Does Krishna convince you that killing is OK?

[Suraj]

Krishna speaks from a transcendent point of view, he can see beyond the illusion of the battlefield. To Him the killing is not killing, the arrows and chariots are merely purturbations in the quantum substrate of Reality.

I agree with this. Also Krishna see's that souls are constantly coming and going from this reality, incarnating, dying, reincarnating, that death and killing become rather trivial phenomena and also personal relationships formed in the world also become rather trivial. From his transcendent perspective there is no difference between what we call good and bad.

One must live in the world one perceives. Absent the direct perception of the unreality of the subjectively perceived situation, I'd have to side with Arjuna and bow out of the conflict.

Now it really depends on what you mean by living in the world one perceives. If you mean the world that we want to perceive based on our beliefs, then I disagree very strongly. If we live the world purely subjectively we cannot live practically. If, however, you mean living the world according to what is objective to us on this level of reality then I am more in agreement with you.

If we look at the situation even from Arjuna's perspective we will find that being a warrior he has a duty to protect the people and righteousness. It is clear that the other side, though they may consist of his own kin, are unrighteous and bad for the people. If Arjuna bows out because he cannot bring himself to kill his own, then he is going against his duty and his selfish actions will lead to suffering of his people, whom will condemn him as a coward and curse him for generations.

This directly affects Arjuna's soul. I think this is what Krishna is trying to make Arjuna realise. Arjuna caught in illusion of the world sees himself as Arjuna the friend, the nephew, the cousin-brother, the student, the grandson, which are are only temporal bondages that will release when Arjuna's soul returns. If under the illusion of his relationships Arjuna bows out, then while his temporal relationships will dissolve at death, the karmas generated by Arjuna's actions will remain with him.

So Krishna engages another part of Arjuna - his reason - which is free from any conditioning. This is also very much a part of Arjuna's perspective. Krishna engages that directly with the metaphysical debate and through reason is able to convince this aspect of Arjuna that he should do his duty and fight. So, based on this, wouldn't you say that even as per Arjuna's perpective it was still right to fight and kill his own kin?

[Don Penguinoini]

Originally Posted by Suraj

So you agree with Arjuna over Krishna? As Arjuna is arguing for circumstances and Krishna is arguing for the absolutes.

I think Seyorni mentioned this, but, God would not be here every time to show us the dharmic path, what should be done by a person of a higher spiritual life (cant find the right words )

He sees it as a normal person.

(Seyorni did mention this, but i didnt want to be lazy and say, I second seyorni!)

[Suraj]

In a way, it seems to me as if Krishna is speaking from his high seat and although he speaks with an intellectual flavor he is in fact doing it with a cold perspective, telling Arjuna:
"The being is eternal and cannot be destroyed. The feelings of pain and pleasure, heat and cold only arise in the perishable body, thus why care for such transient things?"

it may be some kind of twist Id expect from an Olympian god in a way, standing on higher ground and manipulating human affairs by trivializing the killing in his reasoning.. and then again this may be a sophisticated injection of irony in to the story by the author of this part, applying that thinking in absolutes is a dangerous business that leads to destruction.

I find it interesting that people think of reason and logic as being cold and emotions as being warm. What happens to logic if you introduce emotion. Here is an examples from things that happen in our world:

A rich man's son commits a crime and is put in prison. The rich man uses his political powers to give his son special opportunities: a better jail cell, better food, better everything. The jail mates cry unfair.

Two people go for an interview, one is a relation of the employer. The other is much better qualified. The relation of the employer gets the job.

A pretty girl goes to school and gets bullied by other, less pretty than her girls, because she is too pretty and they all think she thinks too highly of herself.

A black man mobs a white man on the street. The white man in anger goes and beats up a random black person on the street.

A man rapes a woman in front of his brother. His brother does not report it, because he's his brother!

I think you get my message. I would hardly call any of this warm. In fact what it goes to show us all evil and suffering in our society is caused by people thinking emotionally, doing things according to their subjective desires, their wants and their needs.

However, when we do things according to reason alone when we are rational beings, we do things only according to the laws of the universe(logic) and somebody who is truly logical cannot be evil. As evIl arises only out of ignorance and the intellect destroys ignorance. Apply reason to each of the situations:

EMOTION: A pretty girl goes to school and gets bullied by other, less pretty girls, because she is too pretty and they all think she thinks too highly of herself.[/quote]

REASON: They are not bullying the pretty girl because she thinks too highly of herself, they are bullying her because she is prettier than them and are making up excuses to hide their insecurity by accusing her of thinking too highly of herself.

EMOTION: A rich man's son commits a crime and is put in prison. The rich man uses his political powers to give his son special opportunities: a better jail cell, better food, better everything. The jail mates cry unfair.

REASON: The laws of the prison are equal for everybody. They all have equal rights and there cannot be any discrimination.

EMOTION: Two people go for an interview, one is a relation of the employer. The other is much better qualified. The relation of the employer gets the job.

REASON: A man is only suited to his job according to his qualifications and skills and the candidate with the best qualifications should get the job.


EMOTION: A black man mobs a white man on the street. The white man in anger goes and beats up a random black person on the street.

REASON: The white man was mobbed by a particular black man. The white man punishes a general black man for the crime they did not commit.

EMOTION: A man rapes a woman in front of his brother. His brother does not report it, because he's his brother!

REASON: The man who rapes the woman in front of his brother is a rapist and thereby a criminal. The man being a rapist and criminal is not negated by the man being a brother. As the man is a criminal and rapist, he should be reported like all criminals.

In all the above cases it is REASON which actually ends up being warm and right. It is fortunate that today we live in REASONABLE society, or the examples I showed above would be very frequent occurrences.

Back to Krishna and Arjuna: If every solider in our country refused to do their duty for the country because of what they wanted, we would have no country left.

[Caladan]

Suraj,

All of your analogies seems like comparing apples and oranges to me.

I havent said anything about 'emotions being warm', what I did imply is that the logic of Krishna seems detached from human reality, which in this case involves war and the sufferings of war.

in fact it seems like Krishna is the one that appeals to emotions when he says:

Krishna: It is your duty to fight and if you don't you will be condemned as a coward. To a warrior dishonour is worse than death.

When Arjuna shares his dilemma with Krishna:

Arjuna: Killing people who are noble and worthy of worship is not a good thing. Indeed, how do we know which alternative is better for them to kill us or us to kill them. Isn't it all the same, killing?

Krishna seems to answer with the intellect of someone who is completely detached of the seriousness of the matter, and the reality of it, Krishna answers with going on about the immortality of the soul, which to me seem to trivalize the reality of war and the approaching suffering as a result of the outcome, Krishna says:

Krishna: Nothing can destroy the indestructible being. The being is eternal and cannot be destroyed. The feelings of pain and pleasure, heat and cold only arise in the perishable body, thus why care for such transient things? Even if you think that you cease to exist after the body, then even then you should not care, because it is certain what is born will die. So why lament over the inevitable? Rather do your duty as a warrior and fight, there is nothing higher than a righteous war for a warrior.

To me that answer seems completely detached from reality, unempathic to the human reality.

Back to Krishna and Arjuna: If every solider in our country refused to do their duty for the country because of what they wanted, we would have no country left.

as someone who has served in the military and is still a soldier doing reserves duty every year I realize the need to fill in your rank in the bigger picture of security, but to me these matters have to be separated from the realm of the fantastic, and a philosophy which relates to this sort of reality must be applied.
many great dictator in history have sent countless to their death, because of some idea of an absolute immortality of their national ethos. many are dissilusioned during the war or in its aftermath.

it would help the thread a lot if a background for the upcoming war is given, you seem to justify the war, and given the background for this war, so might the rest of us who take part in this thread.

[Suraj]

Hi Caladan,

it would help the thread a lot if a background for the upcoming war is given, you seem to justify the war, and given the background for this war, so might the rest of us who take part in this thread.

I think that is a good idea. I did not give the background because the information was not necessary for the debate in the Gita.
Here is a very brief summary of the background:

The war is the climax of the Mahabharata epic. When Dhristrashth was born he was born blind, though he was the legal heir to the throne of Hastinapur, because he was blind he was not considered fit to take the position of king. So the throne of Hastinapur went to his younger brother Pandu.

King Pandu went in temporary exile and the throne was given to Dhrishtrash temproarily. However, the next legal heir to the kingdom was going to be the eldest son of Pandu. That was going to be Prince Yudhishtra.

King Dhrishtrash's wife Ghandari(a Afghani born queen) could not conceive, so they had to conceive through artificial means using cloning believe it or not. From this was born their eldest son Prince Duryodhana and 99 other sons(together known as Kuruvs) who was born after Pandu's eldest son Yudhistra.

Price Yudhishtra was the legal heir to the throne because he was the eldest. This lead to great rivalry between Dhristrath's sons and Pandu's 5 sons(Pandavas: Yudhishtra, Arjuna, Bhima, Nakul Sahedev) from very early childhood. Duryodhana was incensed that Yudhistra was going to be king, despite his father being the king. He hated the Pandvas with a passion. His uncle Shukini(Ghandir's brother) had his own personal vendetta against Hastinapur, that his sister was married to a blind man, and was conspiring to destroy Hastinapur. He would stir Duryodhana up and tell him how injust it was that he would not be king.

The Pandvas were very good, noble and virtuous princes, they were loved very dearly by Hastinapur's royality, the grandsire of Bhishma, also their grandfather, especially loved them. Duryodhana on the other hand was jealous and felt they got more love than him.

The Pandvas and the Kuruvs were sent off to special royal school(in those days children would be sent off to school at 6-7, and graduated when they were adults) and their rivalry continued. Although the Pandavas were very accepting of the Kuruvs and considered them brothers, the Kuruvs had nothing but malice for them and were pathologically jealous of them. Many covert assassination attempts were made on the Pandavas by the Kuruvs. This included poisoning Bhima(Pandava) when he was young. All their attempts backfired. Hastinapur royalty knew what was going on, and so did the Pandavas, but kept quiet, because although king Dhrishtrath knew how corrupt his son was, he was blinded by his love for him and also had a secret desire for him to be king. Duryodhana was constantly excused for his behaviour and he got worse and worse. He grew up to be a very arrogant, violent and cruel prince.

When they graduated and were adults they were ready to return to Hastinapur. The political conspiracies intensified. An attempt was made at assassinating the Pandavas in a palace made out of lac(a highly flammable substance) The Pandvas came to know of this from their uncle Vidhur and Vidhur arranged for a trapdoor to be built, which lead out to the sea, and saved them through a ship sent out to rescue them.

The Kuruvs were not at all happy that the Pandavas survived. The Kuruvs came right out and told the Pandavas they want war with them. The Pandavas did not want war and wanted a peaceful settlement. After deliberation the Kuruvs agreed to giving them a piece of land, while they would keep Hastinapur. Krishna meditated in this and encouraged the Pandavas to accept.

The land the Pandavas got was a barren pieice of dessert land called Indraprastha. They had to build a kingdom from nothing. The Pandavas aided by Krishna managed not only to build a kingdom, but a really beautiful and prosperous one that impressed everybody. Their palace was gorgeous and considered the most technologically advanced. This made Duryodhana very jealous. In fact Duryodhana could never abide to see the Pandavas happy.

Another plot was devised the Pandavas were invited to a rigged game of gambling. Duryodhana used this opportunity to completely humilate the Pandavas, and the infamous incident of disrobing their wife Drupadi was done, who was pulled by her hair and dragged into the assembly and then disrobed. This came as a huge blow to the morale of the Pandavas, and everybody in the assembly was very shamed by the behaviour of Duryodhana. At the end of the game King Dhrishtrasth out of sheer shame gave everything the Pandvas had lost back to them.(Except, he could not give them back their self-respect after such humilation)

The Pandava tolerance was waning, they wanted revenge, but their eldest brother Yudhishtra kept them in peace.

Despite the almost divine tolerance of the Pandavas, Duryodhana just could not unrelent from his oppression of them. He told them either they face war with him or play another game with him. The loser of which will have to go into exile for 14 years, and live 1 year in disguise, if they are found in the 1 year period, they would have to live another 14 years in exile. The Pandavas did not want the war, they knew just how destructive it would be, so they accepted their offer. The Pandavas lost and were exiled for 14 years to live in poverty.

After 14 years and 1 year of succesful disguise they returned to reclaim their kingdom, now bigger than before, winning many political allies in their exile. Duryodhana did not want to give it back to them, despite the fact that they had served their term as agreed. There was now no other option but war. The injustice was simply too great and had become ridiculous.

A final effort was made at peace. Krishna went as their peace envoy to Hastinapur and told them of the demands of the Pandvas. All they wanted was their little pieice of their kingdom back. Duryodhana responded, "I WILL NOT GIVE THOSE BEGGARS A SINGLE PENNY" and then he ordered his soliders to take Krishna as prisoner. This was completely against polity then, the peace envoy was only a messenger. They could not imprison Krishna because he was too powerful for them.

All of this lead to the huge climax of the Mahabharata. Krishna and the Pandavas pleaded to their loved ones, their grandfather, the commander of Hastinapur, their teachers, the royal teachers of Hastinapur to not fight against them. But they were duty-bound. They wished them victory, but told them they will have to fight against them.

This all lead to the Mahabharata war. The rest of it is as I told in the OP: Arjuna becoming despondent on the battlefield and having misgivings.

[Ben Masada]

Originally Posted by Suraj

I am disappointed at the lack of response to this thread. It is actually a really good topic discussing a complex moral issue, a great topic for intelligent and high level philosophical discussion. I really wish the latter was more common than the opposite.

Come on, take a break from the usual simple threads, and sink your teeth into something far more intellectually challenging

Or is it simply because this topic is about Hinduism, and not the two 'great' religions Christianity and Islam? Because I am kind of getting that impression from the other threads I have created about Hinduism, and the same lack of response.....

+++++++++++++++++

I'll tell you why you are disappointed for the lack of response to this thread. You write too much. Divide the topics in no more than two small paragraphs and you will be satisfied by the responses. You bring attractive topics for discussion but don't give us everything at once.

Ben

[Suraj]

Ben, fair point. I will keep that in consideration for future posts

[Suraj]

Caladan,

I hope you can see that it was a righteous war. The Pandvas really had no choice but to have this war, and despite them trying everything to avoid it and make peace, Duryodhana and the Kuruvs would not leave them in peace. Can you imagine if Arjuna had bowed out just how cruel Duryodhana would have been as a king? This is Krishna's point, Arjuna would have been condemned as a coward by the people for several generations. His personal relationships had to subvert to something much higher - his duty to protect his people.

All of your analogies seems like comparing apples and oranges to me.

They are not really. The last analogy in particular of a man raping a woman in front of his brother and the brother not reporting him due to him being his brother, despite is duty to do it. Is similar to the Gita situation: Arjuna is arguing not do his duty because his opponents are his relatives.

I havent said anything about 'emotions being warm', what I did imply is that the logic of Krishna seems detached from human reality, which in this case involves war and the sufferings of war.

Formal logical reasoning is also detached from human sentiments. I tried to show you above with my analogies how logic actually promotes the best for humans.

in fact it seems like Krishna is the one that appeals to emotions

No, Krishna is appealing to Arjuna to do what is right. Arjuna is duty-bound as a warrior to protect his people. Just as it would not be appealing to emotions to tell the rapist's brother to his duty and report his brother, likewise it is not appealing to emotions to tell Arjuna to do his duty and fight.

Krishna seems to answer with the intellect of someone who is completely detached of the seriousness of the matter, and the reality of it, Krishna answers with going on about the immortality of the soul, which to me seem to trivalize the reality of war and the approaching suffering as a result of the outcome, Krishna says

Yes Krishna is completely detached from any kind of subjectivity. I really liked what Seyorni said of how Krishna being a transcedental being can see reality transcedentally, for him the killings are just perbutations in the quantum substrate.
When he knows the soul is eternal and is constantly coming and going from the world, how can such a being be affected by transient things like peoples relationships in this world?

When we play a computer game with computer characters we are the transcedent being. Imagine if we could inside the computer game and talk to one of the characters and their problems. We will be amused, wouldn't we, because we know the characters problems are all imaginary, and there is a world outside of them which is real. Similarly, Krishna is amused at Arjuna's dispondency. Hence tells him, "the wise grieve neither for the living or the dead"