Chapters 1 - 3

[Thomas]

In Chapter One the scene is set. Arjuna has a duty as a warrior to fight his cousins, the sons of Dhritarashtra. He and his brothers have been cheated out of the throne, so he has just cause, but he is still conlficted -- how can he fight and kill his own relations? Arjuna was given a choice of support in the battle: either Krishna's army, or Krishna himself. He chose wisely, and Krishna (Arjuna's cousin and God incarnate) is there to advise him.

Arjuna lays out an argument for taking the high road. He and his brothers have been cheated and mistreated, but this doesn't justify an immoral response: "We are prepared to kill our own relations out of greed for the pleasures of a kingdom. Better for me if the sons of Dhritarashtra, weapons in hand, were to attack me in battle and kill me unarmed and unresisting."

Krishna responds in Chapter Two. Arjuna has been focusing on death and destruction, so Krishna examines what it is that is at stake in death: the person. He states rather bluntly that the person does not die. A person's body is impermanent, of course, but this is not the person. "You were never born; you will never die. You have never changed; you can never change. Unborn, eternal, immutable, immemorial, you do not die when the body dies." (This section reminded me a little of the Phaedo, but it isn't clear if the dualism that Krishna implies here is as strict as the Platonic variety.)

This may be a little hard for Arjuna to swallow, so Krishna says that even if the person (or the Self) can die, death is inevitable, so there is no point in sorrowing over it. Death is inevitable for the living, and birth is inevitable for the dead. That's just how it goes. What he should be concerned with is not death, but his dharma.

Dharma is a rich and complicated word, but it is most often translated as "duty" or "law." In this context, dharma is what makes Arjuna who he is: a warrior, and his duty is to fight.

Krishna then embarks on a somewhat technical description of the discipline that Arjuna must employ as a warrior, a discipline called yoga. Yoga will free him from the bonds of karma, the effects of previous actions which have a claim on him. Krishna says that by focusing on him and rejecting the power of the material world (expressed as pleasure and pain, the three gunas [something like emotions or moods], and selfish attachments) Arjuna will obtain a state of "holy indifference" and a state of "perfect yoga."

Question: How do you understand "yoga" in the context of this chapter?

If one is indifferent to the consequences of one's actions, why act at all? Isn't desire on some level a requirement for any kind of achievement?

Krishna explains in Chapter Three that action is not really a choice. We are bound to action just to survive, but the way to liberation from this lies in selfless action.

"Every selfless act, Arjuna, is born from Brahman, the eternal, infinite Godhead. Brahman is present in every act of service. All life turns on this law, O Arjuna. Those who violate it, indulging the senses for their own pleasure and ignoring the needs of others, have wasted their life. But those who realize the Self are always satisfied. Having found the source of joy and fulfillment, they no longer seek happiness from the external world. They have nothing to gain or lose by any action; neither people nor things can affect their security."

Arjuna sensibly asks Krishna about what it is that makes us so selfish. Krishna says that selfish desire and anger arise from the guna of rajas.

Question: Is this element of a person different than the Self? What is it that is realized when the senses are controlled? How does Krishna understand "the Self"?

Krishna urges Arjuna to fight and "let the Atman rule the ego. Use your mighty arms to slay the fierce enemy that is selfish desire."

The simple definition of "Atman" is the Self, the innermost "soul" of a person, which is divine. How does Atman differ from ego?

[David]

[37] It is not just for us to kill
Dhritarashtra’s sons, our kinsmen.
If we murder our own people,
could we ever be happy, Krishna?
—Lombardo translation

Reading this alongside Arendt’s The Life of the Mind, it strikes me that Arjuna here is engaged in the very reflective thinking Arendt prescribes as the antidote to evil. He pauses, questions, and examines, refusing to let action sweep past without scrutiny.

Arendt herself recalls Plato’s Gorgias, where Socrates declares what Arjuna is discovering: that tyrants are in truth miserable, and that it is better to suffer injustice than to commit it. Arjuna echoes this in his lament:

[45] Ah no! Alas! A great evil
is what we have resolved upon,
ready to kill our own people
out of greed for royal pleasures!

[46] If the armed sons of Dhritarashtra
should kill me unarmed in battle
and offering no resistance,
for me that would be a happier fate.
—Lombardo translation

Both Arjuna and Socrates affirm that true happiness and integrity lie not in power or survival, but in refusing to corrupt the self by committing injustice.

And to attempt to answer your question, "How does Krishna understand the Self", I can only answer by analogy that it seems to be akin to the concept of an eternal soul in western thought, though more of an eternal soul that transcends individuality.

[Michael]

Except Krishna then tells him he is a warrior and must fight. It's his job. People need to fulfill the purposes. Cooks cook, painters paint, warriors make war. This is right action.

Some commentary in my edition says that Gandhi, when confronted about whether the Gita was pro-war or not, reiterated that it is allegorical and stressed that anyone that understood the message would understand that it isn't in favor of killing.

So, I guess it's a tricky dilemma.

[Michael]

Thomas wrote: "Krishna says that by focusing on him and rejecting the power of the material world (expressed as pleasure and pain, the three gunas [something like emotions or moods], and selfish attachments) Arjuna will obtain a state of "holy indifference" and a state of "perfect yoga."

Question: How do you understand "yoga" in the context of this chapter?"

I like the idea of the three gunas as representations of attitude or mental state.

Tamas being a kind of inertia in which you just follow along with whatever is happening. It is very passive and dark or evil. Rajas being passion. Where you are driven by some strong emotion to action that could end up being good or bad. And finally, Sattva, in which you rise above it all in a state of light or goodness. Maybe it is something like what we call mindfulness these days. I like the idea that we always have some mix of all three of these things in us and that we should strive to improve our guna mix.

[Anmol]

It might be interesting to wonder, while reading Chapter 1, if Arjuna was actually right - that he should not have fought in the war. This is a controversial opinion for obvious reasons, but the Indian economist and Nobel laureate Amartya Sen actually believed that was the case!

One way to think about this may be teleological and deontological ethics. Arjuna thinks of the consequences (his relatives dying), but Krishna responds with the importance of duty, regardless of the outcome (deontology). Amartya Sen is a teleologist, and that explains his viewpoint.

I would suggest reading Chapter 2 quite closely - traditionally, the second chapter is considered to be the whole of the Gita summarised. If you observe the structure of this chapter, you will find that Krishna is behaving like a good lawyer: he has multiple arguments up his sleeve.

The first answer, at the start of Chapter 2, is much more practical: Arjuna's 'impotence' in war will make him a laughingstock in society, and particularly in his own warrior caste. It is only after he has made this first argument that the more important issue of the immortality of the Self, and hence the meaninglessness of mourning for death, comes into the picture. The rest of the Gita is devoted to elaborating on this argument, but we shouldn't forget the more practical argument with which Krishna begins.

The world only works when everyone does their job - this idea of everyone doing their duty to ensure that society keeps functioning is central to the idea of 'dharma' in the Gita (a word which has many other contexts beyond this text).

[David]

Michael wrote: "Except Krishna then tells him he is a warrior and must fight. It's his job. People need to fulfill the purposes. Cooks cook, painters paint, warriors make war. This is right action."

That is a very good point. I will even add that Socrates was a soldier, a good one by all accounts, and fought for Athens in the Peloponnesian war against Sparta, i.e., other Greeks. I have to assume that Socrates well contemplated these actions and choices.

Perhaps it is important to pause long enough to think reflectively to prevent banality, but not so long that it paralyzes judgment and action. The story of Sgt. York comes to mind as someone who wrestled with his conscience, thought deeply, and then chose his course.

[Tamara]

Michael wrote: "Except Krishna then tells him he is a warrior and must fight. It's his job. People need to fulfill the purposes. Cooks cook, painters paint, warriors make war. This is right action. ..."

Krishna also says:

Even if you consider this from the standpoint of your own caste-duty, you ought not to hesitate; for, to a warrior, there is nothing nobler than a righteous war. Happy are the warriors to whom a battle such as this comes: it opens the door to heaven.

I’m understanding this to mean you have to perform the duty of the caste into which you were born. That says to me there is no freedom of choice. Your choices have been predetermined by your caste. So if we have no choice, have we really earned the right to heaven if we are just fulfilling the requirements of our caste without thinking?

Is my understanding correct?

[Tamara]

Krishna says:

Desire for the fruits of your work must never be your motive. . . Renounce attachment to the fruits.

That sounds to me a lot like the Taoist concept of disinterested action.

But Krishna also says this:

But if you refuse to fight this righteous war, you will be turning aside from your duty. You will be a sinner, and disgraced. People will speak ill of you throughout the ages. To a man who values his honour, that is surely worse than death.

If the point is to perform the right action without concerning myself with its "fruits," why should I care if people speak ill of me? Surely the goal is to do the right thing regardless of how others may perceive it. To be motived in my actions because I value being perceived as honourable above everything else says I care very much about how I am perceived, i.e. that I am concerned with the fruits of my action.

Which is it? Should I care about how others perceive my actions or should I not? You can't have it both ways. But maybe I am misunderstanding.

[Thomas]

Michael wrote: "Except Krishna then tells him he is a warrior and must fight. It's his job. People need to fulfill the purposes. Cooks cook, painters paint, warriors make war. This is right action.
"

This raises a critical question: right action for whom? How can killing one's own family members be "right action"? It may in fact be the right thing to do, since the Kauravas have in fact cheated the Pandavas, but it's still a very difficult, deadly decision, and Arjuna doesn't think the throne is worth the suffering.

So there are at least two questions here: what makes something "right action," and how does one act rightly when that action appears to be a sin? (It's not strictly analogous, but a similar situation from another culture might be the story in Genesis where Abraham is commanded by God to sacrifice his son, Isaac.)

[Thomas]

Anmol wrote: "If you observe the structure of this chapter, you will find that Krishna is behaving like a good lawyer: he has multiple arguments up his sleeve."

I noticed this. He tells Arjuna that he shouldn't concern himself with the deaths of his relatives because "there is neither slayer nor slain," and that is because the Self is immortal. But then he gives him an alternative justification -- death is inevitable anyway -- just in case he doesn't buy the immortality one. And then finally he appeals to his sense of honor.

From a dramatic point of view it's like Arjuna is about to go on stage to play a starring role in front of the biggest audience of his career and he's suddenly paralyzed with stage fright. Krishna has to get him out there, somehow, because the show must go on.

[Michael]

Thomas wrote: "This raises a critical question: right action for whom? How can killing one's own family members be "right action"? It may in fact be the right thing to do, since the Kauravas have in fact cheated the Pandavas, but it's still a very difficult, deadly decision, and Arjuna doesn't think the throne is worth the suffering."

Let's take an extreme example, what if you are in an abusive relationship that puts your life at risk? Or what if you are attacked by a stranger. What is the appropriate level of self-defense in these situations? At some point, lethal defense may be needed.

Or, if we want to look at war, are Ukrainians justified in using deadly force to defend their homes and country or should they simply concede to a "might is right" position of their invaders. Does that calculation change if you have family members fighting on the other side because the countries share a border?

In Arjuna's case, he is the leader and has the burden of deciding. He has a responsibility to his people. If negotiation hasn't worked, do you fight in order to defend your claim to rule and maybe rule better for his people. Giving up, just because the other side appears stronger may be immoral. I feel it is correct for him to ask the question and to try and decide if the battle is justified. I think it is a heavy burden.

Anyway, I feel like the Gita just assumes that the fight is justified and necessary. I haven't seen it delving into why or what makes it justified.

As an atheist who doesn't believe in an afterlife, I do find the excuse that death isn't final and that their essence will continue on and recycle into a new life to be abhorrent. If feels to me that it devalues the actual lived lives of everyone.

[Michael]

Tamara wrote: "If the point is to perform the right action without concerning myself with its "fruits," why should I care if people speak ill of me? Surely the goal is to do the right thing regardless of how others may perceive it..."

Yes, it does seem hypocritical.

The only way I can make sense of it is to lean into the idea that the narrative seems to assume the war is justified and that his hesitation is cowardice or him failing in his obligations as a leader. If he does not do his part the people's assessment of him as a sinner or disgraced is a sign or a confirmation that he hasn't done the right thing.

I don't know if this interpretation is correct, it's just me trying to make sense of the contradiction.

[Thomas]

Michael wrote: "Anyway, I feel like the Gita just assumes that the fight is justified and necessary. I haven't seen it delving into why or what makes it justified.
"

The way I understand it at this point is that the ethical justification being given is the order of the universe. The poet sets the scene in the first line by calling the battlefield of Kurukshetra "the field of dharma." The universe has a kind of divine order, and Arjuna's place in this order is that of a warrior; the part he plays in preserving this order is to fight the enemy. What gets in the way is Arjuna's individual ego and his concern for the egos of those he must fight. Krishna seems to suggest that Arjuna's concerns are misplaced. The "egotistical" parts of humanity are impermanent; Arjuna should concern himself with what is real and permanent, the Atman or Self that is common to all people and which does not die.

So far I haven't seen anything that suggests that war or killing itself is unethical, or that Arjuna has any fear of battle. It simply sorrows him that he has to kill those who are close to him. He seems to be a kind man with a good heart, but that is exactly the source of his problem.

[David]

Thomas wrote: "So far I haven't seen anything that suggests that war or killing itself is unethical"

I think his many laments in chapter 1 are enough to establish the fact that killing is unethical, calling it wrong and evil.

[1.39] Do we not know enough, Krishna,
to turn aside from such evil?
To understand how wrong it is
to destroy friends and family
...
[1.45] Ah no! Alas! A great evil
is what we have resolved upon,
ready to kill our own people
out of greed for royal pleasures!
~Lombardo

[David]

Michael wrote: "People need to fulfill the purposes. Cooks cook, painters paint, warriors make war. This is right action."

This sounds like Socrates' definition of justice in Plato's Republic. Everyone doing their job and not meddling with others.

[Tamara]

David wrote: "I think his many laments in chapter 1 are enough to establish the fact that killing is unethical, calling it wrong and evil..."

Is he saying killing is unethical, wrong, and evil? Or is he saying killing relatives ("our own people/out of greed") is unethical and evil? There's a difference. I think he is hung up on killing family members.

[Thomas]

David wrote: "Michael wrote: "People need to fulfill the purposes. Cooks cook, painters paint, warriors make war. This is right action."

This sounds like Socrates' definition of justice in Plato's Republic. Eve..."

There is an interconnection between justice and dharma, so that sounds right on target to me. When everyone is doing their dharma, acting as they should according to the cosmic law, the world is in balance and order prevails.

The "field of dharma" is different for different people. For Arjuna it is the field of battle. For a teacher the field of dharma is a school, for a stock broker it's the stock market, and so on. As long as the teacher is keeping order in the classroom and teaching his students, or the stock broker is following the laws and rules of the market and trading stocks, their respective "fields" function well. Arjuna is a warrior -- his job is to conduct war, so is it perhaps *unjust* for him to act like a pacifist?

It sounds weird to suggest that non-violence might be unjust, but I think that's the scenario here. The "just" thing is to fight his cousins, who actually kind of deserve it anyway.

[Anmol]

It might also help to know some context from the Mahabharata to answer the question of whether this war is justified. The Pandavas (Arjuna and his four brothers), along with Krishna, have tried multiple times to prevent this war: there is a story where the Pandavas agreed to not fight the Kauravas if they would give them just a tiny portion of land in what was, ancestrally, their kingdom. But Duryodhana (the chief Kaurava) did not agree even to that. It is made very clear by the preceding story that there was no option left but war by this point.

This video explains the complicated family tree of the Mahabharata quite well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vg-5...

[Michael]

Thomas wrote: "The "field of dharma" is different for different people. For Arjuna it is the field of battle. For a teacher the field of dharma is a school, for a stock broker it's the stock market, and so on."

Thank you for this.

The Swami commentary also adds these helpful notes:

"The historic [] battlefield is symbolic of the human frame. Life centered in the body is a kind of warfare. The Pandavas and Kauravas are parallel to the good and bad human tendencies."

"...this [] battle didn't happen just once some thousands of years ago. It's constantly happening. It's within each of us. "

[Michael]

Anmol wrote: "...The Pandavas (Arjuna and his four brothers), along with Krishna, have tried multiple times to prevent this war... It is made very clear by the preceding story that there was no option left but war by this point."

Thanks for this, and the video. Very helpful.

You also mentioned that the Swami notes represent just one of many schools of thought on how to read this. If you can spare the time, I'd appreciate any orientation to the different schools of thought, even if it is just a source you trust to be an accurate orientation to the approaches.

[Anmol]

Michael wrote: I'd appreciate any orientation to the different schools of thought, even if it is just a source you trust to be an accurate orientation to the approaches.

Yes, that point was related more to the philosophical complexities of the Gita, which will become more apparent in the later chapters.

In a nutshell, there is a specific philosophical school within Hinduism, known as Vedanta, which is largely based on the Gita and another scripture, the Upanishads. From these scriptures, the Vedanta tries to answer questions like: what is the nature of the Self? What is the nature of the ultimate principle of existence (a particular God, or a cosmic principle known as Brahman, depending on the sub-school)? What is the relation between the Self and this ultimate principle? How can the ultimate principle be experienced?

Different sub-schools within Vedanta answer these questions in radically different ways, depending on their interpretation of particular verses of the Gita and the Upanishads. The Swami Gambhirananda translation of the Gita includes the commentary of Adi Shankara, one of the most famous Hindu philosophers of all time, who belongs to the 'Advaita' (non-dual) Vedanta school.

As the name suggests, Shankara will interpret the Gita as showing a non-duality, or oneness, between the individual self and the ultimate principle of all existence (which for him is the cosmic principle Brahman, and not the personal god Krishna). But other sub-schools of Vedanta interpret the Gita in different ways.

Another key issue dividing these sub-schools is: which of the yogas (spiritual practices) are the highest, or most important for enlightenment? Is it meditation (jnana-yoga, or 'the yoga of knowledge'), desireless action (karma-yoga), or devotion to a god, here, Krishna (bhakti-yoga)? Shankara will try to show that meditation is the highest spiritual practice, but other sub-schools will rely on some verses of the Gita to show devotion to be the highest.

If I were to recommend a book about the Gita for someone who is ready to really dive deep into all the complexity of the text, I would recommend Essays on the Gita by Sri Aurobindo. It's difficult, but a fantastic resource on the Gita's metaphysical teachings.

You could also watch this lecture, which is an overview of all the different sub-schools of Vedanta: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62pE1...

[David]

[26] And even if you think the Self
is constantly being born or dying,
even then, O Mighty Armed One,
you are obliged not to mourn it.

[27] For all who are born, death is certain,
and birth is certain for the dead.
Since this cannot be avoided,
you are obliged not to mourn it.
~Lombardo

At first this advice appears conciliatory, but upon further reflection it is being pushed beyond the intention of removing the fear of death and weaponized into a license to kill.

Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum (Such heinous acts could superstition prompt)
~Lucretius; Ferguson Smith, Martin. On the Nature of Things.

While belief in the soul or ātman may help one face their own mortality, using it to justify inflicting death on others risks turning indifference into a pretext for harm. There are many justifications for going to war and for killing, but invoking the soul as a primary reason seems an abuse of reason, regardless of one’s belief in souls or ātman.

A Stoic might say the idea should be used to face our own deaths and sorrows, not dismissing the pain and suffering of others. An Epicurean or Utilitarian would remind us that death is not evil, but pain and suffering is, and the fact that everyone will die does not erase the wrong of causing premature, violent deaths, nor the misery that lingers. The inevitability of death does not make war less tragic, only less suprising.

At its best, if the war is truly justified, it is a dismissive oversimplification. At its worst, it is a banal ‘common-sense’ cliché that masks moral responsibility, short-circuits reflective thinking, and anesthetizes judgment.

It reminds me of a recent town hall meeting where Senator Joni Ernst was explaining how Republican legislation was going to affect Medicaid eligibility. When someone shouted that people would die if they lost coverage, Ernst responded, “Well, we all are going to die. So, for heaven’s sakes. For heaven’s sakes, folks.”.

[Thomas]

Anmol wrote: "Another key issue dividing these sub-schools is: which of the yogas (spiritual practices) are the highest, or most important for enlightenment? Is it meditation (jnana-yoga, or 'the yoga of knowledge'), desireless action (karma-yoga), or devotion to a god, here, Krishna (bhakti-yoga)?"

Yoga is a confusing subject. I first understood it to mean the postures and breathing exercises of "hatha yoga," but I've learned that's just one aspect or type of yoga.

In its simplest sense, yoga means a "link", or yoke, that unites one with the divine. There are different ways of achieving this link, but the goal is the same, to eliminate the division between the self and the divine. According to the Gita the self and the divine are the same thing, (I think I'm with Shankara on this) but it is not an easy thing to come to this realization. Krishna suggests that for Arjuna, a man of action, karma yoga is the way to get there.

Karma yoga is action free from selfish desires. The theory is that by acting without consideration for one's own enjoyment, personal ideals, thoughts of victory or defeat, reward or punishment, one gets closer to the divine. Being concerned with the results of action is what binds a person to "re-birth," which I interpret here to mean continued separation from the divine. But by yoking oneself to the divine by acting without thoughts of selfish reward, the ego disappears and is united with the divine.

I wonder though how one is supposed to make decisions without thoughts of the self. Don't we do things based on the results that we want to achieve? And if we give give up our selfish autonomy to someone or something else, on what basis do we do that?

[Thomas]

David wrote: "[26] And even if you think the Self
is constantly being born or dying,
even then, O Mighty Armed One,
you are obliged not to mourn it.

[27] For all who are born, death is certain,
and birth is cer..."

I'm not sure that Arjuna is in a moral quandary about war exactly, or that Krishna's arguments are a justification for war. Arjuna is a warrior and killing is his job, his dharma, but it isn't the morality of his profession that bothers him. It's that this time he has to fight his own people. If they were not his own relatives, it wouldn't be an issue. Krishna seems to me to be chipping away at Arjuna's selfish attachments, which he suggests is the source of his problems.

It would be interesting to hear Gandhi's take on this...

[Tamara]

Thomas wrote: "Krishna seems to me to be chipping away at Arjuna's selfish attachments, which he suggests is the source of his problems.

I agree that Arjuna is in a quandary about killing his relatives. But I don't see how that is considered a "selfish attachment." Isn't it more of a selfless attachment? In his willingness to compromise with his cousins by taking a small portion of the land that rightfully belongs to his side of the family and/or by his willingness to give it all up to avoid killing relatives, isn't that selfless?

[Thomas]

Anmol wrote: "If I were to recommend a book about the Gita for someone who is ready to really dive deep into all the complexity of the text, I would recommend Essays on the Gita by Sri Aurobindo. It's difficult, but a fantastic resource on the Gita's metaphysical teachings.

You could also watch this lecture, which is an overview of all the different sub-schools of Vedanta: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62pE1..."

Thanks for the recs! I will check out Essays on the Gita, and I just finished the youtube video. The title of the lecture is "Vendanta for Dummies," but it's more like a graduate lecture in philosophy, so y'all beware. It was good, but it does get pretty technical.

[Thomas]

Tamara wrote: "I agree that Arjuna is in a quandary about killing his relatives. But I don't see how that is considered a "selfish attachment." Isn't it more of a selfless attachment? "

I see what you mean. I think Arjuna's situation is similar to the one that Agamemnon is in when he has to sacrifice Iphigeneia. If he doesn't, the fleet doesn't sail, and he alone is the cause of the Greek defeat.

So Agamemnon could be "selfless" in the sense that he loves his daughter more than himself and is willing to sacrifice himself and his army for her, or he could be selfless in the sense that he is willing to sacrifice his daughter for the good of the Greek cause. Arjuna is in a similarly tragic situation, which is why he hesitates. There's no easy way out of it for him.

[Tamara]

Thomas wrote: "I see what you mean. I think Arjuna's situation is similar to the one that Agamemnon is in when he has to sacrifice Iphigeneia. .."

I don't see it as quite the same thing. Agamemnon brought it on himself by disrespecting Artemis who punished the Greek fleet by denying it the winds it needed to sail to Troy. He fabricates a lie to lure Iphigenia so he can sacrifice her. He initially refuses to return Chryseis to her father and then demands Briseis from Achilles by way of compensation. His actions throughout have been selfish and egotistical.

Arjuna, on the other hand, has been selfless all the way through. I see his struggle as one between his conscience (which tells him it is wrong to kill family members) and his duty (which is that of a warrior). The fundamental question in my mind is this: at which point should one's duty override one's conscience?

That is not an easy decision to make for Arjuna or, I would imagine, for anyone in the military. If your conscience tells you a war is wrong, do you listen to your conscience, walk away from the battle field, and face the consequences, or do you participate in the battle because you have a duty to do so?

This leads me to a related issue: an army cannot function if every member listens to his/her conscience. To succeed, the army has to follow orders and act as one. To paraphrase Tennyson's "The Charge of the Light Brigade," ours is not to question why; ours is but to do and die.

But then what does one do if the war is unjust? What if, like Arjuna, you are convinced the war is unjust? Do you squash your conscience and then go along with it, anyway? And if we each follow the duty of our particular caste, doesn't that render the conscience redundant?

[Roger]

In Book 2, Krishna makes two arguments:

(1) Don't worry about killing your kin, because their souls are immortal and you can't really kill them anyway.

(2) Do worry about your reputation as a brave warrior.

So don't worry about killing people, but do worry about your manly reputation. How is this ethics not depraved?

[Thomas]

Tamara wrote: "But then what does one do if the war is unjust? What if, like Arjuna, you are convinced the war is unjust? Do you squash your conscience and then go along with it, anyway? And if we each follow the duty of our particular caste, doesn't that render the conscience redundant? "

That is the problem in a nutshell. Arjuna has conflicting duties. How does he choose which duty to honor? At the beginning of Ch 2, he is paralyzed with indecision, so he asks Krishna to advise him.

On one hand, it's clear that the war is just. Arjuna recognizes that his enemies are "overpowered by greed and see no evil in destroying families or injuring friends." On the other, these same evil people are his family. It's like the worst family Thanksgiving dinner ever.

Arjuna knows who these people are, and he knows he about to fight them when he asks Krishna to roll him out between the armies. So it's worth noticing what triggers his family dharma concerns: it's the
*sight* of his cousins. Krishna's argument stems from this when he argues that the senses, and the feelings that arise from them, are transitory and have no reality. But if the sensory world and everything in it is not real, what is?

Plato asks the same question and says that the permanent world, the real world, is the realm of Ideas, and develops a theory of the immortal soul based on that. Krishna says that reality is the Self, the Atman, which underlies everything and everyone. And just as Socrates shows no concern for his mortality because the soul is immortal (and even offers his own theory of reincarnation) Krishna tells Arjuna that he should not sorrow for the death of mortals.

Krishna calls this the "intellectual explanation" of Sankhya, and it's about as easy to swallow as Plato's theory of ideas. As Anmool said above, Chapter 2 is sometimes seen as the whole poem in summary form, so Krishna's explanation will be expanded, but the next step after the intellectual explanation is the practical advice: karma yoga.

[David]

In 1984, Big Brother sponsors Hate Week, whipping the population into a fever pitch of hatred against the enemy, with disturbing effects.

Here, Krishna advises Arjuna to do the opposite: not to inflame hatred, but to turn inward and kill the enemy that takes the form of intractable desire. Both passages speak in the language of killing an enemy, but one directs hatred outward, the other inward. Why, then, does this still feel no less disturbing?

[43] Having learned what is much higher,
sustaining the self by the Self,
kill the enemy that takes the form
of intractable desire!”
~Lombardo

[Thomas]

[43] Having learned what is much higher,
sustaining the self by the Self,
kill the enemy that takes the form
of intractable desire!”
~Lombardo

Bhagavad Gita means "Song of God', and maybe it's meant to sound like high opera, but I think Lombardo's translation misses a few things. The battlefield is an allegory for the divided soul, one torn between transitory sensual life and what Krishna calls "Atman", which is something like eternal Soul. Easwaran translates:

The senses are higher than the body, the mind higher than the senses; above the mind is intellect, and above the intellect is the Atman.

Thus, knowing that which is supreme, let the Atman rule the ego. Use your mighty arms to slay the fierce enemy that is selfish desire.

Krishna identifies the enemy with desire, so we can be fairly certain that the battlefield is metaphorical, and that this story is an allegory. In the West we have a similar kind of thing going on in Plato -- Diotima's ladder and the "Divided Line" of the Republic are metaphors that roughly share the hierarchy that Krishna suggests above.

(But whatever Atman is, I hope it's better than Big Brother.)

[David]

I appreciate your framing of the battlefield as an allegory for the soul. Along with the examples you cite, it also reminds me of Socrates' city-soul analogy in Plato’s Republic..

I am still thinking on translations that stress the battlefield-"soul" as allegory as Easwaran does, or other translations that may make it appear to be making use of he Mahābhārata’s war, a tragic and a real event, as a teaching moment based on logical outcomes of an ancient belief system as Lombardo may be charged with.

The Gita as an allegory works similarly — the battlefield becomes the soul writ large, with Arjuna’s struggle representing the war between desire, intellect, and the higher self (ātman). The one place I’d add a caution is that Plato invents his city as a deliberate thought experiment about justice. Krishna’s teaching seems to operate on both levels at once: an inner allegory about self-mastery, and as a literal justification for killing extended family members. That’s part of why the passage can still feel so disturbing. Of course I am primarily disturbed by the particulars of the ancient belief system and the logical outcomes it allows Krishna to espouse.

As for the atman, Krishna repeatedly tells Arjuna that the ātman is:
1. Eternal: it never comes into being, nor does it perish.
2. Indestructible: weapons cannot cut it, fire cannot burn it, water cannot wet it, wind cannot wither it (2.23).
4. Unaffected by death: when the body dies, the ātman remains untouched, taking up another body as one changes garments (2.22).

Thus, Krishna’s argument that Arjuna should not grieve rests on the claim that no one’s true Self can be slain. As for Big Brother, the question seems to come down to one of purpose. One could even argue that ‘War is Peace’ applies in the Gita, although in very different ways.

[Michael]

Thomas wrote: "It would be interesting to hear Gandhi's take on this..."

I just got my hands on The Bhagavad Gita According to Gandhi

Even if we believe in nonviolence, it would not be proper for us to refuse to protect the weak. I might be ready to embrace a snake, but, if one comes to bite you, I should kill it and protect you...
[...]
Arjuna's laying down arms would mean the annihilation of all those on his side. His refusal to fight would bring on a disaster.
[...]
If we argue that since all bodies are perishable, one may kill, does it follow that I may kill all the women and children in the ashram? Would I have, in doing so, acted according to the teaching of the Bhagavad Gita, merely because their bodies are perishable?
[...]
What then, shall we say of a person who mouths these seemingly learned arguments and then commits wickedness? To know the answer to this, we should go back to the first chapter. Arjuna said that he did not want even the kingdom of gods if he had to kill his kith and kin for that; but he is bound, in any case, to kill them, for he has accepted the dharma which requires him to kill. Verse 18 applies to him, but it does not apply to others.

I'm also reading another commentary The Living Gita: The Complete Bhagavad Gita - A Commentary for Modern Readers that speaks very clearly about his responsibilities

"...his duty as a kshatriya (member of the ruling, protecting caste) is to destroy evil...

Arjuna's reasons for not wanting to fight are good. But greater than any of these reasons, the necessity to go to war is there in this case because the wicked people have been unnecessarily disturbing the innocent people. So Sri Krishna will somehow educate him about the necessity of this war. Because of this, some people say that the Bhagavad Gita propogates war. "Could this be scripture?" they ask. Yes, it is scripture--a teaching based on the truth. This shows that war is not always bad. Occasionally there is a just war, when innocent people are being victimized by the wicked and there is no way to stop it except by fighting.

Sometimes we lose sight of the truth when we get into emotional attachments to people. It is here that Sri Krishna tries to remove the sentimental feelings and bring Arjuna back to truth and his duty.

All that said, I still dislike using the idea of divine assurances of an afterlife to lighten one's consciousness about war and death.

[Thomas]

Gandhi wrote: "Arjuna said that he did not want even the kingdom of gods if he had to kill his kith and kin for that; but he is bound, in any case, to kill them, for he has accepted the dharma which requires him to kill. Verse 18 applies to him, but it does not apply to others.."

Thanks for looking into this. It makes me wonder though... does this mean that it would not be ethical for someone with a different dharma to fight against evil? I'm not sure if the Gita deals with ethics in specific terms at all, but it does raise that kind of question.

Michael wrote: "All that said, I still dislike using the idea of divine assurances of an afterlife to lighten one's consciousness about war and death."

I was wondering how "heaven" squares with reincarnation and nirvana so I looked at the Sanskrit in Winthrop Sargeant's translation. The word translated as "heaven" (at 2.37) is svarga. It's a celestial plane for the righteous, but it's temporary. Even the righteous in Svarga have to reincarnate and keep working out their karma until they achieve nirvana.

So rather than eternal paradise, Krishna is offering him a really nice vacation.

[Susan]

So far, I’m trying to get a handle on the special terminology of this discussion. For example when Arjuna says that killing family will violate the law, which law is that? Is it a human law -/ because Krishna doesn’t seem to give that any weight? Or is it a principle of lesser importance than the ones Krishna is arguing?
Perhaps under normal circumstances that law of family would be primary, but this battle involves circumstances when it doesn’t apply.

As for the rightness of Krishna’s arguments, after reading The Metamorphoses, I have to think they may be correct (at least in context) not because of logic, but because they are made by a divine being. Arjuna seems to take them that way.

[Thomas]

The word Arjuna uses at 1.44 is "kula dharma" which means "family duty." His conflicting duty is "svadharma" (2.31) which means "own duty", and refers to his caste duty as a warrior. Krishna says there is nothing superior to righteous battle (dharmyat yuddhat) for a warrior, but it isn't clear that one kind of dharma is naturally superior to another if there is a conflict. This is an internal spiritual battle that Arjuna must work out for himself.

The internal battle is the point of the book, I think. Instead of issuing a royal command and threatening punishment if he disobeys, Krishna tries to persuade Arjuna that his "svadharma" is superior to his "kula dharma." If each of Arjuna's dharmas is proper to one part of Arjuna's "selves", one of the those selves must be superior to the other. Ultimately (spoiler alert!) the problem is resolved by the idea that there is only one great universal Self (Atman) which unifies all of the "selves". I think the argument is actually logically consistent, but it relies on the premise that the "self" as we normally think of it is illusory. It's a foreign concept for most of us, especially in the west, but I think it's Krishna's project to convince Arjuna of that.

[Michael]

Thomas wrote: "This is an internal spiritual battle that Arjuna must work out for himself."

I think Arjuna understands he must fight, but doesn't want to harm the brothers he grew up with. He is waffling and creating excuses, as I think would be natural for any of us if we have a duty to do something that could hurt a family member.

Two references come to mind. In U.S. politics, President Biden's son had some legal problems and Biden, as president, had the power to pardon him. He resisted doing that as he felt that would be a corruption of justice and only did it when he lost re-election and feared the next president would unjustly target his son.

The other example, that comes to mind is the whole Abraham-Isaac issue from Hebrew scripture. God orders Abraham to sacrifice his son. Abraham needed to put aside his personal attachment to family to obey a "higher" commandment.

Interestingly, the Abrahamic god gave a directive and a promise of reward while Krishna presents a bunch of arguments trying to convince Arjuna. Arjuna had already asked Krishna to be his charioteer which symbolically I take to be a commitment to follow the leadership or direction of Krishna. He now needs to buy into one or more arguments to actually do it: dharma, the Self or Atman doesn't ever die, people will ridicule you.

[Gary]

I‘d like to pull out three themes in these initial chapters that I find particularly challenging. Others have already commented on these, so I will very briefly summarize each and append my own reflections.

David wrote: “The Gita as an allegory works similarly — the battlefield becomes the soul writ large…”
The Gita seems to say that wickedness is absolute, that there are wicked acts and wicked people, that the wicked harm innocents, and that resisting wickedness to the death is justified—indeed required—by the warrior’s dharma. I accept that absolute wickedness exists as a concept, but does it exist in lived lives? In fact, don’t wickedness and war rationalizations depend upon one’s perspective, and aren’t innocents harmed regardless of those perspectives? However, if one understands the battle not as an event but as an allegory, it resolves distressing problems with the relativity of good and evil, of personal motivation, and of unjust consequences. Therefore, for me at least, it is necessary to understand the story frame of the Gita as allegory.

Michael wrote: “I do find the excuse that death isn't final and that their essence will continue on and recycle into a new life to be abhorrent. If feels to me that it devalues the actual lived lives of everyone.”
If I, my Atman, was never born and will never die; if I do not die when the body dies and my lived life is inconsequential and fleeting, then being born, living and dying are all the same, and our lived lives are neither unique nor precious. Where is our own found meaning and purpose in life if death is meaningless? The Gita seems to be focussed on the individual’s accumulated karma and the dharmas in his or her lives. But isn’t doing good in the world through selfless acts, so as to escape the cycle of birth and death, ultimately self-serving? I expect I’m missing something here but I can’t put my finger on it.

Tamara wrote: “I’m understanding this to mean you have to perform the duty of the caste into which you were born. That says to me there is no freedom of choice. Your choices have been predetermined by your caste.”
For us in the West, the concept of predestination is troublesome indeed. We choose to believe that we have freedom to choose a path for ourselves, to set our own priorities, to make our own way in the world. While this may be naive, the Gita denies this entirely and advises us that each of us is born with a certain dharma, a certain way of life and certain duties that arise from prior lives’ karma. To live a good life then is to live our current dharma, to fulfill those duties and thereby free ourselves of negative karma in our next life. Individuals cannot, indeed should not, try to remake themselves, or live different lives than the one they were born to. Born a warrior, live as a warrior; born a servant, live as a servant. Therefore social order is static; to become other what one is born to, one must be born again and yet again with different dharmas. While fatalistic and static in the short term, the promise is for changes good or ill through rebirths that follow lives lived well or badly in keeping with each life's dharma. As Michael observed, this effectively devalues the lives we lead now. I struggle mightily with this concept.

[Lily]

David wrote: "Michael wrote: "Except Krishna then tells him he is a warrior and must fight. It's his job. People need to fulfill the purposes. Cooks cook, painters paint, warriors make war. This is right action...."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRHE0... -- had to look up your reference. Thx, David.

[Lily]

Michael wrote: "The Gita seems to say that wickedness is absolute, that there are wicked acts and wicked people, that the wicked harm innocents, and that resisting wickedness to the death is justified—indeed required—by the warrior’s dharma. ..."

Your words take me to the maternity wards of the Ukraine and to the hospitals of Gaza. I'm still not convinced, however, as to what is "justified."

Thoughts also slip to the phrase "Life is empty and meaningless, but man is a meaning creating creature."

[David]

Lily wrote: "had to look up your reference."

The salient point not depicted in the YouTube clip being:

Deeply troubled by the conflict between his pacifism and his training for war, he [Alvin York] spoke at length with his company commander, Captain Edward Courtney Bullock Danforth Jr. and his battalion commander, Major G. Edward Buxton, a devout Christian himself. Biblical passages about violence ("He that hath no sword, let him sell his cloak and buy one." "Render unto Caesar…" "…if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.") cited by Danforth persuaded York to reconsider the morality of his participation in the war. Granted a 10-day leave to visit home, he returned as committed to his new mission as he had been to pacifism, convinced that God meant him to fight and would keep him safe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_York

[Thomas]

Gary wrote: "”
The Gita seems to say that wickedness is absolute, that there are wicked acts and wicked people, that the wicked harm innocents, and that resisting wickedness to the death is justified—indeed required—by the warrior’s dharma"

I've been struggling with how the Gita handles morality, because it seems to suggest that moral values, good or evil, are selfish by nature. What we judge to be good is what is good for us, and this varies depending on the situation. This gives rise to relativism -- what makes something good or evil is relative to the self making the judgement.

But Krishna insists that true "Reality" is beyond good and evil. The relative, subjective "self" is an illusion. When Krishna breaks down and throws away his bow, Krishna smiles at him, as if the enormity of Arjuna's situation were trifling to him. For Krishna, life and death are just like day and night, one reliably following the other, and the distinction that Arjuna makes between them is illusory. The distinction is a function of Arjuna's subjective, relative, self-oriented concerns.

So how does one act as a subjective self in a world of illusion? Arjuna could just as easily fight as not fight if "Reality" is beyond good and evil. How does he decide how to act?

The remarkable answer seems to be that he does not have to decide. If he acts selflessly, without any thought of personal profit, with the welfare of others in mind, he will do the right thing. If this means violence against those he loves, then this is what he should do. That's not easy to accept.

[Lily]

Thomas wrote: "That's not easy to accept..."

Is it even humanly possible?

[Thomas]

Lily wrote: "Thomas wrote: "That's not easy to accept..."

Is it even humanly possible?"

It doesn't seem possible from an emotional or moral point of view, and I think that's the story teller's intent. We are conflicted along with Arjuna as we consider his situation. It's dramatically powerful. The author of the Gita did not make the argument easy for himself by starting out with such a vexed situation.