood/Martin version. When I get home I'll post a quote from it where Krishna removes his human mask.. it's more poetic and frightening than in the Easwaran version. My version has several pages of artwork. Do they all? |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Feb 21, 2018 11:07:53 GMT
Seeing through this reality allows Arjuna to be all the more fearsome of a foe. Not being tied to action (or this reality), his actions are free. Krishna gives him the gift of removing his doubts and helping him not take this illusion in dire seriousness. He can play his role and act out his actions without worry now because he can see it as a play, the whole world is teetering on the edge of the Gods mouth of fire, the God being his teacher Krishna disguised in flesh. IMO anyway... I like Easwaran a lot but when it comes to the Gita I prefer the Flood/Martin version. When I get home I'll post a quote from it where Krishna removes his human mask.. it's more poetic and frightening than in the Easwaran version. My version has several pages of artwork. Do they all? I'm not sure. I forgot to find that quote, but it's highlighted and perhaps I'll do it tomorrow. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2018 16:06:24 GMT
Having been raised Catholic, I had been discouraged from forms of spirituality that did not acknowledge an omnipotent, omniscient God. However, I am fascinated by such spirituality, which always seemed more conducive to growth, so this discussion interests me (I didn’t join it earlier because I had never read the Bhagavad Gita.) Reading on Whitehead’s Process philosophy regarding the “problem of evil” has led me to some theories on Hinduism, though. Per a discussion in the “Case for a Naturalistic … God” thread I quoted a description of this problem: A book I found discusses the work of Ramanuja, an 11th-century Indian philosopher, work it claims is compatible with this growth-orientation, and seems a better solution to the aforementioned problem than the Abrahamic religions (all being rooted in an elitist “might makes right” tradition that ultimately endorses this perfect and omnipotent God) ever had. In Process philosophy the universe is a creative process and God is a "fellow sufferer" (a "prehensive" subjectivity involved in all events.) After my brief research on Ramanuja my understanding is that a process reading of the concepts of this thread would see "Dharma" as the way creativity plays out for a sentient and "Atman" as the understanding that neither process nor prehension is supreme. I realize my thoughts on this are underdeveloped, but I wanted to get them out here for now in the hopes that someone will contribute to this development. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 25, 2018 16:42:27 GMT
Having been raised Catholic, I had been discouraged from forms of spirituality that did not acknowledge an omnipotent, omniscient God. However, I am fascinated by such spirituality, which always seemed more conducive to growth, so this discussion interests me (I didn’t join it earlier because I had never read the Bhagavad Gita.) Reading on Whitehead’s Process philosophy regarding the “problem of evil” has led me to some theories on Hinduism, though. Per a discussion in the “Case for a Naturalistic … God” thread I quoted a description of this problem: A book I found discusses the work of Ramanuja, an 11th-century Indian philosopher, work it claims is compatible with this growth-orientation, and seems a better solution to the aforementioned problem than the Abrahamic religions (all being rooted in an elitist “might makes right” tradition that ultimately endorses this perfect and omnipotent God) ever had. In Process philosophy the universe is a creative process and God is a "fellow sufferer" (a "prehensive" subjectivity involved in all events.) After my brief research on Ramanuja my understanding is that a process reading of the concepts of this thread would see "Dharma" as the way creativity plays out for a sentient and "Atman" as the understanding that neither process nor prehension is supreme. I realize my thoughts on this are underdeveloped, but I wanted to get them out here for now in the hopes that someone will contribute to this development. Krishna is considered an omniscient, omnipotent deity, or so "he" claims in the Bhagavad Gita, which is supposed to be a conversation between an ordinary human being, Arjuna, and Krishna. For a comparison between Krisha and other Hindu philosophical ideals or gods there is much discussion to be found in the Bhagavad Gita. For more depth of discussion the Upanishads are more helpful, to this student anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Mar 4, 2018 3:40:32 GMT
Krishna is considered an omniscient, omnipotent deity, or so "he" claims in the Bhagavad Gita, which is supposed to be a conversation between an ordinary human being, Arjuna, and Krishna. For a comparison between Krisha and other Hindu philosophical ideals or gods there is much discussion to be found in the Bhagavad Gita. For more depth of discussion the Upanishads are more helpful, to this student anyway. Do you have any good suggestions for an english translation of the Upanishads? I finished the Gita this past weekend, and I am interested in reading more Hindu literature. Easwaran also has an Upanishad translation. Have you read his, or did you read another version of the Upanishads? |
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Mar 4, 2018 3:41:38 GMT
I'm not sure. I forgot to find that quote, but it's highlighted and perhaps I'll do it tomorrow. DO IT ALREADY GODDAMMIT |
|
