• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Bhagavad Gita /discussion, thoughts

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I think there is a significant difference between viewing war as an ideally undesirable but sometimes necessary thing and viewing it as a "gate to heaven" or something to relish taking part in. I don't think celebrating or relishing opportunities for bloodshed is healthy at all.

Agreed. It is very dangerous to allow oneself to be convinced that there is a duty to kill, and even more so to use "defense of a country" as justification.

That can't ever be believed lightly.
 

nameless

The Creator
And that is a dangerous teaching to hold or learn, don't you agree? There is a lot of harm that can be sort-of-justified with it.

Please be kind enough to explain how this teaching could be dangerous when there is a necessary war, and the soldiers who are supposed to fight for the good becomes weak to fight by worrying about the future of the people of opposite side who dies.
 
Last edited:

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Please be kind enough to explain how this teaching could be dangerous when there is a necessary war, and the soldiers who are supposed to fight for the good becomes weak to fight by worrying about the future of the people of opposite side who dies.

One of several ways is by assuming that there is such a thing as a necessary war in the first place.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
I see the battle scene as a metaphor of what Arjuna learned from Krishna. Selfhood is like that battle against the world, which includes parts of our self; the spiritual man, in understanding his self and its relation to the eternal, moves beyond that narrow vision and understands that there is no life distinct from death and no death distinct from life.
 

nameless

The Creator
I don't think celebrating or relishing opportunities for bloodshed is healthy at all.
Arjuna fought the mahabharatha war to win the kingdom, to bring justice. Those words says to relish for being part of bringing justice, it does not necessarily mean about bloodshed.
 
Last edited:

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
It's been a while since I read the Gita, but I used to read it a lot.

To start, the first thing i'd mention is my opinion that the BG does not imply Krishna's supremacy, specifically over any other form. I think that Krishna is just representative and that the teachings would still stand, regardless of what character played the part of Krishna.

Actually, the Bhagavad Gita doesn't just imply Krishna being supreme, it states it outright:

5.29. Knowing Me, the recipient of all worship and austere practices, the Supreme Lord of all the worlds, and the friend of all beings, man attains to eternal peace.

7.21-23. Whichever devotee desires to adore whatever such Deity with faith, in all such votaries I make that particular faith unshakable. Endowed with that faith, a votary performs the worship of that particular deity and obtains the fruits thereof, these being granted by Me alone. The results accruing to such small-minded people are finite only. Those who worship the Devas go to the Devas, but My devotees attain to Me.

9.11. Foolish men, without an understanding of My higher nature as the Supreme Lord of all that exists, disregard Me manifested in the human body.

10.12-13. Arjuna said: Thou art the Supreme Brahman, the Supreme Abode, the Utterly Holy. Thou art the eternal divine Person - the birthless and all-pervading Divinity supreme. All the Rishis proclaim this - the divine sage Narada as also Asita, Devala and Vyasa; Thou Thyself too dost tell Me the same.

10.42. But then, of what avail is this detailed understanding of my manifestations to you, O Arjuna! Supporting this mighty universe with but one single fragment of My self, I remain unchanged and transcendent.

Chapter 11 is the cosmic, divine form which shows Krishna as the Supreme Being.

15.18. As I transcend the Perishable and am also superior to the Imperishable, I am well-known as the the Supreme Being in both the Vedic and secular literature.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
I think there is a significant difference between viewing war as an ideally undesirable but sometimes necessary thing and viewing it as a "gate to heaven" or something to relish taking part in. I don't think celebrating or relishing opportunities for bloodshed is healthy at all.

This is true, and unfortunately two other scriptures have also been used all too often to justify killing. This is why all these scriptures need to be translated and interpreted by scholars who know the context in which they were written. But even when that's done, we don't always heed those interpretations.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
I think there is a significant difference between viewing war as an ideally undesirable but sometimes necessary thing and viewing it as a "gate to heaven" or something to relish taking part in. I don't think celebrating or relishing opportunities for bloodshed is healthy at all.

Even in Koran, there is a warning that the whole should be assimilated.

First, the war in Mahabharata was not avertable. One who knows the full Mahabharata will know that. All steps were taken to avoid the war.

Second, the Gita is not about war. It is about moksha. We are in our situation by our own karma and by our own desire. And then we start to suffer. Karma yoga is a prescription to complete the duty that has befallen on account of our karma and our desire .. as smoothly as possible.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
This is true, and unfortunately two other scriptures have also been used all too often to justify killing. This is why all these scriptures need to be translated and interpreted by scholars who know the context in which they were written. But even when that's done, we don't always heed those interpretations.

Excellent observation.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
I see the battle scene as a metaphor of what Arjuna learned from Krishna. Selfhood is like that battle against the world, which includes parts of our self; the spiritual man, in understanding his self and its relation to the eternal, moves beyond that narrow vision and understands that there is no life distinct from death and no death distinct from life.

Yes. There are three levels at which any scripture o Hinduism is understood.

1. Literal 2. Ethical, and 3. Spiritual.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
I see the battle scene as a metaphor of what Arjuna learned from Krishna. Selfhood is like that battle against the world, which includes parts of our self; the spiritual man, in understanding his self and its relation to the eternal, moves beyond that narrow vision and understands that there is no life distinct from death and no death distinct from life.

Yes. There are three levels at which any scripture o Hinduism is understood.

1. Literal 2. Ethical, and 3. Spiritual.

The battle is in kuru-khsetra. Khestra (field) is the body. Kuru is Joy.

It is the battle in the field of joy. We do not know the Kurukhestra .. the body of joy, until the 100 evil tendencies are vanquished.

For me, Kurukhestra and Jerusalem have similar meaning.

Gita)

On the battlefield of Kurukshetra, Lord Krishna, during the course of His most instructive and interesting talk with Arjuna, revealed profound, sublime and soul-stirring spiritual truths, and expounded to him the rare secrets of Yoga, Vedanta, Bhakti (Devotion) and Karma (Action). The whole world is one huge battlefield. The real Kurukshetra is within you. The battle of the Mahabharata is raging within. Ignorance is Dhritarashtra; the individual soul is Arjuna; the indweller of your heart is Lord Krishna, the charioteer; the body is the chariot; the senses are the five horses; mind, egoism, mental impressions, senses, cravings, likes and dislikes, lust, jealousy, greed, pride and hypocrisy are your dire enemies.

Best
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The debate turned mostly into whether righteous wars exist. Which was not my point.

I know it can be interpreted in multiple ways. Gandhi, a pacifist, loved the Bhagavad Gita and he interpreted Arjuna's enemies as mental enemies.

I think there's a difference between interpreting it to its best possible meaning to suit one's own needs and outlook, and examining the earlier context of what it was written. Since Krishna gave Arjuna a variety of reasons to kill that were specific to killing, and because the Gita is part of the much larger narrative epic of the Mahabharata, the context to me does seem to be literal in that regard, in addition to any metaphorical meanings that may be assigned or intended such as Arjuna representing the reader, his enemies representing mental enemies like one's own problems, etc.

And I know the Gita is mostly about spiritual matters rather than war. And I don't particularly view the entire spiritual message as a positive one. Some aspects I think are alright, and some I don't.

For example I don't agree with using the speculative idea of reincarnation to explain away death as not being a big deal and saying that the wise don't grieve and that Arjuna doesn't have to feel bad for his enemies that he'll kill because they'll be reborn. I don't agree with using tribalism, which is all too common in these sorts of texts, to morally praise believers and condemn disbelievers as fools on the basis of their belief with the person's claims. Good arguments are better than that. And I don't agree with how Dharma/Duty is often presented, in terms of how a person is born. "Doing one's duty" is a good thing, but this concept, along with the idea of reincarnation based on deeds in previous lives, can also be used as justification for things like arranged marriages (doing one's duty), being kept in a position of being a laborer one's whole life (doing one's duty, their previous actions determined their type of birth), etc. When ideas like that are taken on faith, I believe harm can arise, and considering that India has quite a bit of broad social/cultural problems when compared to many other countries, I don't think it's purely speculative harm.

The Gita is also culturally relevant, and a significant contribution to literature as part of the larger Mahabharata it's a part of. Its explanation of Karma Yoga as a way to merge the two seemingly opposed ideas of Dharma and Asceticism at the time, was a novel one, and a good contribution to philosophy.
 

raw_thought

Well-Known Member
The narrative of the Gita is a war. Arjuna is fighting in a war, and he starts off by feeling despair about the whole thing because he doesn't want to be dishonored but he also doesn't want to kill people on the other side, especially because he used to know them well.

Krishna encourages him to fight and kill, because it's his duty and that all of the people he kills will be reincarnated anyway.

I don't consider that aspect to be a positive message. It's too easy to run that in the wrong direction. Someone like Gandhi can interpret the whole thing as a metaphor and say that the enemies were mental enemies, but the context is pretty straightforward and uses reincarnation as a justification.
My interpretation is different. Arjuna sees the many manifestations of Brahman. Brahman is Atman. In other words our individual center ( consciousness) is Brahman playing hide and seek with the universe.
Being an "untouchable" is God slumming it. In other words ( since ultimately its all a play and we go back to reality after the performance) we can experience dramas ( like war etc) the intensity of which surpasses even a Greek tragedy.
God is an artist. Not a shop keeper that counts his pennies.
 

DreadFish

Cosmic Vagabond
Actually, the Bhagavad Gita doesn't just imply Krishna being supreme, it states it outright:

5.29. Knowing Me, the recipient of all worship and austere practices, the Supreme Lord of all the worlds, and the friend of all beings, man attains to eternal peace.

7.21-23. Whichever devotee desires to adore whatever such Deity with faith, in all such votaries I make that particular faith unshakable. Endowed with that faith, a votary performs the worship of that particular deity and obtains the fruits thereof, these being granted by Me alone. The results accruing to such small-minded people are finite only. Those who worship the Devas go to the Devas, but My devotees attain to Me.

9.11. Foolish men, without an understanding of My higher nature as the Supreme Lord of all that exists, disregard Me manifested in the human body.

10.12-13. Arjuna said: Thou art the Supreme Brahman, the Supreme Abode, the Utterly Holy. Thou art the eternal divine Person - the birthless and all-pervading Divinity supreme. All the Rishis proclaim this - the divine sage Narada as also Asita, Devala and Vyasa; Thou Thyself too dost tell Me the same.

10.42. But then, of what avail is this detailed understanding of my manifestations to you, O Arjuna! Supporting this mighty universe with but one single fragment of My self, I remain unchanged and transcendent.

Chapter 11 is the cosmic, divine form which shows Krishna as the Supreme Being.

15.18. As I transcend the Perishable and am also superior to the Imperishable, I am well-known as the the Supreme Being in both the Vedic and secular literature.

Ok, I see that Krishna does say that Krishna specifically is the Supreme Brahman. I guess I just disagree :D I do think that the BG would still stand without specifying that Krishna is Brahman. I dont think it's important. It also doesn't make sense to me that the Supreme Brahman, free from attributes or specific form, is said to be Krishna specifically. Krishna is a form with attributes, so how can that form specifically be THE form of the unlimited, attribute-less Brahman? This is why I say that I think any deity could take his place here, because any deity that is a manifestation of Brahman is just a manifestation of Brahman, as Brahman is beyond even those manifestations. It is probably just because im approaching this from different ontology than those who wrote the BG :D

I guess I just see it as a case of sectarianism.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Ok, I see that Krishna does say that Krishna specifically is the Supreme Brahman. I guess I just disagree :D I do think that the BG would still stand without specifying that Krishna is Brahman. I dont think it's important. It also doesn't make sense to me that the Supreme Brahman, free from attributes or specific form, is said to be Krishna specifically. Krishna is a form with attributes, so how can that form specifically be THE form of the unlimited, attribute-less Brahman? This is why I say that I think any deity could take his place here, because any deity that is a manifestation of Brahman is just a manifestation of Brahman, as Brahman is beyond even those manifestations. It is probably just because im approaching this from different ontology than those who wrote the BG :D

I guess I just see it as a case of sectarianism.

You are the Supreme Brahman, too.
 

DreadFish

Cosmic Vagabond
You are the Supreme Brahman, too.

Or rather, the Supreme Brahman is me too :D

EDIT: I guess that's what im getting at. I view Krishna, in the BG, as the placeholder for a realized individual who is the Supreme Brahman, and thus an expression of it, and shows this and other things about reality to Arjuna, who has not realized the nature of things and is still caught in mundane appearances.
 
Last edited:
Top