Does Krishna convince you that killing is OK?

[Suraj]

NOTE: I have altered the original question to reflect the situation better: Does Krishna convince you that the killing WAS ok?

I am really interested in the views of people here on the Gita. I hope everybody here knows what the Gita is and the general scenorio, it is easily the most well known Hindu scripture and famous worldwide, held to be a spiritual classic by many scholars, nobel laurettes, philosophers and of course by Ghandi. It is also very controversial, especially with other religions. I recall watching recently in a televised interfaith debate a Muslim woman standing up and asking a really hostile question, shouting in the face of a Hindu Guru:

WHY DID KRISHNA TELL ARJUNA TO KILL HIS OWN RELATIVES?!!!!!!

This is the not the end of it. Krishna also tells Arjuna to cheat on many occasions. These include firing on Karna, Arjuna's only true worthy opponent when he was defenceless(against the rules of combat), telling Bhima to hit Duryodhana just below the waist(again, against the rules of combat) lying to Gurudronacharya his son was dead and using that to deceive Guru dronacharya and kill him. Using a certain prince as a human shield to cover Arjuna to kill the commander and grandfather of the army Bhishma, who cannot fire on prince out of obligation to him. Arjuna with impunity takes advantage and pierces Bhishma with dozens of arrows.


To compound matters these men Karna, Bhishma, Guru Dronacharya are not evil by any means, they all are renowned for being very noble, virtuous. In fact, not only that, they are relatives of Arjuna: Karna is his half-brother and is renowned for his charity, Bhishma is his grandfather and Dronacharya is his most respected teacher. Yet, they are fighting on the other side because of their obligations to their kingdom. This is not a simple black and white moral situation, its highly complex with various shades of grey.


The Gita unfolds on the battlefield. The two juggernaut armies, consisting of hundreds of thousands of warriors are facing each other on the battlefield. The war is yet to commence and it is a foregone conclusion that whoever wins the war, the destruction on both sides is going to be devestating. There will be massive bloodshed. Arjuna knows this, and is having misgivings about the war. He cannot convince himself a war this bloody where he has to kill his own kin is necessary. After all kill for what, land? riches? ego, pride? How can such killing be justified? He becomes very dispondent and tells Krishna(godhead, his charioteer) that he will not fight, that it is better he becomes a beggar than kill his own.

What follows is a moral debate between Arjuna and Krishna where Krishna, the supreme godhead himself, eventually convinces Arjuna to kill his own kin and cheat.

I am going to summarize the arguments given by Krishna and the counter-arguments of Arjuna in the next post. Please tell me if you are convinced by Krishna or Arjuna and let us discuss why.

[Don Penguinoini]

He was told to kill for the sake of dharma. Despite the fact that the other side is his family, he had to carry out justice for the sake of dharma.

And no, he does not convince me that killing is ok, only if it would be the right thing to do.

[Suraj]

Thanks Don. I have altered the original question to reflect the situation better

[3.14]

only people can convince, religion can only be used as a reason

[Suraj]

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

The Gita is a large text to summarize. I have remained true to the dialogue that concerns the moral part and summarized every argument offered in their chronological order.

Arjuna: Why kill ones own family, for all that one wins is wealth and kingdom, but wealth and kingdom is enjoyed with ones kin, it is meaningless without kin? Isn't family more important than wealth and kingdom?


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.


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: 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.

Doing your duty means selflessly acting out duty to the best of your abilities, without care for results and indifference to pain and pleasure. Ones duty is known through reason/intellect alone that which is higher than us and precedes our existence. When we act from that then we are steady and content.

Arjuna: If we are forever content with transcedental knowledge, then why do you want me to fight this horrible war, why not just spend our life in contemplation of knowledge?

Krishna: It is impossible to abstain from action. We cannot remain inactive for a single moment. We are all driven helplessly by instincts and forces outside of our control. When we resist those forces we bind ourselves under karma(cause and effect) and create ignorance and suffering. Nobody can not act. Therefore accept your DHARMA(nature) and do what it tells, only then can you be liberated from bondage.

You have two dharmas: your dharma of your own dispositions which prescribes your duty(warriors protect) and your eternal dharma(humanity) these are above any of our desires.

Arjuna: If we are driven by forces outside of our control, then why can we diverge from the?

Krishna: We diverge only under the influence of the insatiable devil of desire and anger. This is the enemy of reason and knowledge. As a fire is covered by smoke and dust by a mirror, so does desire cloud our reason. We think ourselves to be the doers of actions, when it in fact it is the forces outside of our control. This ties us to bondage and causes pain and suffering. Thus liberate yourself by remaining true only to reason.

Arjuna: You have said that one should do their duty without attachment and one should gain knowledge and praise both equally, which of these is better?

Krishna: They both lead to liberation, but action is better than just knowledge. When one sees action in inaction and inaction in action they act in knowledge. They are in harmony with reason. When one reaches a equanmity with mind and sees everybody and everything as equal and acts only from reason they are at complete harmony and peace with being and of steady mind.

Arjuna: But I do not perceive a steady mind, my mind is unsteady.

Krishna: The mind is stubborn, restless, turbulent, restraining it is like restraining a storm, but through practice one can bring the mind under control. Then one can achieve a steady mind.

Arjuna: Yet what if I never achieve this steady mind then I will gain neither knowledge or happiness in life(Implied: And have to live with the pain of killing his kin)

Krishna: You will never cease to exist and results of your practice in this life will not go in vain. One who practices sincerely in this life but does not attain the goal, will continue from where they left off in their next life. Such souls get the chance to incarnate in the familiy of great mystics and continue their journey in the most conducive conditions.

Thus ends the moral debate part of the Gita. The rest of the Gita goes onto Krishna now having answered every one of Arjuna's moral question in instructing him on the nature of the universe, revealing his supreme form to Arjuna and convincing Arjuna completely. Arjuna then fights and kills his own kin.

Convinced? Not Convinced? Comments?

[Don Penguinoini]

I think it would entirely depend on the circumstances.

[Suraj]

I think it would entirely depend on the circumstances.

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

The debate is a very challenging one, probably one of the most challenging ethical debates I have ever read. It makes modern ethical debates look tame. It can polarise people very strongly, some siding with Krishna and others with Arjuna and both parties can feel very strongly about their positions.

A buddhist may argue in favour of Arjuna. If the purpose of life is to be free from ignorance, then why is any kind of duty necessary? Why not spend ones entire life in pursuit of knowledge and leave wordly things to worldly people?

A Hindu who places dharma above everything will argue in favour of Krishna. That we cannot not act, because above and beyond our illusory will, is his divine will which overrides everything. Whether we like it or not, we will have to act. Even a Buddist when confronted with a situation that threatens their well being, will fight. If we do not go to the situation, the situation will come to us. We cannot be ignorant of those invisible forces that are working throughout the universe which decide every outcome. Rather we gain true freedom when we surrender our will to that divine will and become its instruments.


I side with Krishna very strongly. There is something Krishna says there is undeniable to reason, and I am going to say it in big letters:

REASON PRECEDES OUR EXISTENCE - Before our egos start deciding what is right and what is wrong, reason was there. Those eternal laws of logic were always there. We are these things that come into existence thinking we have the right to declare what is right and wrong, and it will be so? No, we cannot make wrong things right. No matter how much you try you cannot make 2+2 = 5.; you cannot make the sun rise from the west and set in the east; you cannot stop yourself from dying. These are truths that go beyond us.

The laws of the universe, the laws of nature are beyond us. We cannot destroy them. A created thing cannot destroy what creates it. When we oppose these laws and don't live in harmony with them we create suffering for us. It is like trying to make 2+2=5, one will lead themselves into a mental breakdown trying it.

As soon as one accepts reason above and beyond everything else, everything must subvert to it. All circumstances, all selfish interests, all relationships must subvert to it. There musn't be anything higher in your life than knowledge and reason. This is the crux of what Krishna is stating here. It is Arjuna's duty to protect his people and protect righeousness, for he is a warrior, and thus he is duty-bound to do just that. He cannot comprimise with his duty.

If Arjuna had not fought then the Kuruvs would have won and unrigheousness would have won. It is the duty of Arjuna as a warrior to ensure that never happens. He is more than a grandson, a student, a brother, a cousin, a nephew -- he is a warrior!

If we allowed our own warriors, the soliders to make compromises on the safety of the citizens because of their personal needs, then our safety would be at stake. As citizens we expect our warriors to only place one thing above everything else - our safety. Else, they do not deserve to be soliders.

[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.....

[Seyorni]

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.

Arjun perceives the world as an ordinary man, lost in the illusion of it. It is only after a lenthy metaphysical discussion reinforced by a transcendent vision that he acquiesces to his dharma as a warrior.

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.