Bhagavad Gita /discussion, thoughts

[atanu]

Ok, I see that Krishna does say that Krishna specifically is the Supreme Brahman. I guess I just disagree 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

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

I think I understand you. For advaita school, meditation on the 'I' awareness, is the way to the source of the Awareness itself. So, most advaitins understand 'I am the way' of Jesus in same non sectarian light. But those who still harbour the misgiving that Brahman is localised-delineated personality, "I am the way", means that the image of physical Jesus or his sayings are the only way and there is no other valid way available. So, "I am the way" becomes sectarian.

Similar is the case with all scriptural sayings. Scripture must be learned sitting beside a realised Guru, and that is called Upanishad.

For Hinduism:

1.Brahman-Atman is one without a second (as air is distinct from the objects that it pervades) and Brahman is also All. Brahman is of the nature of existence-knowledge-bliss.

2. A knower of Brahman becomes Brahman.

3. Brahman can manifest and animate any form-name (personality-soul-purusha) using its mAyA shakti (power).

4. The same power of mAyA shakti can ensnare one in forgetfulness and a purusha (soul)- personality may forget its essential unlimited unbounded sat-chid-anada nature.
.......

In my understanding, no scripture is sectarian and no scripture encourages violence. It is our predilection arising out of our divisive view of universe that makes us see forms-names as more fundamental truths than the infinite unlimited nature of Brahman. But that also is ok, since we require a form to meditate upon in the beginning.

 

[George-ananda]

What about a war against Hitler? Wan't it morally necessary for Britain to fight?

That is an open question, IMO. However, the war could and should have been avoided, or at least handled better before starting.

Well, the debate on Hitler is off this topic. The point is we can theoretically posit crazy tyrannical dictators that can only be stopped by force.

 

[atanu]

At one level of understanding, arjuna and duroydhana are both reaping their respective fruits of karma. Arjuna chose only the wisdom-Lord. Duryodhana, on the other hand, chose Lord's army.

Detaching and completing the tasks in the mode of non doer-ship can only free arjuna from the fetters of samsara.

At another level, all this is the picture unfolding in a single awareness .... In this case, represented by Sanjaya... The one who Sees and tells the story to Dhritarashtra, who is blind and ignorant.

 

[Vinayaka]

What about a war against Hitler? Wan't it morally necessary for Britain to fight?

The Nazi's and especially Himmler, was a great fan of the BG. Himmler carried a copy with him.

So the point ... if misinterpreted by the wrong people, it could be dangerous' has to be well taken.

I also think that people who are prone to fighting will find something to back them up, no matter what. If it wasn't the BG, it would have been something else.

 

[Willamena]

Or rather, the Supreme Brahman is me too

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.

Even the mundane appearances are not distinct from Brahman. More than a placeholder, and more than just identification. The avatar, Krishna, can correctly say, with knowing, that "I am Brahman."

 

[DreadFish]

Even the mundane appearances are not distinct from Brahman. More than a placeholder, and more than just identification. The avatar, Krishna, can correctly say, with knowing, that "I am Brahman."

Yes, I mean being caught in mundane appearances as they appear, with a sense of inherent identity/concreteness and separateness.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, the debate on Hitler is off this topic. The point is we can theoretically posit crazy tyrannical dictators that can only be stopped by force.

The question becomes then whether such situations are of interest to religion, and how so, don't you agree?

My take on it is that a religiously acceptable war is a self-contradictory concept.

 

[DreadFish]

The question becomes then whether such situations are of interest to religion, and how so, don't you agree?

My take on it is that a religiously acceptable war is a self-contradictory concept.

Yeah, I think people have used religion to justify war where there is no justification. Still, it does seem that there are certain circumstances where fighting is inevitable. There are aggressive people out there and diplomacy isn't always effective in dealing with them (through no fault of those trying to engage in diplomacy). Sometimes there are ill-willed aggressors and sometimes we have to face to heat and deal with them.

I take this case as the literal interpretation of the BG. These people were forcefully trying to take the kingdom, they would have caused more harm to the kingdom were they to take it and Arjuna has to face his duty of fighting them to keep his kingdom safe.

I think of things like the Chinese invasion of Tibet. They didn't resist and now there is a lot of suffering. Should they have fought the invasion? Would it have caused more suffering than the Chinese government is causing their people now? Or would it have curbed the overall damage done?

I dont know, but it seems that sometimes we have to fight. But I dont mean to say that being the aggressor is ever acceptable.

 

[George-ananda]

The question becomes then whether such situations are of interest to religion, and how so, don't you agree?

Arjuna was of the warrior caste; Kshatriya caste. This caste is an important part of the body of society.

My take on it is that a religiously acceptable war is a self-contradictory concept.

Why? Hinduism teaches you to fulfill your dharma. To fight a morally right war against evil is his duty/dharma as a Kshatriya.

 

[LuisDantas]

Arjuna was of the warrior caste; Kshatriya caste. This caste is an important part of the body of society.

Do you think that answered my question?

Why? Hinduism teaches you to fulfill your dharma. To fight a morally right war against evil is his duty/dharma as a Kshatriya.

We still have to demonstrate that such a scenario is realistically sound first.

Is it even possible to be a "morally right warrior"?

 

[nameless]

The question becomes then whether such situations are of interest to religion, and how so

I don't understand why religion should not have any interest in the welfare of the society, the religion is someway or the other is linked with how the society functions.

My take on it is that a religiously acceptable war is a self-contradictory concept.

For the welfare of the humanity, whatever it takes is not a self-contradictory concept to the religion. In the case of Mahabharatha, pandavas has gone down to earth to avoid war by asking only tiny piece of land, but it didn't help.

 

[nameless]

Is it even possible to be a "morally right warrior"?

Yes! an individual is dependent on a society, and safety is an integral part of a society. IMO, there is nothing wrong in taking the responsibility in protecting the society which he depends on, especially by those who are well capable for that, whats immorality in that?

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes! an individual is depended on a society, and safety is a integral part of a society. IMO, there is nothing wrong in taking the responsibility in protecting the society which he depends on, especially by those who are well capable for that, whats immorality in that?

A warrior is not a physician, a home or a shield. His role is to attack, not to protect. Such a role is inherently troublesome from a religious perspective.

 

[Poeticus]

Luis,

The Mahabharata War was not a religious war.​

 

[nameless]

A warrior is not a physician, a home or a shield. His role is to attack, not to protect. Such a role is inherently troublesome from a religious perspective.

What do you mean by 'to protect'? shielding by not harming those who initiates an attack?

 

[Madhuri]

So are Arjuna is concerned with causing death, and Krishna tells him not to grieve for those unworthy of grief, and that there is no death because of reincarnation anyway, and that the wise believe this position (despite the fact that thousands of years later there's still no concrete evidence for it). And he's fortunate, because it's not every day a warrior gets to do this much righteous slaughter and go to heaven for it.

This explanation is why I think that you are misunderstanding the message- incredibly so. This is not the message that most derive from it, especially Hindus.

It indeed can be harmful if a person interprets it as you have- but your interpretation is a little shocking to me as it is not at all how Hindus view it.

 

[Madhuri]

After reading some replies here, I wonder whether the Bhagavad Gita is considered so integral to Hindu beliefs that criticizing it amounts to trying to refute the foundations of the religion in some people's view.

I think giving any particular scriptural or religious text such significance--that is, equating criticism of it to attempts at refutation of universal or incorruptible truths--is usually rather limiting. It's like putting too many philosophical eggs in one basket, so to speak.

I don't think that anyone here is doing that. I'm certainly not. I would react the same way if I was discussing a fictional novel with someone who had a different theory about a character or situation. If I disagreed with their theory, I would state why I think that their view is incorrect and explain why.

 

[Desert Snake]

This explanation is why I think that you are misunderstanding the message- incredibly so. This is not the message that most derive from it, especially Hindus.

It indeed can be harmful if a person interprets it as you have- but your interpretation is a little shocking to me as it is not at all how Hindus view it.

Well, I have Prabhupadas version, the explanations are reasonable.

 

[Desert Snake]

If someone reads it without explanations/purports, I'm not sure it will fully make sense.
Then again, it's good to read both.
There can be, I think , slight differences between purports and ones own interpretation.
However, if my interpretation is too far off from the purports, I would examine the purports again, at least putting a 'most likely/most similar to actual logical meaning to them.

 

[Madhuri]

A warrior is not a physician, a home or a shield. His role is to attack, not to protect. Such a role is inherently troublesome from a religious perspective.

But in Hinduism a warrior should only fight under certain circumstances. He is not a blood thirsty barbarian- he is a protector of his people and his society. He should not be invasive- he should be protecting his own from invasion. I'm not sure how to view these people as anything other than protectors from the Hindu perspective.