Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Bhagavad Gita
>
Chapters 4-6
date
newest »
newest »
Ch. 5 Krishna says that those who withdraw from society to live a contemplative life achieve the same goal as those who practice selfless service (action without desire), but action is better, i.e., practice is better than theory for most people. Practicing selfless service chips away at the ego because it requires one to conquer the senses and develop self-will over the transitory sensual life. Krishna maintains that this leads to an "objective" understanding of the world -- an understanding that does not come from the subjective ego. This non-subjective view reveals the Self in all creatures.
But removing the ego from the equation has some interesting consequences. What happens when there is no subject and no object? For someone with a non-dual, unified consciousness, who is doing the acting? Take the sacrifice metaphor from the previous chapter -- how do we talk about the priest and the offering and the fire as having their own qualities if they are all the same thing?
One consequence is that there is no "doer." "Those who know this truth, whose consequence is unified, think always, 'I am not the doer.' " 5.8 Furthermore, where there is no doer, there is no personal responsibility. They "abandon all attachment to the results of action." "Sin cannot touch them." Logically this makes sense: where there is no doer, there is no sin. In other words, the person who gives up selfish attachments cannot sin. Such a person cannot act at all -- if there is no actor, there is no action. This appears to be a supernatural state (5.14) where one is "absorbed in the Lord" and achieves complete Self-realization as Atman/Brahman.
Ch. 6Chap 6 is concerned with this supernatural state of absorption in Atman and how it can be achieved through focused concentration (meditation.) The difficulty is stated again in a verse that sounds to me like Kierkegaard's famous definition of the self as "a relation that relates itself to itself."
Reshape yourself through the power of your will; never let yourself be degraded by self-will. The will is the only friend of the Self, and the will is the only enemy of the Self. To those who have conquered themselves, the will is a friend. But it is the enemy of those who have not found the Self within them. 6.5
If it is possible to delete subjective consciousness, the result is impartiality toward "family, enemies, and friends, to the good and evil alike." A person who is able to do this "responds to the joys and sorrows of others as if they were his own, he has attained the highest state of spiritual union."
This seems to me a highly aspirational goal, or at least a fascinating thought experiment. Will it help Arjuna to make his decision on the battlefield?
I have a couple of questions about the cosmology that I don't expect have answers beyond maybe this being a "turtles all the way down" situation. First, it seems our goal is to free ourselves from karma/sin/desires, through as many incarnations as it takes, to attain nirvana in Brahman or become one with the Atman or Self behind everything. If that is our final state, what is our origin? Where did this all begin?
Second, in 4.7 Krishna says "I am born in every age to protect the good, to destroy evil, and to reestablish dharma." Why is he invested in this? Is he affected if evil proliferates? Why not be a hands-off observer? Maybe it's god's dharma "to protect the good". I don't know.
I also want to quickly point out that commentators often group the chapters into three subsections. We've just completed the first section, comprising chapters one through six, dedicated to knowing our true selves and understanding true action. The next six chapters are supposed to focus on the nature of god and the final six on liberating ourselves from this karmic loop. I haven't read beyond the first six chapters yet, so I can't say how good a classification this is.
Thomas wrote: "One of the implications of karma yoga is that by acting selflessly, the ego slips away. What is left then? Atman, the divine Self. So in acting selflessly the true Self is realized as divine rather than "mine."But this highly idealized point of view raises the question of individual responsibility. How does one make decisions if one has no attachment to or interest in the results? And who takes the blame for unjust actions?"
I'm not ready to back this up with quotes or anything, but my sense is that it assumes we understand our responsibilities and correct action under dharma. If we fulfill our purpose, it will be just. That unjust actions are always the result of our egos or selfish desires being bad influences on our actions.
There are certainly times when I feel I know what I should do, but I hesitate out of self-interest. This logic feels accurate for those situations.
There are other times, when I look back on past decisions and only see in hindsight that I was wrong. This is usually due to a lack of wisdom or knowledge on my part. I'm not convinced that introspection to examine my motivations and eliminate selfish interests would give me the clarity I need.
Similarly, there are times when I'm faced with a truly complex decision and I'm unsure of what to do. I'm not ready to say that the complexity would be resolved by eliminating self-interest. That feels like too simplistic a worldview.
Michael wrote: "If that is our final state, what is our origin? Where did this all begin?"My understanding of Hindu cosmology (which is hazy at best) is that our origin is the same as our final state. I'm not sure what to call that state other than Atman/Brahman, or how to describe it, but Hindu cosmology is generally cyclical.
As to why Krishna is invested in protecting the good and destroying evil... maybe he's acting selflessly? Maybe it is in his nature, or dharma, to intervene, and it's just what he does as a manifestation of Atman? (Just a guess based on the reading.)
Thomas wrote: "My understanding of Hindu cosmology (which is hazy at best) is that our origin is the same as our final state. I'm not sure what to call that state other than Atman/Brahman, or how to describe it, but Hindu cosmology is generally cyclical."I guess that would mean there is a fall or a corruption of Brahman and a cyclical struggle between good and evil; that our unification with the great Self in a nirvana state is not permanent.
That's real life, isn't it? We do good, then we screw up, then we fix it, then we get overconfident and screw up again.
Michael wrote: "Similarly, there are times when I'm faced with a truly complex decision and I'm unsure of what to do. I'm not ready to say that the complexity would be resolved by eliminating self-interest. That feels like too simplistic a worldview."The Gita suggests an interesting alternative to western ethics, which usually focuses on either consequences or principles and can get very complicated in theory. But no matter how carefully rules of ethics or foundational principles are thought out, they usually don't help much in practical decision making. It is very difficult to some up with a rules-based moral calculus that applies in every situation. In reality, most moral decisions end up coming from the gut, or the heart. The "golden rule" is usually more practical than a philosophy degree.
The Gita suggests that moral decisions are easy as long as selfish concerns are eliminated. One simply does what one is supposed to do by nature, without any need for principles or moral calculation. The implication is that the world, and human beings, are fundamentally good. It is only self-interest that corrupts us. I find this in stark contrast to my own religious tradition, which holds that people are born corrupt and need to be saved. (Though I suppose Krishna is also a kind of savior, but in a different way.)
Thomas wrote: "The Gita suggests that moral decisions are easy as long as selfish concerns are eliminated. One simply does what one is supposed to do by nature, without any need for principles or moral calculation. The implication is that the world, and human beings, are fundamentally good. It is only self-interest that corrupts us."When I was a young professional working for eBay. The founder Pierre Omidyar would frequently say "people are basically good". It was a big part of his philosophy and it was new and mind blowing for me. I really liked it. But, I also worked in the Trust & Safety department and it was my job to detect and deal with the worst human behaviors on the platform.
I agree that removing self-interest from decisions would simplify things and make the world a better place. I disagree with the idea that it is simple or that that is all there is to it. Sometimes we are missing information or wisdom or dealing with complex situations where maybe there are no right answers.
What is the sumum bonum of the Gita?I am asking because the following seems contradictory:
[4.19] Those who have excluded purposeIt seems like Krishna is saying, act without purpose to achieve union with Brahman. Doesn't union with Brahman then become the purpose of acting without purpose; a self-serving one at that?
and desire from their ventures,
their karma burnt in insight’s fire—
the wise call such people sages.
~Lombardo
It seems a rhetorical sleight of hand. You can’t tell someone to abandon purpose while simultaneously promising them the greatest prize imaginable. That is dogmatic assertion disguised as philosophy.
I have even read that, Inside the Gita’s logic this is no contradiction, because Brahman is not “gained” but “realized.” This just seems like more rhetorical slight of hand. so now one's purpose is to realize unity with Brahman?
David wrote: "I have even read that, Inside the Gita’s logic this is no contradiction, because Brahman is not “gained” but “realized.” This just seems like more rhetorical slight of hand. so now one's purpose is to realize unity with Brahman?"Yes, most commentaries seem to be frustratingly defensive and apologetic. It gets old.
I suspect this, as well as most other religious and mythological works that have lasted this long have done so because they offer a potential explanation or response to spiritual or mystical experiences and offer hope for an afterlife. I'm getting a lot of that from this reading. They also create social guardrails by giving a moral code. The idea of caste-specific duties and dharma seem to fill that role here.
I'm reading this because I'm really quite ignorant of the particularities of this belief system. Also, because I suspect it contains a lot of useful wisdom. To quote Alain de Botton, "...it must be possible to remain a committed atheist and nevertheless find religions sporadically useful, interesting and consoling - and be curious as to the possibilities of importing certain of their ideas and practices into the secular realm."
While I'm not great at it, I have dabbled some with Zazen meditation and can say that there is something special there once you can quiet your monkey mind and just be. I can see how people interpreting that experience could then extrapolate too far. At least that's my take on the explanation for all this. No offense intended to any believers.
I also agree that there is a lot of wisdom in the "process over outcomes" mentality. Focusing on process will often produce greater outcomes if you have your focus in the right place. Focusing on outcomes can also produce unearned reactions once the results are in. In the simplest of examples, having high expectations for a particular result can lead to a lot of heartache when things don't live up to your desires. It's something I need to remember now that football season is starting up again. I will inevitably be disappointed after buying into some preseason hype.
I'm sharing several translations of a verse (5.18) with a positive sentiment and memorable imagery that I appreciate.
Those who have realized the Self see that same Self equally in a humble scholar, a cow, a dog or a dog-eater. (Satchidananda)
They know that sunlight falls equally on all creatures. Those who possess this wisdom of Self look with a unified vision upon all beings and have equal love for all, whether those beings are spiritually advanced or the least in the ranks -- or even a cow or a dog. The real knower of Brahman sees only Divinity everywhere, in every being and every thing. (Hawley)
Those who possess this wisdom have equal regard for all. They see the same Self in a spiritual aspirant and an outcaste, in an elephant, a cow, and a dog. (Easwaran)
The men of self-realization look wiht an equal eye on a Brahmin possessed of learning and humility, a cow, an elephant, a dog, and even a dog-eater. (Gujarati)
Wise men regard all beings
as equal: a learned priest,
a cow, an elephant, a rat,
or a filthy, rat-eating outcaste. (Mitchell)
I guess outcasts were looked down on because they ate discarded and spoiled meat, dogs. Or, maybe they were outcast because they ate dogs, not sure. Mitchell, translating for a modern audience, uses rats instead of dogs.
One of the commentaries I have calls out the similarity between this verse and the Biblical "Love thy neighbor as thyself." The use of "self" is an interesting coincidence. I don't read much into the word use, but the idea that we are all equal, or equal in and before god (whatever god might mean for anyone in particular), resonates with me. Extending the attitude and sentiment to our animal cohabitants on this planet takes it to the next level.
On the topic of eating dogs and rats, I was reading about the similarities in Greek and Indian thought on reincarnation in The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies and a quote from the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Empedocles caught my eye because it calls out how when eating meat, ritual sacrifices in this case, you could be eating reincarnated members of your family. This quote is from the Dan Beachy-Quick translation
A father will lift up, in changed shape, his loved son and saying a prayer, cut the child's throat -- the great fool fooled greatly.
As the father, so the son. He grabs his mother and children, breaks apart their lives, and devours their flesh. ...and will not cease from murder's sick sound; don't you see how, with anguished minds, you devour each other?
David wrote: "What is the sumum bonum of the Gita?I am asking because the following seems contradictory:[4.19] Those who have excluded purpose
and desire from their ventures,
their karma burnt in insight’s fir..."
I'm not sure if this is a sumum bonum, but it looks to me like the goal for Arjuna is self-mastery. Nietzsche's phrase "become what you are" comes to mind, and self-overcoming might be a reasonable way to describe what the Gita teaches. If self-mastery can be considered a "reward" then you could think of it that way, but it's more like the promise of freedom-in-action than a promise of bliss-in-paradise or something. Krishna wants Arjuna to overcome his selfish attachments so that he can become who he is, a great warrior in the fight against evil. On a mythological level, this is what Krishna does to preserve the universe.
To achieve self-mastery, Arjuna first has to understand what the "self" is, and how the ordinary everyday self that is ego-driven and chases desires and the "fruits of actions" (rewards) is not the same as the "higher" self that lies beneath the ego. The higher Self (Atman or Brahman) in this case is revealed or "realized" when Arjuna abandons his selfish attachments. I don't think that this realization is the goal for Arjuna, it's just part of the process of becoming who he is.
Michael wrote: "I'm sharing several translations of a verse (5.18) with a positive sentiment and memorable imagery that I appreciate. Those who have realized the Self see that same Self equally in a humble schol..."
This is a fascinating verse, especially since it appears to criticize the very idea of the caste system. (And this is very ancient literature!) Thanks for providing the quotes. I'll add one more from Winthrop Sargeant for fun. The first part is a literal word-for-word translation.
vidyavinayasampanne
on a wisdom and cultivation endowed
brahmane gavi hastini
Brahman, on a cow, on an elephant
suni caiva svapake ca
and on a dog and on a dog-cooker
panditah samdarsinah
The Pandits the same seeing.
(Brahman here refers to the Brahman priestly caste; Pandits are wise men -- this is the origin of our English word "pundit.")
The wise see the same (Atman)
In a brahman endowed with wisdom and cultivation,
In a cow, in an elephant,
And even in a dog or in an outcaste.
I'm just realizing that sequence - wise man, cow, elephant, dog, dog-eater - is a hierarchy reflecting karmic state with wise man at the top and the outcaste (violating caste or dharma) at the bottom, lower than dogs. As you say Thomas, the advice is to look past the hierarchy and recognize the same divinity in all creatures. And I guess also, don't be a dog-eater.
"Michael wrote: "...what is our origin? Where did this all begin?... I guess that would mean there is a fall or a corruption of Brahman and a cyclical struggle between good and evil; that our unification with the great Self in a nirvana state is not permanent."The concept of a beginning here is irrelevant as there exists an eternal multiverse without beginning or ending. Yes, there are cycles of becoming—but NOT creation from nothing—and dissolution. Think of dissolutions as the “nights” of Brahman, and becomings as the “days” of Brahman. The words “night” and “day” here are wildly inadequate, but give one a sense of the cycle of becomings and dissolutions. Of Brahman we can say only that Brahman has neither “nights” nor “days” but rather is, always has been, and is ever unchanging.
There's a somewhat similar (not widely accepted) idea in Physics that the universe has no beginning and no end, has always existed and will always exist. A related idea is that the universe goes through alternating periods of expansion and contraction over immense time.
David wrote: "It seems a rhetorical sleight of hand. You can’t tell someone to abandon purpose while simultaneously promising them the greatest prize imaginable. … I have even read that, Inside the Gita’s logic this is no contradiction, because Brahman is not “gained” but “realized.”David's remarks got me thinking that we need to set aside Christian and Islamic ideas about rewards and punishments for good or bad deeds in an afterlife when considering the message of the Gita, which tells us we are already—and always have been—one with the Atman, the eternal unchaining true Self within every living being. Yes, we already are and always have been eternal. We don't recognize this because we are awash in sense impressions, self-concerns, and individuality. Through yoga (in the broadest sense) we can acknowledge and dismiss these distractions, so as to recognize who we really are: already one with all living things and with Brahman. So called good and evil and morality might be indirectly related but what matters is that “Through constant effort over many lifetimes, a person becomes purified of all selfish desires and attains the supreme goal of life," which is "nirvana, the state of abiding joy and peace in me,” i.e. Krishna, incarnation of Vishnu, that is Brahman.
P.S. I have to admit that nirvana does sound something like Christian heaven.
I attended a Catholic private girl's school in England run by nuns. We're not Catholic, but my parents sent us there because they trusted the nuns would give my sisters and I a sound education. And they were correct about that.This was decades ago, so I may not be remembering correctly but the quote below sounds a lot like the Catholic concept of purgatory:
“Through constant effort over many lifetimes, a person becomes purified of all selfish desires and attains the supreme goal of life."
If I am remembering correctly, the Catholic concept of Purgatory is as a sort of holding place where you get to wash out all your sins before gaining access to heaven. Again, I may not be remembering this correctly. My apologies if I'm mistaken and/or if I am simplifying this too much.
We read The Pilgrim's Progress a while ago. It demonstrates the big difference between Christian and Hindu notions of salvation. In the Progress there's a doorway to Hell at the very gates of heaven. If you take it you're lost forever. In Hindu reincarnation, there's always a second chance.Catholic Purgatory is a cleansing of souls already destined for Heaven. It makes them fit to stand before God. It's not a pleasant experience, Dante tells us.
Gary wrote: "David's remarks got me thinking that we need to set aside Christian and Islamic ideas about rewards or punishments for good or bad deeds in an afterlife. . ."“Gary, I appreciate the way you draw out the Gita’s emphasis on realization rather than reward; it helps explain why Krishna insists we are already eternal and one with Brahman, but fail to see, or realize, it because of distraction and delusion.
Let me try to clarify where I stumble. Take fire for example: we are told that touching a hot ember will burn and hurt (knowledge by description), and we may confirm it by being burned ourselves (knowledge by acquaintance). The first suffices for truth; we don’t doubt fire burns just because we haven’t been burned. And in the case of fire, acquaintance legitinately adds to our knowledge because it is communicable, demonstrable, and measurable, consistent, and has a shared method of confirmation or falsification.
The Gita/Krishna stress that knowledge by description and knowledge by acquaintance are both necessary to attain Brahman nirvana. Krishna’s ‘you are Brahman’ (knowledge by description), if it’s true, is sufficient. However, insisting that one must also realize it through self-mastery of a number of yogas is like saying you must also be burned to know. To insist realization is necessary is to confuse truth with vividness. But unlike the experience of being burned, mystical realization lacks everything that makes knowledge by acquaintance coherent: it is neither communicable, demonstrable, measurable, nor subject to a shared method of confirmation. This elevates subjective experience above evidence, and that is a danger of dogmatic mysticism, mistaking the feeling of certainty for truth.”
If it is true, as Krishna declares, that we are already one with the eternal Self, then hearing the proposition should suffice. To insist upon a further ‘realization’ is to turn what purports to be a fact into a mystical attainment. ‘You already have attained it’ is the bait; ‘now you must realize it’ is the switch. And when philosophy begins with assertions that can only be ‘realized,’ it smuggles the attainment of the reward of Brahman-nirvāṇa back in under another name, and slides from philosophy into dogma that ceases to argue, no matter how many reincarnations the Gita says it may take to get there. Make no mistake; this is a reward system.
Ok. I've been looking at The Origins of Philosophy in Ancient Greece and Ancient India, in particular, chapter 10. It is calling out the similarities between karma and the introduction of the use of coins and money in culture as a transition away from more transactional sacrifices to gods and rituals and as a more useful transactional model that trading goods for other goods directly.I won't be able to do it justice without a careful reading, but found the connection insightful and will now pay more attention to karma as a moral economy. Here is a bit that helps explain.
Another source of social power, alongside money, was ritual. The expansion of the meaning of karman from ritual action to what we call karma followed on social changes, notablly urbanisation and monetisation, that were likely to produce new spheres of social power and prosperity that did not depend on the ancient Vedic sacrifices. Power and prosperity came manifestly to depend less on ritual and more on money...
The life of most Indians in our period was dominated by agriculture. But it also came to be dominated by the circulation of money, which could increasingly buy anything useful, even land. The money-like deferral of benefit imagined in karma is also influenced by the interval between sowing and harvesting. But money is in most respects more suitable than agriculture as a model for the moral cosmic cycle, because it (a) is more simply acquired, stored and spent by an individual, (b) is more universal in its acquisitive power and in the actions that it rewards and enables, (c) seems mysteriously invisible, (d) involves precise quantification, (e) is closer to its owner and (f) is less dependent than agriculture on external factors...
...the social transcendence of money is imagined as the metaphysical transcendence of karma...
It cannot be emphasised too strongly that I am not proposing the reduction of karma to money. Karma is a much more complex phenomenon than money, and takes various forms. I suggest merely that one of the factors in the emergence of the core concept in northern India from the middle of the first millennium was the simultaneous advent there of monetisation.
Again, the book is very academic and full of references. I'm sure I'm misrepresenting some things by quote mining from chapter 10 after only doing a light skim of earlier chapters.
Gary wrote: "The concept of a beginning here is irrelevant as there exists an eternal multiverse without beginning or ending. Yes, there are cycles of becoming—but NOT creation from nothing—and dissolution. Think of dissolutions as the “nights” of Brahman, and becomings as the “days” of Brahman. The words “night” and “day” here are wildly inadequate, but give one a sense of the cycle of becomings and dissolutions."There is a lot of discussion of reaching nirvana or rejoining Brahman; the ascension to heaven or daylight in your example. Is there discussion on the corruption or dissolution of that state. If it is cyclical, does that mean that even in Brahman, there are seeds of darkness that will ruin things?
Roger wrote: "Catholic Purgatory is a cleansing of souls already destined for Heaven..."Sorry. I guess I'm just not getting it because this sounds like the Hindu concept of reincarnation where you get to be reborn as many times as necessary to achieve the desired state. The difference as I see it is Hinduism has no concept of hell/eternal damnation. You get to "cleanse" yourself through repeated reincarnations in this life. In Purgatory you get to "cleanse" yourself after you die. And the duration of your stay in Purgatory depends on how much "cleansing" you need just as the number of reincarnations you have to go through in Hinduism depends on the same thing.
But maybe I'm missing something.
Tamara wrote: "Roger wrote: "Catholic Purgatory is a cleansing of souls already destined for Heaven..."Sorry. I guess I'm just not getting it because this sounds like the Hindu concept of reincarnation where yo..."
In Christianity there is a chance you will go to Hell, with no chance of every being accepted into Purgatory, let alone Heaven. Hinduism has no such concept, as far as I know.
And the cleansing of Purgatory occurs in the next life, not in this.
David wrote: "If it is true, as Krishna declares, that we are already one with the eternal Self, then hearing the proposition should suffice. To insist upon a further ‘realization’ is to turn what purports to be a fact into a mystical attainment."Arjuna asks about the path of knowledge -- the path of the proposition, if I can call it that -- at the beginning of Ch. 3:
O Krishna, you have said that knowledge is greater than action; then why do you ask me to wage this terrible war? Your advice seems inconsistent. Give me one path to follow to the supreme good.
Krishna says that both the path of knowledge and the path of selfless action lead to the same goal, but he suggests that the path of knowledge is for those who have already gone beyond the "external world," the world of subjective reality deluded by the ego. It's not enough to accept oneness with Atman/Brahman as a proposition -- it has to be realized as reality. This is why Krishna says the way of action, karma yoga, is better. Accepting oneness with Atman is a very difficult proposition to "realize" on an intellectual level.
Our fundamental awareness of the universe is subjective. We live and think in terms of dualism; we are all special as individuals, and we all have unique perspectives based on lived experience. Krishna says this subjective experience is the play of the gunas -- the material world and its forces, biochemistry, the senses etc -- and is ultimately illusory. But ultimate Reality is not subjective. We are not parts of the whole; we are the whole itself, and what we see as individual parts, our ego selves, are obstacles to our understanding of our Oneness. I'm not sure it's even possible to make logical sense of non-dualism from a dualistic perspective. In any case, Krishna suggests it is better to practice selfless action because the knowledge of non-dualism is indeed mystical, and certainly not easy to understand intellectually.
Michael wrote: "If it is cyclical, does that mean that even in Brahman, there are seeds of darkness that will ruin things?I don't think "seeds of darkness" suggests the nature of the cycles in Hindu cosmology. Becomings and dissolving are neither morally good nor bad, they simply are.
Some believe it is helpful for us earth-bound humans, not having realized who we really are, to think of Brahman as a Trinity, representing three aspects or manifestations of Brahman. They are Brahma, the god of becomings (not to be confused with Brahman); Vishnu*, the preserver god; and Shiva, the god of dissolutions. Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva together manifest the cyclical nature of the universe. Each has devotees. Yet they are all one in Brahman. I want to emphasize that becoming, preserving, and dissolving are neither moral nor immoral; they are the very nature of reality.
* As you know, Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu
P.S. It's natural of think of the Christian Trinity in comparison. The general concept of three persons in one god is similar, but there I think the similarities end.
P.P.S, I am not Hindu, but have studied Hinduism. If anyone knows I am off track, and I might well be, please let me (and everyone else) know. I offer these kinds of general off-topic notes only in response to issues that come up in this interesting discussion.
Michael wrote: "There is a lot of discussion of reaching nirvana or rejoining Brahman; the ascension to heaven or daylight in your example. Is there discussion on the corruption or dissolution of that state. If it is cyclical, does that mean that even in Brahman, there are seeds of darkness that will ruin things?"It seems strange to me to talk about nirvana as a reward if the path to it is action without desire. The only way to reach it is by abandoning any desire for it. The reward is not so much a place or a state of being as it is the abandoning of the desire for nirvana itself.
That said, there is some cosmology coming up in Chapter 8.
Thomas wrote: "Krishna says the way of action, karma yoga, is better. Accepting oneness with Atman is a very difficult proposition to "realize" on an intellectual level."I believe Krishna recommends the path of selfless service to Arjuna as a practical matter. The contemplative path, is much more difficult and can only be realized by those who have already separated from the world of sensation and circumstance. Perhaps in previous lives contemplatives followed paths of service, paths of devotion, and paths of knowledge. Their prior lives may have purified them for the contemplative path.
For Arjuna--in this life,--the contemplative path is beyond his reach and for him the path of service is the only path. For Krishna to say that the path of action is better than the path of contemplation is to recognize that for Arjuna in this life, it is the better path for him. I do not believe Krishna is saying that action is always better than contemplation, or better than devotion, or better than knowledge.
Gary wrote: "For Krishna to say that the path of action is better than the path of contemplation is to recognize that for Arjuna in this life, it is the better path for him. "Well put, and this sounds right to me. There are several paths, including meditation, but they all lead to an understanding of self-lessness and oneness with Atman/Brahman.
Contemplation is out of Arjuna's reach, I agree. But I wonder about meditation. It seems anyone should be able to meditate.
Chapter 6 on meditation provides another memorable image, the flickering flame as a model for your Atman or Self. I'm going to use the poetic Mitchell translation of 6.19-20, 26, 29
"A lamp sheltered from the wind
which does not flicker" --to this
is compared the true man of yoga
whose mind has vanished in the Self.
When his mind has become serene
by the practice of meditation,
he sees the Self through the self
and rests in the Self, rejoicing.
However often the restless
mind may break loose and wander,
he should rein it in and constantly
bring it back to the Self.
Mature in yoga, impartial
everywhere that he looks,
he sees himself in all beings
and all beings in himself.
I relate to the flickering as distractions and stray thoughts that need to be acknowledged and let go when meditating to quiet the mind. It also resonates in my day-to-day work life as I'm pulled from meeting to meeting, project to project, and topic to topic. This kind of context shifting can be mentally taxing, and it can feel destabilizing to inner peace and patience. I feel the same thing when multitasking. I can often do two things at once, like listening to music and reading, or listening to podcasts and driving. As soon as a third thing comes in, it is destabilizing. I start making mistakes and need to pull back to just one or two things. My son, a music graduate, believes that music needs to be listened to deeply as a single task to appreciate it truly. That sounds right when really focusing or doing deep work.
The concentrated use of "self" in these lines brought some of the lyrics from the 1971 song, "I've Seen All Good People" by Yes to mind.
Just remember that the goal
Is for us all to capture all we want, anywhere
Don't surround yourself with yourself
Move on back two squares
Send an instant karma to me
Initial it with loving care
Don't surround yourself
'Cause it's time, it's time in time with your time and it's news is captured for the queen to use
This is a chess metaphor. If you surround your queen with other pieces, she gets blocked; you've sabotaged your most powerful piece and need to move her back some squares so she can have space to breathe and so her range can be reasserted.
In a way, this is a related, or maybe the same, message. We benefit from removing distractions and reconnecting with ourselves and our sense of purpose. If we feel like a flickering flame or a blocked queen, then we are off track. Meditation is a good tool to get back to where we need to be. If you are religious and want to call that feeling god, then I guess that is fine with me.
Finally, I like how 29 brings it back to respecting all life; seeing and living those connections. The Carl Sagan quote, "The cosmos is within us. We are all star-stuff" comes to mind.
Tamara wrote: "I may not be remembering correctly but the quote below sounds a lot like the Catholic concept of purgatory:“Through constant effort over many lifetimes, a person becomes purified of all selfish desires and attains the supreme goal of life."
My first reaction to Tamara's suggestion that the concept of passage through Catholic purgatory to enter heaven was similar to Hindu passage through many lives to realize nirvana, was No ... there are too many dissimilarities,* some of which Roger pointed out.
But after reflecting on this, I too think that if one sets-aside the particulars the two concepts are parallel ideas. The ultimate stage of our journey or journeys through our life or lives is, in the Catholic Catechism the “fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness”, and in the Gita “the state of abiding joy and peace.” But with few exceptions we as individuals are not prepared to realize these ultimate joys and therefore must pass through a series of steps (not quite the right word, but close enough) to purify ourselves, to ready ourselves, for ultimate happiness and peace.
*The biggest one being that in Gita there is no eternal damnation for some.
David wrote: “ … no matter how many reincarnations the Gita says it may take to get there. Make no mistake; this is a reward system.”This is another idea I initially rejected because realizing who you really are doesn’t seem like a reward for accomplishing or earning something; rather it’s more like something you have always had and will always have whether you realize it or not. In contrast Christian and Islamic heavens are rewards for a life well lived according to their scriptures, and for lives badly lived, eternal damnation in hell.
But putting this aside for a moment, the process of earning heaven or realizing nirvana are similar; in both one goes through a series of trials, experiences, and reflections to attain ultimate joy and peace. If the reward David is writing about is not a prize but rather entry into another way of being that one seeks and works to earn or realize, I agree that despite protestations to the contrary (including my own), “this is a rewards system.”
Gary wrote: "Tamara wrote: "I may not be remembering correctly but the quote below sounds a lot like the Catholic concept of purgatory:“Through constant effort over many lifetimes, a person becomes purified of..."
Thank you, Gary. You communicated what I was trying to say better than I did.
But when you say, The biggest one being that in Gita there is no eternal damnation for some, I'm wondering about the "for some" part of your sentence. Does that mean the Gita purports some will be reincarnated as many times as necessary until they get it right, while others will suffer eternal damnation?
Unless I missed it, I don't see any concept of eternal damnation in Hinduism. I see that some people may have to work through more steps, as you put it, than others, but I don't see anything that indicates eternal damnation. Did I miss that in the reading?
Gary wrote: "This is another idea I initially rejected because realizing who you really are doesn’t seem like a reward for accomplishing or earning something; rather it’s more like something you have always had and will always have whether you realize it or not. In contrast Christian and Islamic heavens are rewards for a life well lived according to their scriptures, and for lives badly lived, eternal damnation in hell..."But aren't the two ideas related? In Christianity and Islam, you are rewarded with an eternal life in heaven for worshipping God and performing good deeds and living life according to the dictates of your religion. But in order to do that, don’t you have to know who you are, what you are, and why you are put on this earth in the first place? In other words, isn’t one a prerequisite for the other? Don’t you have to know your essence and your purpose in order to live life according to the precepts of your faith to earn a place in heaven? Otherwise, why bother?
Tamara wrote: "But when you say, The biggest one being that in Gita there is no eternal damnation for some, I'm wondering about the "for some" part of your sentence. Does that mean the Gita purports some will be reincarnated as many times as necessary until they get it right, while others will suffer eternal damnation?."I can see the ambiguity. I tried to state a contrast: in Christianity and Islam there is damnation for some, in Hinduism as I understand it there is no hell and no damnation.
That's how I understand it, too. thanks.
Tamara wrote: “But aren't the two ideas related? In Christianity and Islam, you are rewarded with an eternal life in heaven for worshipping God and performing good deeds and living life according to the dictates of your religion. But ... don’t you have to know who you are, what you are, and why you are put on this earth in the first place? … Don’t you have to know your essence and your purpose ... ?I can agree, Tamara, that there’s a relation at 10,000 feet in that Christianity/Islam and Hinduism believe there is a state of being beyond this world and the process of attaining that state is roughly similar. But these traditions at ground level are markedly different. For instance, the answers to the questions you pose are — for a great many believers — already in the Bible and the Koran. For a great many, believing in one god and following Biblical or Koranic rules is the key to heaven. in Hinduism there are multiple answers to your questions depending upon one's dharma, no one "right" way and no doctrinal authority; instead there are multiple paths, multiple traditions, and multiple philosophical schools within the traditions.
Gary wrote: "in Hinduism there are multiple answers to your questions depending upon one's dharma, no one "right" way and no doctrinal authority; instead there are multiple paths, multiple traditions, and multiple philosophical schools within the traditions..."Christianity and Islam also have different philosophical schools within each tradition. In fact, members within the same religious umbrella have been and, in some cases, continue to be persecuted because they adhere to one specific tradition as opposed to another within that same religion.
Hinduism has multiple traditions, multiple paths. But aren’t they all caste-specific? Isn’t Arjuna being told to fight because that is what is required of a member of his caste? If members within each caste are expected to adhere to the rules of their specific caste, doesn’t that constitute dogma and doctrinal authority?
I'm sorry, but as you can see, I'm struggling to understand this.
Tamara wrote: "Gary wrote: "in Hinduism there are multiple answers to your questions depending upon one's dharma, no one "right" way and no doctrinal authority; instead there are multiple paths, multiple traditio..."As you put it, it seems to me very similar to Confucianism. You have to follow the authority, the Dharma is still an authority, not matter what. You have to fight, but only if you are a warrior, if you fight your Dharma you are wrong in doing so.
I think would be interesting if we could read in the future a book on Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism.
Michael wrote: "Chapter 6 on meditation provides another memorable image, the flickering flame as a model for your Atman or Self. ."I like how you bring out the practical aspect of meditation. It seems to me the most accessible of the paths, and it doesn't ask the practioner to buy into anything. It's funny in way when Arjuna asks Krishna what happens when someone screws up and wanders off the path of meditation: "Will he lose the support of both worlds, like a cloud scattered in the sky?" But Arjuna's concern also speaks to its power. Krishna says even asking about meditation is better than just performing religious rituals.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
The Origins of Philosophy in Ancient Greece and Ancient India (other topics)The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies (other topics)
Arjuna is puzzled when Krishna says that he previously shared his "eternal secret" of yoga with sages who actually existed before Krishna's birth. This is possible, Krishna explains, because he is an avatar of the "Lord who dwells in every creature," and is therefore timeless. (Krishna is an incarnation of God, as Jesus is for Christians, though for Hindus there are several such incarnations. Specifically, Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu, the protector of cosmic order. Krishna returns when there is a decline of dharma (virtue, righteousness, justice, etc.) in the world to set things right.)
Here Krishna brings the gift of "action without selfish attachments" and the idea of non-duality to help Arjuna out of his quandary.
They live in freedom who have gone beyond the dualities of life. Competing with no one, they are alike in success and failure and content with whatever comes to them. They are free, without selfish attachments; their minds are fixed in knowledge. They perform all work in the spirit of service, and their karma is dissolved. 4.22 Easwaran
Krishna uses the example of the fire sacrifice, which was a common Vedic ritual well known to Arjuna. He says Brahman (one of the three main Hindu gods) is the fire itself, but Brahman is also the priest as well as the offering. Brahman is everything and everyone. The fire and the priest and the offering are not separate but the same, ultimately.
One of the implications of karma yoga is that by acting selflessly, the ego slips away. What is left then? Atman, the divine Self. So in acting selflessly the true Self is realized as divine rather than "mine."
But this highly idealized point of view raises the question of individual responsibility. How does one make decisions if one has no attachment to or interest in the results? And who takes the blame for unjust actions?