Bhagavad Gita /discussion, thoughts

[Madhuri]

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.

I think it's important to read from various sources. Prabhupada often interjects highly biased opinions into the purports- opinions that are vastly different from any mainstream Hindu thought.

 

[Madhuri]

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

You don't think it was necessary? The Pandavas did not start the war- it was forced onto them. To back down would have meant to give up their kingdom (it was theirs- the eldest brother was the rightful heir to the throne) to people who were murderes, thieves, cheaters and liars.

Are you saying that if someone invades your country that it should be allowed in order to avoid war? If Krishna had told Arjuna to lay down his weapons and retreat to the forest and not fight, the message would be that one should never fight and that any invasion and violence from an opposing force should be tolerated.

 

[Madhuri]

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.

I understand. I think I would agree with you if I believed that God and reincarnation are not real phenomenon. The explanations by Krishna only make sense if these concepts are actually real.

But if one believes in reincarnation then it is wise to not grieve because why would you lament if you believe that the individual still exists? In this context a 'fool' is someone who believes in reincarnation but still laments at death. Unless you can find me a quote by Krishna that specifically states that one who does not believe in reincarnation is a fool.

I'm not sure how arranged marriage would be considered one's Dharma. Hinduism doesn't present rules so much as guidelines or principles. What is Dharma for an individual can change with context imo. Perhaps there is a context where one could be convinced that an arranged marriage is one's responsibility but if I, as an individual, am not convinced that such a thing is my duty- well it's only people telling me so. Not my God.

As for the idea that one has to be a labouror their whole life- that is a relatively recent interpretation of the Varna System (caste). In-depth research into the scriptures and history reveals that such a mentality was not always a part of Hindu thought or culture. One could move from one varna to another and it was not dictated by birth either. One's duty thus would be a matter of their natural inclinations.

 

[DreadFish]

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.

This appears to be a stubbornly limited definition.

If a warrior only attacks, what do you call the people who fight in defense? There are people who only fight in defense.

Lets take a look at the Merriam-Webster definitions:

war·rior noun, often attributive \ˈwȯr-yər, ˈwȯr-ē-ər, ˈwär-ē- also ˈwär-yər\
: a person who fights in battles and is known for having courage and skill

Full Definition of WARRIOR

: a man engaged or experienced in warfare; broadly : a person engaged in some struggle or conflict <poverty warriors>

Source.

So with that definition aside, I'd say that, yes, you can have a morally-right warrior. In an ideal world, there would be no violence and conflict among people, but in the world we actually live in, there are selfish and aggressive people who take advantage of others. There are times when people will inevitably have to struggle and fight back to try to keep balance.

 

[LuisDantas]

You don't think it was necessary?

Wars become necessary when people fail to avoid then, most often due to demographical problems that need widespread slaughter to be solved.

That can't ever be a goal, though. And most certainly not an accepted concept for any religion.

The Pandavas did not start the war- it was forced onto them. To back down would have meant to give up their kingdom (it was theirs- the eldest brother was the rightful heir to the throne) to people who were murderes, thieves, cheaters and liars.

I do have a problem with this kind of premise, certainly.

1. Wars are usually perceived as forced by the other side.

2. I'm not sure it even has any meaning to say that people may have a Kingdom.

3. Let alone a rightful heir. Or a throne, for that matter.

4. A whole people described as criminals? I'm not sure I can get behind that either. Particularly when the goal is to explain why it is ok to kill then wholesale.

Are you saying that if someone invades your country that it should be allowed in order to avoid war?

Usually. War is very hard to justify on moral or religious grounds.

Not that I truly understand what you mean by "my country". I am the creator of no country. Even if I were, it is doubtful that it would be "mine" in any meaningful sense. I would certainly not feel entitled to take lives to protect its ephemeral and meaningless existence.

If Krishna had told Arjuna to lay down his weapons and retreat to the forest and not fight, the message would be that one should never fight and that any invasion and violence from an opposing force should be tolerated.

If we are to take messages literally, that is probably a better one.

Of course, there are other messages to express as well. A sacred text does not need to take as a premise that war is unavoidable and has already started.

Then again, it is part of human nature to feel mobilized by conflict and violence. I'm not too surprised that the Gita is appealing. I do enjoy it a lot personally.

But to deal with the concept of a justified war? No, I will not do that.

 

[LuisDantas]

This appears to be a stubbornly limited definition.

I would hope so. I am very stubborn when pressed to accept human killings. Or at least I like to think of myself as being that way.

If a warrior only attacks, what do you call the people who fight in defense?

Martyrs. To fight only in defense implies not attempting to inflict harm on others.

There are people who only fight in defense.

That is certainly true. But we must be very careful with that word, particularly at a time when the US Department of Defense thinks nothing of having and deploying unmanned drones.

War is not defense. At best, it can be an attempt to scare of aggressors or delay then.

When war happens, it can only be because defense has failed already.

Lets take a look at the Merriam-Webster definitions:



Source.

So with that definition aside, I'd say that, yes, you can have a morally-right warrior.

While I would refuse to.

In an ideal world, there would be no violence and conflict among people, but in the world we actually live in, there are selfish and aggressive people who take advantage of others. There are times when people will inevitably have to struggle and fight back to try to keep balance.

A religion that is not prepared for an ideal world is a failed religion.

 

[LuisDantas]

Luis,

The Mahabharata War was not a religious war.​

It may well have lacked a religious justification. War always has a religious meaning, since it causes grief, harm and murder.

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

That is one way. A better one is to seek and employ ways of avoiding the actual violence before it has to happen.

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.

By the time a warrior uses a weapon to maim or kill an "enemy" he becomes a violent barbarian. I don't think we can or should attempt to fairly perceive that in any other way.

Circunstances may make it so that he has no choice. But that amounts to saying that his failure is predetermined by those circunstances. That may and does happen, and we should take a sober perspective to that fact.

Protection from invasion is an dangerous criterium to use, in my opinion. Invasions are ultimately a fairly arbitrary concept at best.

People do not sprout out of the soil for a purpose. They reproduce and live in territory at least somewhat out of their own volition. Invasions can be both avoided and made unavoidable by careless or judicious use of several forms of pressure.

While I can't blame a person for attempting to ward off violence directed towards himself and his loved ones, I will most definitely stop short of defending the existence of an actual military force, let alone a caste. And I will not simply accept war as unavoidable. Human beings must aim higher than that.

 

[nameless]

That is one way.

Which would end up in being conquered/killed. If we keep on shielding when would they stop the violence? do you think that this is practically possible?

A better one is to seek and employ ways of avoiding the actual violence before it has to happen.

What if this too didn't work?

 

[LuisDantas]

Which would end up in being conquered/killed. If we keep on shielding when would they stop the violence? do you think that this is practically possible?

Possible and needed.

What if this too didn't work?

Then we are in dire straits. Just as bad as if we accept war as a necessity, IMO.

 

[Madhuri]

Wars become necessary when people fail to avoid then, most often due to demographical problems that need widespread slaughter to be solved.

That can't ever be a goal, though. And most certainly not an accepted concept for any religion.

The Pandavas did try to avoid the war. They did not want to war. Their cousins pushed for it.

I do have a problem with this kind of premise, certainly.

1. Wars are usually perceived as forced by the other side.

2. I'm not sure it even has any meaning to say that people may have a Kingdom.

3. Let alone a rightful heir. Or a throne, for that matter.

4. A whole people described as criminals? I'm not sure I can get behind that either. Particularly when the goal is to explain why it is ok to kill then wholesale.

It's very simple. If the story is true we also have to accept that the war was forced. A kingdom is a man-made system but it exists. I'm not sure that questioning the meaning of 'kingdom' matters for this discussion. An heir is someone who is, by the laws created in whatever culture, is supposed to be the next ruler/king/pharao etc.
The whole people in the opposing side were not criminals etc. The cousins, the ones trying to take over the throne, are the 'bad' guys in this story.

There were also plenty of good people in the opposing side but those people were not going to be the ones taking control of the kingdom.

Usually. War is very hard to justify on moral or religious grounds.

I agree. Krishna's advise was not even religious. In this case I certainly agree with his reasoning. I am not a fan of violence. But I do believe in defending one's self or defending those I am responsible for. I would not allow myself to be killed and I would not, as a ruler whose duty it is to protect my people, lay down my hands and allow them to be subjected to 'bad' people. We may just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Not that I truly understand what you mean by "my country". I am the creator of no country. Even if I were, it is doubtful that it would be "mine" in any meaningful sense. I would certainly not feel entitled to take lives to protect its ephemeral and meaningless existence.

Perhaps if you were the person in the position of responsibility for a nation you would have a different outlook. If it is in your power as Protector of the Realm to either protect or let a people suffer, what would you do? Retreat to the forest? Be like "Ok bye everyone! Good luck! Sorry for abandoning you but I'm out of here."

Of course, there are other messages to express as well. A sacred text does not need to take as a premise that war is unavoidable and has already started.

It isn't saying that -war- is unavoidable. It is saying that in this case, action is greater than inaction. The outcome of fighting will lead to a better overall outcome than retreating from the war.

Ok. Imagine this. Lord of the Rings. There are two possibilities. The peoples of Middle Earth band together to fight the force from Mordor. But oh no! Gandalf tells everyone that fighting is immoral and should be avoided at all costs. So they hand over the ring to Sauron and he takes over and the lands turn to ruin. Many are killed and everyone is subjected to suffering. Is that a positive outcome? Did they make the morally right decision? Is this perhaps an exception to your philosophical outlook?

Then again, it is part of human nature to feel mobilized by conflict and violence.

And yet generally in Hinduism violence should be avoided except for in extreme circumstances when the result of inaction will cause greater destruction than taking action.

But to deal with the concept of a justified war?

In the context of the Mahabharata. The Bhagavad Gita is not a random text. It's a chapter toward the end of an epic tale. War is not something to look forward to or to try to instigate. War, in this context, can represent any difficult task that must be taken because you know it's for the greater good.

 

[Nyingjé Tso]

Luis, if you are interested by the subject I think the best is to make your opinion by reading the MahaBharata, because whatever Madhuri or anyone can explain, if you don't have the full context then you will only have assumptions on it and will not be able to fully understand.

It is important to keep in mind that the Bhagavad gita is but a small part of the MahaBharata. Usually, Hindu that read the Bhagavad gita daily or take course already know the full context of the Mahabharat. Therefore, no hindu reading it would justify it as a call for war or anything like that.

Context is important. In this case, refer to the Mahabharat for full context before appreciating or not the Gita.

 

[Maya3]

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.

I agree with Madhuri.

Krishna isn't saying that it doesn't matter if you die because you will get reincarnated.
He says, you cannot die. At all. You have always been here and always will be, you are immortal and will always be.

Yes, this first chapter can be used in the wrong way if it is taken literally and out of context.

Interpreted metaphorically though it is brilliant.
It tells you that no matter what, even if it is your own family in front of you. You have to do your duty. Do what is right. Lets take the Hitler argument again as an example. If you lived in Germany in the 40's and your town, your family and everyone around you bought into the anti jewish propaganda and thought that Jews should be put in ghettos. (there are other things like this happening right now, but I will refrain from using that as an example, so we don't get another debate).
No matter how hard it would be, your duty would be to say, NO, I don't agree with this. I will not do what everyone says, I will not do what is easier in this situation. I will hide families, I will not tell the guards where they are, even if I'm risking my own life. It is my duty to do what is right, even if my whole family, town and country disagrees with me.

This is what I think the first chapter is about.

Then if you continue to read the rest of the chapters, Krishna explains that there is no difference between you, God and everything else, including the enemy, everything is part of God, in this case in the form of Krishna.

Maya

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Lius

Originally Posted by Poeticus

Luis,

The Mahabharata War was not a religious war.​

It may well have lacked a religious justification. War always has a religious meaning, since it causes grief, harm and murder.

Luis here is where a person needs a Hindu understanding of Dharma , ....

one canot apply the notion of religious war as understood by abrahamic faiths , ...
religion within dharmic faiths is the execution of ones sadhana and ones worship .

war in this instance is a Kshatriya's dharma , ...no matter whether one is religious or not one still has the responcibility of ones dharma ...
as has allready been explained krsna explains to Arjuna that you canot kill the allready dead , ....the entire MahaBharata is a very complex account of the implication of action and reaction , ...if the entire text is read under the instruction of a guru or teacher who can explain the intricacies you will come to understand that the Kauravas by their own actions have brought about the outcome which must be , ....Krsna explains this to Arjuna by saying that they are allready dead , ....maybe we canot understand this from a conventional level as we see them in this account alive and ready for battle , ....but because of their previous unjust behavior they have allready brought about their eventual demise , ...krsna explains this to Arjuna , and rightly Arjuna questions this as he does not want to kill , ...krsna explains that if Arjuna does not do what needs to be done that Krsna will himself have to do the needfull ,.... as the conclusion had allready been determined by their previous actions.

it is for these reasons that it is imperative that the Gita is read in its true context as the previous chapters of the Mahabarata give the background , the Gita gives the discourse between Krsna and Arjuna they canot be eperated or judged seperately .

Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless
What do you mean by 'to protect'? shielding by not harming those who initiates an attack?

That is one way. A better one is to seek and employ ways of avoiding the actual violence before it has to happen.

as I think others have explained krsna made every effort to advise the Kauravas against their unrightious behavior , but his advice went unheaded .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madhuri
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.

By the time a warrior uses a weapon to maim or kill an "enemy" he becomes a violent barbarian. I don't think we can or should attempt to fairly perceive that in any other way.

this is like saying a man sent to kill a rabid dog becomes a violent barbarian the moment he lifts his gun , .....unfortunately some one must perform this duty , not only is the dog dangerous to others but it will eventualy die as the law of cause and efect has allready come into play , ...allthough this dog is still alive it is also allready destined to die , isnt it better in this instance to do the needfull and save any more harm coming to others , this is not an act of Barborism or violence it is a responcibiity that someone must do and the one who is the best shot will be asked to perform this task swiftly and eficiently .

Luis
Circumstances may make it so that he has no choice. But that amounts to saying that his failure is predetermined by those circunstances. That may and does happen, and we should take a sober perspective to that fact.

if you read the full account in the Mahabarata you will see that this is war is not brought about lightly ,

Luis
Protection from invasion is an dangerous criterium to use, in my opinion. Invasions are ultimately a fairly arbitrary concept at best.

this battle is not about protection from invasion it is about maintaining rightious rule , the Mahabarata makes it clear that this must be done and that Krsna appears at the end of Dvarpara yuga solely for the purpose of establishing rightiousness before the begining of the coming age of Kali yuga , ....

Luis
People do not sprout out of the soil for a purpose. They reproduce and live in territory at least somewhat out of their own volition. Invasions can be both avoided and made unavoidable by careless or judicious use of several forms of pressure.

agreed normal beings reproduce and give birth to the physical bodies that are then inhabited be the jiva , even the bodies each jiva inhabits is to some extent governed by his past Karma , there fore to be born in any given circumstance is a part of ones spiritual progress and there will be obsticals to overcome and duties to perform , this must be done .
yes invasions can be overcome by thoughtfull intervention , but is often the case even when one party has the insight to advise against a particular action (as Krsna did in this case do) ..not everyone has the foersight to listen , ....

Luis
While I can't blame a person for attempting to ward off violence directed towards himself and his loved ones, I will most definitely stop short of defending the existence of an actual military force, let alone a caste. And I will not simply accept war as unavoidable. Human beings must aim higher than that.

we must all do our best to avert the nececity for military action , but there are times when the brave who are prepaiered to do their duty for the sake of maintaining peace must be supported , it is no use us saying I will defend my own family but I will not engage in war , in truth we are all one family it is just that we do not realise it , it is as much our duty to protect our own as it is to protect others unknown to us , this is our duty , our Dharma , ....this must be understood , only when we all understand our duty and act accordingly will there be the possibility of life without war.

 

[DreadFish]

I would hope so. I am very stubborn when pressed to accept human killings. Or at least I like to think of myself as being that way.

While I also dont want to take killing people lightly, I do believe that there are occasions where it is unavoidable. Can you really say that such occasions never happen? There are plenty of times when such occasions can and should be avoided, but sometimes it becomes unavoidable. You have mentioned that, when such a situation arises, it is probably because people failed to prevent it, but does that mean that we should not refuse to face the situation and fight and instead just back off? "Oh shoot, we should have taken care of this before it came to violence, but killing is wrong, so I guess they win. Hind-sight is 20/20 "

Sure someone should have stopped Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini before they came to power, but no one did. Are we do take action when they start attacking and subjugating others, or are we to criticize our failure to prevent and let them have their way because there is no justifiable reason to fight them?

Martyrs. To fight only in defense implies not attempting to inflict harm on others.

A martyr is someone who dies or is killed for or because of their beliefs, not a person fighting to defend themselves or others. For added context, anyone fighting a religious war would likely consider themselves or be considered martyrs. Most of the religious extremists are considered martyrs by their like-minded comrades.

That is certainly true. But we must be very careful with that word, particularly at a time when the US Department of Defense thinks nothing of having and deploying unmanned drones.

I agree, many acts of aggression are performed under the guise of defense when they are definitely not defensive actions.

War is not defense. At best, it can be an attempt to scare of aggressors or delay then.

When war happens, it can only be because defense has failed already.

But, it only takes one group to declare a war and usually, that group will be aggressive regardless of whether the other side wants the war or not. Consider the acts of the Europeans against Native Americans. They never did stop the aggression against the natives even when some did not want to fight. Others did fight, to defend their people and lands.

So, while a war is not purely defense, sometimes wars are forced upon us and people will have to defend against inevitable violence.

While I would refuse to.

And you don't have to be a warrior if you are not inclined to fight to defend others. Some people are, some people aren't.

A religion that is not prepared for an ideal world is a failed religion.

While I agree that a religion that is not prepared for an ideal world is not up to par, this comment doesn't actually apply to Hinduism or the BG. Hinduism is very much prepared for an ideal world, but here we are talking about a particular situation, and we can't idealize when there is a real situation staring us in the face and demanding some kind of action to take care of it.

In this particular situation, there are ill-willed aggressors who are going to attack and take the country and people and something has to be done about it. Do you let them have their way and hope that they will be nice? Or do you try to stop them from causing harm?

Is letting another person commit the crime of killing better than trying to stop them from killing, even if that means killing them? I would say that, if someone has to kill, let it be the responsible person who is just trying to keep the peace and prevent further harm, not the person who wants to kill and wants power.

 

[Desert Snake]

I think it's important to read from various sources. Prabhupada often interjects highly biased opinions into the purports- opinions that are vastly different from any mainstream Hindu thought.

I don't take that to mean his purports are incorrect.

That's 'good to know', I guess.

 

[Jainarayan]

I view Prabhupada's interpretations and purports as very narrow, if not downright odd. For example, his purport of 9.26 Bhagavad Gita As It Is, 9: The Most Confidential Knowledge, Text 26. I don't believe at all that this verse has anything to do with vegetarianism. Rather it has to do with Krishna accepting the most meager offering if it's done with genuine love. Here are different interpretations, which I think actually reflect the verse: Bhagavad-Gita: Chapter 9, Verse 26 In verse 27, which I think is an expansion of verse 26, Sri Krishna goes on to say that whatever good things you do, they are being offered to him.

 

[George-ananda]

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

Absolutely. And thank God for them. I don't want to be a sitting duck at the mercy of an evil tyrant.

 

[DreadFish]

I view Prabhupada's interpretations and purports as very narrow, if not downright odd. For example, his purport of 9.26 Bhagavad Gita As It Is, 9: The Most Confidential Knowledge, Text 26. I don't believe at all that this verse has anything to do with vegetarianism. Rather it has to do with Krishna accepting the most meager offering if it's done with genuine love. Here are different interpretations, which I think actually reflect the verse: Bhagavad-Gita: Chapter 9, Verse 26 In verse 27, which I think is an expansion of verse 26, Sri Krishna goes on to say that whatever good things you do, they are being offered to him.

My anti-virus totally wigged out when I clicked that link. It said it blocked a virus, but it's probably just being polite and not saying what it thinks of Prabhupada's interpretation

 

[Desert Snake]

I view Prabhupada's interpretations and purports as very narrow, if not downright odd. For example, his purport of 9.26 Bhagavad Gita As It Is, 9: The Most Confidential Knowledge, Text 26. I don't believe at all that this verse has anything to do with vegetarianism. Rather it has to do with Krishna accepting the most meager offering if it's done with genuine love. Here are different interpretations, which I think actually reflect the verse: Bhagavad-Gita: Chapter 9, Verse 26 In verse 27, which I think is an expansion of verse 26, Sri Krishna goes on to say that whatever good things you do, they are being offered to him.

Yes, I as well might not be completely enamored of that purport.
However...I see the value in it. I still like it, basically.
Prabhupadas purports are well written/reasoned imo.

 

[LuisDantas]

Absolutely. And thank God for them. I don't want to be a sitting duck at the mercy of an evil tyrant.

If you think those are the only two choices, it is pointless to attempt to convince you otherwise.