Chapters 7-9

[Thomas]

Ch 7

Krishna reveals his nature using the terms of Sankhya philosophy: he says his lower nature is "prakriti," the physical and mental world, while his higher nature is the source of life, "purusha." These are terms from ancient Vedic religion, but they roughly correspond to matter and spirit. These elements come together in Krishna and are expressed as the universe: everything, including desire and delusion, come from Krishna.

Krishna says that those who take refuge in him can overcome delusion, or maya. This raises the question: if everything comes from Krishna, why did he create delusion? (Perhaps the better question is whether the Gita accounts for this.)

Delusion arises from the duality of attraction and aversion, desire and fear. This appears to be judgement-driven action, rather than impartial, selfless action. So far the Gita has described a number of paths leading to selflessness, and now Krishna offers another one: Krishna himself. Those who are "established in union, for whom there is no higher goal, may be regarded as my very Self." This strikes me as an extraordinary statement. What does it mean to "take refuge" in Krishna?

Ch 8

Krishna uses some technical terms that Arjuna does not understand. (All of these terms begin with the word "adhi" which means "Supreme", and this word echoes throughout the section.) These words all relate back to Krishna as the "supreme" of everything, but interestingly, Krishna's explanation involves a description of what happens when a person dies. These concepts of the afterlife are not original to the Gita and have roots in even older traditions, but why does Krishna bring death to the discussion at this point?

Krishna states that there is a manifested reality (the common world of matter and spirit that we live in) which is cyclical in nature. The cosmic law ordains that the "multitude of beings" are brought forth from the Unmanifest, exist for a while, are destroyed, and then emerge again after returning to the Unmanifest. But beyond this ever-changing manifested state there is an eternal, formless, unchanging and unmanifested reality. This is the "supreme state" available to those who are "self-controlled and free from passions." Perseverance in yoga, selfless service, and meditation are all paths to the knowledge of this supreme state. Is death necessary to reach it?

Ch 9

Krishna reveals his greatest secret to Arjuna: Krishna himself! It should go without saying that since Krishna is an incarnation of Brahman, i.e. all-inclusive everything, that he is the creator and destroyer of everything as well. The poetry is in the details.

One important point is that worship of other gods is worshiping Krishna as well. This is a distinguishing feature, since some religions explicitly prohibit the worshipping of other gods. Krishna accepts devotion of any kind. But there is a wrinkle -- those who don't know that they are worshiping Krishna must be reborn.

There seems to be an understanding here that until the division between the individual and Krishna/Brahman/Everything is dissolved, the individual must be reborn. Somehow the worship of Krishna leads to this dissolution in the same way that karma yoga or meditation can. For some people the worship of a deity with love and devotion is a way of letting the ego go, and this path may be the way for them.

[Michael]

Thomas wrote: "So far the Gita has described a number of paths leading to selflessness, and now Krishna offers another one: Krishna himself. Those who are "established in union, for whom there is no higher goal, may be regarded as my very Self.
[... ]
One important point is that worship of other gods is worshiping Krishna as well. This is a distinguishing feature, since some religions explicitly prohibit the worshipping of other gods. Krishna accepts devotion of any kind."

I've been noticing the text (and commentaries on it) is working very hard to place this belief system above all others and to encompass or synthesize all others. These chapters really drove that home for me so I did some searches and read some things to try to figure out what kinds of sociohistoric conditions might have produced that. Here's a short summary of what I found.

1. In the Vedic period, people living in small clans enlisted the services of priests (brahmin) to do animal sacrifices. I imagine these brahmin as something similar to dentists for us. There are maintenance visits to keep you and your family in good shape and there a visits to remedy things when something has gone wrong. All of these interactions were barter transactions that sustained the brahmin.
2. The period from about 600 BCE to about 200 BCE is called The Second Urbanization. Iron age tools begin showing up making forest clearing and agriculture more efficient. The increased food production, along with other factors, resulted in the emergence of larger cities and kingdoms. As an example, our story is situated in the middle of a battle for control of kingdom of Kuru.
3. The larger cities and more efficient food production resulted in specializations like a merchant class and more formalized caste divisions - priests, rulers and warriors, merchants and tradesmen,, lowest classes.
4. Writing became more established.
5. The use of coins/money took off and the concept of karma shifted from the idea of an animal sacrifice to a metaphysical accounting system.
6. Competing religious systems that didn't rely on animal sacrifice and paid brahmins emerged - Jainism and Buddhism.

So, based on all of that, I suspect the message of the Gita did a few things for the population.
1. The focus on dharma and doing your duty in your caste would provide social and political stability for the ruling class.
2. All of the lists and categories of things feel both encyclopedic and legalistic. I suspect they went some way to communicate authority and knowledge.
3. The multiple paths to god likely represent a greatest hits of all of the popular religious traditions. It legitimizes the brahmin-based sacrifices as a system while also carving out a space for meditative and devotional systems. Instead of a divisive, our way is the right way, and others are wrong, it is inclusive and accepting.
4. The synthesis of traditions could have fostered peace which would have been good for trade and the emerging merchant class.

These conclusions are suppositions I've made. I'm looking at a lot of this for the first time, so I could be very wrong. I'm sharing the idea because, for me at least, it gives greater coherence to what I've read so far.

Side note: it might be interesting to see how all of this is similar or different to the emergence of the Roman Catholic or universal church, including the selection and canonization of the books that became the Bible to represent the official and accepted beliefs supported by the state.

[David]

Thomas wrote: ". . .some religions explicitly prohibit the worshipping of other gods. Krishna accepts devotion of any kind. But there is a wrinkle -- those who don't know that they are worshiping Krishna must be reborn. "

So is Krishna magnanimous or jealous? If rebirth is merely another chance, it still feels like a cosmic “Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.” An eternity of remedial coursework until you learn to write his name at the top of the exam.

Compare this with a certain other deity who announces, “I the Lord thy God am a jealous God…visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation” (Exodus 20:5). There the punishment is generational collateral damage; in the Gita it is a metaphysical revolving door.

Theologies differ, but the silliness is the same: one deity insists all bow only to him or he’ll blight the grandchildren, the other insists all bow already to him, even if unwittingly, but still makes you spin the wheel again if you fail to acknowledge it.

These so called omnipotent beings have devised different varieties of bureaucratic penalty. None seem entirely free of the pettiness of a blackmailing immigration officer with a rubber stamp. If the universe is indeed ordered by truth, one might expect indifference to whether the truth is recognized. Where is the indifference on this matter from Krishna that he seems so eager for others to adopt?

[Michael]

David wrote: "Theologies differ, but the silliness is the same: one deity insists all bow only to him or he’ll blight the grandchildren, the other insists all bow already to him, even if unwittingly, but still makes you spin the wheel again if you fail to acknowledge it."

Are we dealing with the problem of evil here?

Karma and reincarnation seem to provide an explanation or a moral framework for why some people suffer and others don't. And Krishna is positioning belief in himself or devotion as a way to short-circuit the system and skip ahead to him.

As you point out, it fails to explain why this system is the way it is, why an omnipotent being creates a system with suffering as a core part of the model.

Thomas wrote: "Krishna says that those who take refuge in him can overcome delusion, or maya. This raises the question: if everything comes from Krishna, why did he create delusion? (Perhaps the better question is whether the Gita accounts for this.)"

[David]

Michael wrote: "Are we dealing with the problem of evil here?"

Sure, it touches on that as well. I pointing more towards all the divine insecurity.

Which is the stranger thought — that the all-powerful needs constant reassurance of loyalty, or that he devised a cosmos where creatures must suffer until they provide it? Either way, the portrait is less of a supreme being than of a supreme bureaucrat: omnipotence wedded to thin skin.

[Roger]

I think we are advised to stick with Krishna for our own sake, not for Krishna's.

[David]

Roger wrote: "I think we are advised to stick with Krishna for our own sake, not for Krishna's."

To say, it is for your own sake when prescribing obedience is a very old rhetorical device of rulers. It blurs the line between freedom and compulsion, because the subject is told that subordination is liberation. We might as well throw in war is peace. freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.

If it is indeed for our sake rather than for Krishna’s, that only relocates the problem. One might well ask why a benevolent being would orchestrate a universe in which well-being depends upon constant devotion to himself. It is difficult to distinguish between a god who needs worship and a god who constructs a system where creatures must worship in order to prosper.

Either way, the structure belies anthropomorphism. Gods are imagined rather like monarchs who insist that his subjects are free, yet rig the game so that their happiness is contingent upon loyalty to him. From a rational standpoint, this is less an account of ultimate reality than a projection of political authority into the heavens.

[Michael]

Roger wrote: "I think we are advised to stick with Krishna for our own sake, not for Krishna's."

In 5.14-15 (Easwaran and the more wordy Hawley prose translation) Krishna describes Nature as a system separate from him that operates on its own.

Neither the sense of acting, nor actions, nor the connection of cause and effect comes from the Lord of this world. These three arise from nature. The Lord does not partake in the good and evil deeds of any person...
----
It is mysterious, Arjuna. God established this system but does not operate it. Divinity does not determine the worldly doings of humanity, nor does It instill the sense of doership (ego) into humanity -- nor even does It link actions to the consequences of actions. Nature does all this. All actions, all works, all karma, belong to nature, not the Divine. It is humanity that determines its earthly destiny. People seal their own fate. Further, God is neither responsible for nor takes note of anyone's bad or even good deeds...

7.12-13 explain some about nature as a system with the three gunas - sattva, rajas, and tamas being three elements that mix to become all things. 9,9-10 (Easwaran) further explains Krishna's separation from nature

"...I am unattached to them, so they do not disturb my nature. Under my watchful eye the laws of nature take their course..."

It would be interesting to compare this concept of nature to the idea of Mother Nature as a kind of divine force and her personification in the Greek pantheon. De Lille's The Plaint of Nature also comes to mind.

So, I agree there is some separation and an idea that this is just the system and Krishna is an observer outside of it and it is in our best interest to follow his advice for our own sake. But, big but here, we also have verses the promote Krishna in a savior role with an interest and a duty to help us. 4.7-8 (Easwaran) comes to mind

Whenever dharma declines and the purpose of life is forgotten, I manifest myself on earth. I am born in every age to protect the good, to destroy evil, and to reestablish dharma.

I'm not sure I know how to reconcile this tension between the idea of a distant observer and a duty-bound savior. And, the problem of evil is still there, Why create this system where suffering is inherent and then blame it on Nature as if you had nothing to do with it?

To me, the most interesting question is why we humans create gods who do a big reveal (theophany) and provide guidance to a better afterlife. We recently read of Demeter and the Eleusinian mysteries, we have Christ, and now, new to me, Krishna, all following a similar pattern. Why do we seem to need this in our religions?

[Thomas]

David wrote: "Theologies differ, but the silliness is the same: one deity insists all bow only to him or he’ll blight the grandchildren, the other insists all bow already to him, even if unwittingly, but still makes you spin the wheel again if you fail to acknowledge it.
"

The way I read it, devotion to Krishna is only one path of several to selflessness. It isn't a requirement, as it is in Judaism, to recognize and obey one God. Krishna is just another name for the state of unified everything, aka Brahman. (Though in the Gita Krishna is also an avatar of this Brahman.)

Devotion to Krishna (bhakti yoga) is one possible path to this unification because it entails the same things that selfless action (karma yoga) and meditation do -- the removal of selfish attachments. The culmination of this is the loss of the self altogether into a union with Brahman. This is the critical thing -- selflessness, the loss of the ego. Reaching this point doesn't require devotion to any god, but it does require letting go of selfish attachments. Selfish attachments are what create karma, after all.

I'm not sure what it means when it said that rebirth occurs until all one's karma is "worked off." How does one work off karma? Doing good deeds? What kind and how many, and who is the score keeper? Reading the Gita, it makes much more sense to me to understand that selflessness is the final state. There is no "prize" at the end, because there is no one there to receive the prize. Not being there as a self (with all the baggage that a self carries around) is the prize itself.

This is very different from the Bible, where God relates to human individuals as human individuals and has feelings for them as individuals. That actually seems to me the biggest difference between the nondualism of the Gita and the Bible. Jews are the people specially chosen by God, and others are excluded. Whereas Krishna says that you can worship whoever or whatever, it all comes back to him. (Because worshiping something as greater than you is a good first step on the path to selflessness.)

[Thomas]

David wrote: "To say, it is for your own sake when prescribing obedience is a very old rhetorical device of rulers. "

Could you point out where Krishna insists on obedience to him? At 9.23 he seems to be saying that worshiping other gods is cool with him. The religion of the Gita strikes me as profoundly pantheistic, and your criticisms sound to me like they're directed at a different religion.

[David]

Michael wrote: "I'm not sure I know how to reconcile this tension between the idea of a distant observer and a duty-bound savior."

In one passage of the Gita, Krishna insists that nature and its consequences operate independently of him; in another, he presents himself as the savior who descends whenever dharma is threatened (4.7–8). The juxtaposition makes for a difficult apology: a detached overseer who nonetheless takes direct responsibility for intervention.

It is less about philosophy and logic and all about satisfying a compromise between two human needs. The first is to preserve divine perfection by separating God from responsibility for suffering. The second is to maintain divine relevance by attributing to him the role of rescuer. Both are psychologically comprehensible but logically inconsistent.

The wider pattern, whether Demeter, Christ, or Krishna, is more plausibly explained by human imagination than by divine action. To invoke Ockham’s principle, multiplying supernatural entities is unnecessary when psychological motives suffice. Confronted with suffering, people seek both an impersonal order to explain it and a personal agent to relieve it; gods who both transcend and intervene meet this need, but at the expense of coherence.

[Thomas]

Michael wrote: "In 5.14-15 (Easwaran and the more wordy Hawley prose translation) Krishna describes Nature as a system separate from him that operates on its own.

Neither the sense of acting, nor actions, nor the connection of cause and effect comes from the Lord of this world. These three arise from nature. The Lord does not partake in the good and evil deeds of any person...."

Krishna talks about the "multitude of beings" and the states of sattva, rajas, and tamas, as well as all of the manifest world (the Natural world) as coming from him, but not really... because behind the curtain he is really the Unmanifest.

This is hard to reconcile, and to me this is the principal difficulty of the Gita. Krishna says that the manifest world is "maya," an illusion, which is one explanation (and a weak one I think) but it just raises the question of why he created this illusion. It's the same problem of theodicy that we see in other religions -- why does evil exist, and why does God allow it? Though here I think it's also a problem of reconciling a highly idealistic nonduality with our everyday experience of a dualistic subjective reality.

[Michael]

David wrote: "The wider pattern, whether Demeter, Christ, or Krishna, is more plausibly explained by human imagination than by divine action. To invoke Ockham’s principle, multiplying supernatural entities is unnecessary when psychological motives suffice. Confronted with suffering, people seek both an impersonal order to explain it and a personal agent to relieve it; gods who both transcend and intervene meet this need, but at the expense of coherence."

I agree with all of this, I'm just intrigued that in all three cases, major religious cultures lasting over 1,000 years created and believed in savior figures that take human form on Earth to show the way and pave the path. It seems to be a narrative that resonates.

[Michael]

Thomas wrote: "Though here I think it's also a problem of reconciling a highly idealistic nonduality with our everyday experience of a dualistic subjective reality."

While yes, most feel this way and it is the soup we live in
"...our everyday experience of a dualistic subjective reality."

Don't forget those of us who favor a non-dualist, materialist perspective - everything is physical, even our "spiritual" experiences.

[Roger]

Does Krishna claim to have made the world, with all its rules and possibility of evil? I don't recall that he does, or that Arjuna asks about it.

[Michael]

Roger wrote: "Does Krishna claim to have made the world, with all its rules and possibility of evil?"

7.4-7 (Easwaran)

Earth, water, fire, air, akasha, mind, intellect, and ego - these are the eight divisions of my prakriti. But beyond this I have another, higher nature, Arjuna; it supports the whole universe and is the source of life in all beings. In these two aspects of my nature is the womb of all creation. The birth and dissolution of the cosmos itself take place in me. There is nothing that exists separate from me, Arjuna. The entire universe is suspended from me as my necklace of jewels.

9.7-10 (Easwaran)

At the end of the eon these creatures return to unmanifested matter; at the beginning of the next cycle I send them forth again. Controlling my prakriti, again and again I bring forth these myriad forms and subject them to the laws of prakriti.
[...]
Under my watchful eye the laws of nature take their course. Thus is the world set in motion; thus the animate and the inanimate are created.

[Thomas]

Michael wrote: "Don't forget those of us who favor a non-dualist, materialist perspective - everything is physical, even our "spiritual" experiences."

Not to get too far afield, but there actually is school of atheistic materialism in India called Carvaka. I'm not sure if it's nondualist though. Nondualism tends toward mysticism (because it purports to remove the individual self) so I would expect not, but I'm not sure.

[Michael]

Thomas wrote: "Not to get too far afield, but there actually is school of atheistic materialism in India called Carvaka."

Oh, thanks. I look for it.

[Roger]

Michael wrote: "Roger wrote: "Does Krishna claim to have made the world, with all its rules and possibility of evil?"

7.4-7 (Easwaran)

Earth, water, fire, air, akasha, mind, intellect, and ego - these are the ei..."

Well these passages do make Krishna look like a creator god. But is it the same sort of creator as in the Abrahamic religions, standing outside of and prior to creation? "The birth and dissolution of the cosmos itself take place in me." But I don't get the idea that Krishna pre-existed or designed the whole shebang. More like the highest, most fundamental, impelling part of it. "Under my watchful eye the laws of nature take their course." I don't get any sense that Krishna could change these laws.

[David]

Thomas wrote: "Could you point out where Krishna insists on obedience to him? At 9.23 he seems to be saying that worshiping other gods is cool with him. The religion of the Gita strikes me as profoundly pantheistic. . ."
Part 1
It is natural to pick up on the inclusive tone.

[9.23.1-3] Even those who worship other gods
and offer sacrifice in faith,
they also worship Me, Arjuna,

But Krishna qualifies this by reminding us that these are still in fact wrong

[9.23.4]though not in an orthodox way.

The next verse defines the penalty is falling back into the cycle of rebirth.

[9.24] I am indeed the Enjoyer
and the Lord of all sacrifice.
But they do not know Me truly,
and so they fall and disappear.

The next verse enforces obedience by creating a hierarchy of outcomes. You may choose another object of devotion, but you will only receive lesser, impermanent fruits. The real prize (release from samsara) is available only to those who obey Krishna directly.

[9.25] Adore the gods, go to the gods;
adore ancestors, to them go;
adore spirits, go to the spirits;
adore Me, surely come to Me.

It may just be me, but I can almost hear Krishna laughing at his own cleverness. It is like the secret password at an exclusive speakeasy owned by a mafia boss. While you are free to frequent other establishments that pay "protection" money to the same boss, and the doorman does not threaten you with harm when you get it wrong, he will not let you in. And each time you return, he turns you away, sending you back into the night again and again, until at last you present the correct password, "Krishna".

This does not qualify as pantheism, or even more accurately, pluralism in their true senses; it is theological centralization disguised as inclusiveness, and yes, functioning as an insistence on obedience. Krishna's inclusiveness, then, is not as open-minded as it appears. Every path, whether knowledge, action, or devotion, is reabsorbed into Krishna. What seems pluralistic is in fact centripetal, pulling all loyalties back to a single point of authority. It is a system designed less to liberate the individual than to control the collective, and uses a rhetorical strategy that appears magnanimous while still ensuring orthodox devotion is the only rational choice.

[David]

Thomas wrote: "Could you point out where Krishna insists on obedience to him? At 9.23 he seems to be saying that worshiping other gods is cool with him. The religion of the Gita strikes me as profoundly pantheistic. . ."

Part 2
The real obedience in the Gita comes from the structure of the whole. It defines a world that becomes a public common sense, not the common sense of a minimum level of practical knowledge, but a shared public sense of reality. This kind of public common sense short-circuits thinking and strips away freedom of judgment, which is exactly what Krishna is doing to Arjuna. Arjuna is trying to think, and Krishna interrupts the process by asserting the reality of the world according to himself. We don't have to think because the Gita says such and such. . .

It also recalls Orwell’s Moses the crow in Animal Farm, endlessly promising Sugarcandy Mountain to keep the animals content, not for their own sake as it appears, but for the sake of the ruling order. The Gita’s vision of devotion operates in a similar way: it placates believers with the assurance that any path they choose will ultimately lead back to Krishna, while in practice it secures loyalty to a single center of authority.

If you still want something more textually specific, Krishna makes it crystal clear later on in chapter 18, even to the point of discriminating against those who are either not with him or aligned against him. (view spoiler)[

[18.65] Worship Me with devotion,
sacrifice to Me, bow to Me.
So shall you truly come to Me,
I avow, for you are dear to Me.

[18.66] Abandoning all your duties,
take refuge in Me alone.
I will free you from all evils;
you should never grieve or sorrow.

[18.67] Always keep this from those without
austere practice and devotion,
from those who do not wish to listen,
and from those who speak ill of Me.

[18.68] Whoever sets forth this highest,
secret teaching to My votaries,
and has worshipped Me devoutly,
will come to Me without a doubt.

[18.69] And no one among men will do
more pleasing work for Me than he;
and no other upon this earth
will be to Me more beloved.
~Lombardo,

(hide spoiler)]

[Thomas]

Michael wrote: "To me, the most interesting question is why we humans create gods who do a big reveal (theophany) and provide guidance to a better afterlife. We recently read of Demeter and the Eleusinian mysteries, we have Christ, and now, new to me, Krishna, all following a similar pattern. Why do we seem to need this in our religions?."

This is a great question, and I have no idea. I also find it curious that some religions have human "avatars" or incarnations and some don't. Judaism and Islam don't, for example, and the notion of a concrete incarnation of God is anathema. The sight of God in the Hebrew Bible is deadly, and even saying the name of God is prohibited. God is not of this world. It's an interesting contrast to the Gita, where Krishna is but one of many incarnations and god is everywhere in the world.

[Thomas]

David wrote: "Part 2
The real obedience in the Gita comes from the structure of the whole. It defines a world that becomes a public common sense, not the common sense of a minimum level of practical knowledge, but a shared public sense of reality. This kind of public common sense short-circuits thinking and strips away freedom of judgment, which is exactly what Krishna is doing to Arjuna."


There is an underlying assumption in the Gita that beneath our state as persons with a distinct sense of self there is a ground state that is all inclusive, just and good. Brahman is this ground state, and since Krishna is a manifestation of Brahman, Krishna is also this ground state. Krishna declares several times, in different poetic ways, that he is this synthesis of everything, that he is death and immortality, existence and non-existence, manifest and unmanifest. He is everything everywhere all at once. Understanding this is critical for liberation from rebirth because to accept this means accepting the dissolution of the ego. We don't exist as individuals; we are Krishna. This strikes me as much more difficult than uttering a secret password, which is silly, or offering a ritual sacrifice, which was central to Vedic culture.

But it's difficult, if not impossible to logically process something that both is and isn't. But that is exactly what the Gita does, in poetic fashion. It makes me wonder if the Gita would argue that logic is a function of the self, the human ego, something that must be relinquished to achieve liberation. Or perhaps it's just the premise that is paradoxical and logic can proceed from there.

But where does that leave Arjuna on the battlefield? How is he supposed to operate without a self? If Arjuna acts selflessly, without concern for the results, i.e. without an ego, his actions are directed by the ground state of Brahman/Krishna. Is this mind control of Arjuna by Krishna, an effort to use him like a tool? Maybe so. But Krishna is not a person; Krishna is Brahman, the ground state of the universe that directs everything anyway. The underlying assumption is that the ground state is dharma, that it is just and good, and if Krishna acts without selfish motivations he will automatically be acting in a just manner, according to dharma.

If the ground assumption is that the universe is not good, that justice is not the natural state and there is no dharma, then I can see the Orwellian implications. But that's not what the Gita presupposes.

[Rafael]

Michael wrote: "David wrote: "The wider pattern, whether Demeter, Christ, or Krishna, is more plausibly explained by human imagination than by divine action. To invoke Ockham’s principle, multiplying supernatural ..."

I think that is easier to believe when our senses perceives something. They are more credible, This could be the reason for the existence of miracles: the proof that the entity exists. Without that anyone could refuses to believe and you could not prove yourself. You could use the force, but this only works until certain point and could even be used as a counter evidence.

I would speculate that maybe this is an aspect common for the indo-european religion. This happens in several (maybe not all) of the religions of indo-european people. Christianity originates in the Jewish religion, but has been influenced by the Greek way of thinking, Jesus encarnates as a human being, in the indian religions we have several avatars, Arjuna being one of them. My edition points that even Buddha was credited as being one avatar of, I believe, Krishna (but I may be wrong on who was the god).

But even if we consider other religions, as Judaism, or rather, Yahwehism, there are a lot of instances when Yahweh has to prove itself: the episode of the flaming bush or when Moses challenges the egyptian priests. These are events of the divine entity making itself present in the world.

My point is: is harder to disregard a god that manifests itself. One that doesn't makes people thinks that disobedience maybe will have no consequence, but one that does will make people more anxious about it. If it exists, it can choose not manifest, but Gods are usually very insecure, so why not make sure that people believe in your existence? It's also a way to prove that you are powerful.

[David]

Thomas wrote: There is an underlying assumption in the Gita that beneath our state as persons with a distinct sense of self there is a ground state that is all inclusive, just and good.

Even granting a single good ground, the text ties liberation to explicit refuge in Krishna; 9.23–25 and 18.66 make that requirement clear, so the ‘inclusive’ pose is, functionally equivalent to John 3:16. Furthermore, inclusivity is central to Gita's credibility. If the ground is truly “all-inclusive,” no devotion would be left outside its embrace, yet the Gita makes refuge in Krishna the decisive test. Justice requires impartiality. If all paths are equally valid, yet only Krishna-worship leads to liberation, then “justice” is tilted toward himself. Goodness implies benevolence. But benevolence that withholds the highest good from sincere worshipers of other deities is selective, not universal. The assumption that the ground state is all inclusive, just, and good are now thrown into question.

[David]

Thomas wrote: "Brahman is this ground state, and since Krishna is a manifestation of Brahman, Krishna is also this ground state. Krishna declares several times, in different poetic ways, that he is this synthesis of everything, that he is death and immortality, existence and non-existence, manifest and unmanifest. He is everything everywhere all at once.

If I understand what is being said here, the Gita’s sweeping “I am X and not-X” claims are not careless rhetoric but a poetic way to impress non-duality and liberation therefore requires dissolving the ego’s boundary. Logic strains here because it belongs to the ego and the text seems to ask us to move beyond that standpoint rather than to refute it. I am in agreement with you that this is how it appears, it is all very difficult to grasp intellectually, and logic is an obstacle here to surrending to it.

But that is precisely what makes it so insidiously dangerous. It is more likely that these paradoxical, contradictory, and ambiguous deepities function less as profound insights than as a rhetorical device in the service of obscurantism with the very goal of making one . . .wonder if the Gita would argue that logic is a function of the self, the human ego, something that must be relinquished to achieve liberation..

To suggest that logic itself is a mere function of ego is to render all criticism irrelevant in advance, and thereby to protect any assertion, however incoherent, from scrutiny. Such devices do not enlarge thought but curtail it. The result is not liberation but the encouragement of intellectual surrender. This is precisely the structure by which freedom of judgment is undone. When contradiction is redefined as higher wisdom, thought is short-circuited before it can begin.

[Thomas]

Rafael wrote: "My point is: is harder to disregard a god that manifests itself. One that doesn't makes people thinks that disobedience maybe will have no consequence, but one that does will make people more anxious about it."

Avatars also appear as teachers, to impart a message, to express love for humanity or issue a warning. They have to assume some kind of concrete, manifest form in order to communicate. The Gita suggests it is possible to see divinity in all things, but a mountain or a flower can never be as articulate as a god in human form with the power of speech. (Though apparently a burning bush will do in a pinch.)

[Thomas]

David wrote: "Even granting a single good ground, the text ties liberation to explicit refuge in Krishna; 9.23–25 and 18.66 make that requirement clear, so the ‘inclusive’ pose is, functionally equivalent to John 3:16."

This is apparently what Hare Krishna members maintain. Other schools understand that Krishna is speaking as Brahman and recognize the other paths to selflessness. The latter interpretation makes more sense to me if it is the destination, rather than the path, that matters. I find it a little ironic that a text that espouses a profoundly universal metaphysics as a way to inner peace can be interpreted by factions that splinter and argue, but that is human nature. Go team.

[David]

Thomas wrote: "I find it a little ironic that a text that espouses a profoundly universal metaphysics as a way to inner peace can be interpreted by factions that splinter and argue, but that is human nature. Go team. "

"Go team" indeed! There is a smorgasbord of nonsense out there.

A cursory count suggests Christianity has splintered into 46 major types (some estimates place the total at over 45,000 denominations), Hinduism into four major denominations, and Islam into three main branches that subdivide into eight schools. Of course they are all more or less tolerant of each other.

What begins as plurality becomes teams of allegiance, each with its own fairy tale of make-believe to root for as though loyalty were truth.

The persistence of such division shows that the hope of unity through metaphysics is a vain one ending not in harmony but in camps, where loyalty is prized over judgment and what is offered as universality has merely become the ground for new disputes.

[Michael]

And from there we have our new religions - Lakers vs Celtics, Swift or Beyonce, "not my president", "republicans in name only", maximizing corporate profit or communism with nothing in between, et alia

[Tamara]

David wrote: "The persistence of such division shows that the hope of unity through metaphysics is a vain one ending not in harmony but in camps, where loyalty is prized over judgment and what is offered as universality has merely become the ground for new disputes..."

I think you are correct up to a point. But I think it is a mistake to put the blame on metaphysics alone. Metaphysics do not exist in isolation. I think metaphysics are greatly influence by one's race, class, ethnicity, national origin, economics, and gender. Metaphysics becomes infused with all these factors which can lead to conflict and disruption. Conflicts can be generated by any or all these factors, but they are frequently and erroneously fought under the guise/umbrella of metaphysics.

[David]

Thomas wrote, "But where does that leave Arjuna on the battlefield? . .Krishna is not a person; Krishna is Brahman, the ground state of the universe that directs everything anyway. The underlying assumption is that the ground state is dharma."

All the substitutions that are bing made keeps things confusiing, but lets keep in mind that dharma = Krishna

[4.7] Whenever dharma, or righteousness,
decreases, O Bharata,
and unrighteousness increases,
that is when I create Myself.

And the reason is himself (dharma = Krishna)

[4.8] For protection of the righteous
and destruction of evildoers,
for establishment of dharma
I come to be from age to age.
~Lombardo

These are not the actions of a god who professes to be without attachment.

If Krishna is Brahman (ground), and Brahman is impersonal dharma, the personal act of intervention belies the fact that Krishna retains agency, preference, and motive—characteristics of a self, not of disinterested cosmic order.

Krishna may exhort Arjuna to renounce selfish action, which is ethically commendable. But keeps a double standard for himself weakening the coherence of portraying himself as a neutral ground rather than a commanding personality. Obedience to him, therefore, is not mere alignment with justice but obedience to a will.

The Epicurean gods were described as truly serene, indifferent, and never meddling, and too far above humans to give them thought. In contrast, Krishna is a war-strategy general wrapped in cosmic metaphysics, demanding selflessness while boldly pursuing his own agenda for his own benefit.

Thomas wrote, "If the ground assumption is that the universe is not good, that justice is not the natural state and there is no dharma, then I can see the Orwellian implications. But that's not what the Gita presupposes."

Since Krishna is not an indifferent ground but an intervening, commanding will, then the Orwellian concern creeps back in because obedience is still obedience, and justice is being defined by the authority demanding it.

[David]

Tamara wrote: "But I think it is a mistake to put the blame on metaphysics alone. Metaphysics do not exist in isolation. I think metaphysics are greatly influence by one's race, class, ethnicity, national origin, economics, and gender."

You are right that race, class, and economics drive conflict. But metaphysics gives these conflicts their most dangerous form by sanctifying them. When interests are clothed in claims of ultimate truth they cease to be negotiable, become absolute, and worth killing for.

[Tamara]

David wrote: " When interests are clothed in claims of ultimate truth they cease to be negotiable, become absolute, and worth killing for.

I agree. The challenge is to recognize when metaphysics is being manipulated to serve political interest.

[Michael]

7.4-6 sets up a classification of lower (physical and mental) and higher realities. I like the Jack Hawley prose translation for sections like this because he writes clearly and isn't afraid to use as many words as necessary to communicate the concepts.

Listen closely and I will explain the essence of Divinity. First, know that I have two aspects, a lower and a higher. My lower self is the realm of nature (prakriti). According to the ancient system of knowing, this is comprised of eight basic components: earth, water, fire, air, ether (space), mind, intellect (higher mind, buddhi), and ego. Note that these basic components are arranged in ascending order from gross matter (physical and chemical elements) to the more subtle and refined: mind, intellect, and ego (which is the basic sense of being a physical self). And note that all eight of these components, even the very subtle ones, belong to prakriti, the cosmos, the world of nature.

Beyond this world of nature I have a second, higher aspect that is distinct from all of nature and yet interacts with it. This is my spiritual realm (Purusha). Purusha is the life force, the source of consciousness in all beings, and the animator of all life. This mysterious power supports and sustains the entire universe.

The commingling of these two realms, nature (which is inert matter) and spirit (which is life consciousness), is the womb of all beings....

After establishing this distinction between physical and spiritual or divine things we get one of the more memorable sections for me.. I'll switch to the poetic Stephen Mitchell translation for 7.8-10.

I am the taste in water,
the light in the moon and sun,
the sacred syllable Om
in the Vedas, the sound in air.

I am the fragrance in the earth,
the manliness in men, the brilliance
in fire, the life in the living,
and the abstinence in ascetics.

I am the primal seed
within all beings...

This part of the text works really well because it supports the general with illustrative examples.

I understand the inclination of calling this divinity or god or the experience of god. The religious interpretation of these experiences resonates. I do, however, want to make a more humanistic observation. The experiences that move me are those in which I get to step outside of the ordinary. They often represent some type of emotional connection or a new insight. It is when you appreciate someone in a new way and feel love, when you read poetry and some subtle truth tickles you in a way you never expected, when you take a moment to appreciate the sunrise and birdsong.

As I want more of this in my life I try to remember that to nurture it, I need to see the world differently. This Rilke quote comes to mind.

“I am learning to see. I don't know why it is, but everything enters me more deeply and doesn't stop where it once used to.”

I recently read a poem from Erica Miriam Fabri titled "High Definition Microphone Life" that communicates the same sense of wonder, but as a consequence of hearing differently. Sorry in advance about the roaches. Erica is a New York poet and that's how she is.

If you ever have he chance to sing or speak
or even just breathe into a high-definition
microphone, you'll find out what I found out:
that even the things in life we thought
were soundless, in fact, have a voice.
[...]
...These things
that you thought were as quiet and soft
as cheese actually make clicks and shhhs
and wooshes that we never listen to.
How reckless I've been for the almost
nine thousand hours of every year.
[...]
...I could lay awake
and spend the night listening to the blessings
in the walls, the blessings in the blankets.
[...]
...Maybe I will hear a roach
sliding its skinny leg along its lover's
backside and then I will know the sound
of a kind of love-making I never even
realized was happening each night
only inches away from my reverberating
breath.

A third example might be Michelangelo's fresco "The Creation of Adam" where Adam must do his part to extend his arm toward God in order to live or experience this divine mode of life.

There is a lot of emphasis on realizing our Atman is one and the same with Brahman. That we only need to realize this. Or, in Adam's case, receive it from God by touching his finger. I'm on the side of saying the things we call spiritual or divine are the things that move us and they are already and always have been a part of who we are as humans.

[Gary]

As we read further in the Gita and as our dialog develops, for me at least a healthy dose of humility is in order. The abstract concepts in the Gita are alien to me; I plead guilty to linear thinking, to believing that time exists and is one-directional, to testing what I do, read, and think with logic as construed in the Western tradition, and to thinking that science is more effective in trying to understand what is and is not than revelation. I hope you all will agree that reading one short albeit important source without the guidance of a practitioner, sorely limits our understanding. My own goal for this reading is to more or less be able to describe the tradition, not to understand it.

[Gary]

Michael wrote: "A third example might be Michelangelo's fresco "The Creation of Adam" where Adam must do his part to extend his arm toward God in order to live or experience this divine mode of life."

The parallel you suggest between Adam's creation and the Atman's realization that it is one with Brahman/Khrisna is interesting. The similarity is that both express a direct connection to the divine. The dissimilarly —and it's a big one — is that Adam is created from nothing and is, and always will be, distinct from God. That said, it seems to me that Michelangelo's fresco separated from its context, could visually represent Realization as well as Creation.

[Thomas]

David wrote: "These are not the actions of a god who professes to be without attachment.

If Krishna is Brahman (ground), and Brahman is impersonal dharma, the personal act of intervention belies the fact that Krishna retains agency, preference, and motive—characteristics of a self, not of disinterested cosmic order."

Does intervention = attachment? Not always. It may be that Krishna is just doing his job, following his own nature. Krishna cannot resist his dharma, perhaps in the same way that the Greek gods cannot resist Fate. He has a duty to the creatures of the universe, but he is not affected by them.

I pervade the entire universe in my unmanifested form. All creatures find their existence in me, but I am not limited by them. Behold my divine mystery! These creatures do not really dwell in me, and though I bring them forth and support them, I am not confined within them... I am unattached to them, so they do not disturb my nature. (9.4-9, Easwaran)

This is a contrast with the Abrahamic traditions, where God intervenes because he cares about his creatures, and is often quite emotional about it.

[Thomas]

Michael wrote: "I do, however, want to make a more humanistic observation. The experiences that move me are those in which I get to step outside of the ordinary. They often represent some type of emotional connection or a new insight. It is when you appreciate someone in a new way and feel love, when you read poetry and some subtle truth tickles you in a way you never expected, when you take a moment to appreciate the sunrise and birdsong.."

The feeling you describe here reminds me of thaumastos, the word Aristotle uses for "wonder." In the Metaphysics he says that thaumastos is the source of all philosophy. There is something of that in the Gita too, I think. The idea that individual consciousness is not the ultimate reality is an intriguing one.

But that isn't what made me think of thaumastos. It was the roaches. (lol) I always think of this passage from Aristotle's Parts of Animals when I see a wind scorpion.

We therefore must not recoil with childish aversion from the examination of the humbler animals. Every realm of nature is marvelous: and as Heraclitus, when the strangers who came to visit him found him warming himself at the furnace in the kitchen and hesitated to go in, reported to have bidden them not to be afraid to enter, as even in that kitchen divinities were present, so we should venture on the study of every kind of animal without distaste; for each and all will reveal to us something natural and something beautiful. Parts of Animals, Bk I, 645a

[David]

Thomas wrote: "Does intervention = attachment? Not always. It may be that Krishna is just doing his job, following his own nature. Krishna cannot resist his dharma. . ."

The assertion here is, Krishna does not intervene because he is swayed by creatures, but because intervention is his dharma, just as the Greek gods could not resist Fate. He sustains the world without being affected by it, as 9.4–9 declares. That contrast with the emotional, anthropomorphic God of Abrahamic traditions and the semblance of such is worth acknowledging.

But here lies the difficulty. If Krishna is dharma, and dharma is Krishna, then to say “he follows dharma” is to say only that he follows himself. That is a tautology, not an explanation. If he acts freely, he has motive; if he acts by compulsion, he is bound. The claim that he is both detached and compelled is not a resolution, but a paradox. This is no more coherent than a man obeying his own command. Either he has preference, or he is compelled; in neither case is he detached.

What is striking is how easily contradiction is absorbed into common sense. Both the rhetoric and the structure of the Gita renders this incoherence invisible: the paradox is transformed into mystery, and judgment is short-circuited. Arjuna’s hesitation is thinking; Krishna’s response is ideology.” The Gita does this by:
1. Redefining terms: Krishna redefines intervention as non-attachment: “Though I act, I am not the actor; though I sustain, I am not affected” (9.4–9). The contradiction isn’t resolved, it’s renamed.
2. Elevation to mystery: Contradiction is presented as a divine mystery that transcends logic. In an attempt to head off criticism, the hearer is told it is higher wisdom.
3. Repetition and normalization: “I am X and not-X” recurs throughout the text. The more it’s repeated, the more natural it feels, until the paradox is no longer felt as a problem but as cohesive knowledge.
4. Absorption into authority (Ethos): Because it comes from Krishna, who is presented as Brahman, it carries authority and normalizes the contradiction.
5. Emotional resonance (pathos): The poetic beauty of the verses creates an emotional receptivity that lowers critical resistance. What stirs the heart seems less questionable.
6. Theological equivocation: deliberately applying multiple names to the same entity: Krishna, Brahman, Atman, Nature (prakriti), Dharma, in order to recast contradictory acts of one entity into many in order to reframe contradictions as a profound mystical unity.

[Rafael]

I have a problem (and maybe this is a problem with me, not with the text) when Krishna states (I'm reading in Portuguese, so I cannot quote it in English) in the Chapter 9 that those that are not decent people, but follow him (Krishna) should be accepted/regarded as good people because of this.

Did I read it right?

[David]

Rafael wrote: "in the Chapter 9 that those that are not decent people, but follow him (Krishna) should be accepted/regarded as good people because of this."

I think you are referring to:

[9.29] I am the same in all beings;
none are hated or prized by Me.
But those who are devoted to Me
are within Me, and I in them.

[9.30] Even evildoers, if they
worship Me undividedly,
must be thought of as worthy souls,
having come indeed to right resolve.

[9.31] Their souls soon become virtuous
and attain peace everlasting.
Be aware of this, O Arjuna!
No devotee of Mine is lost.

[9.32] All those who take refuge in Me,
even if born from evil wombs—
women, merchants, even outcastes—
also attain the highest goal.
~Lombardo

Krishna presents himself as beyond ordinary bias or favoritism. But devotion is the exception.

Even “evildoers” qualify: If they worship him single-mindedly, they must be considered “worthy souls” on the right path (9.30). Their devotion trumps their moral record. The guarantee is based on devotion, not prior virtue.

Who is included
All devotees, regardless of prior conduct, caste, or gender.
Evildoers, so long as they worship him “undividedly.”
Marginalized groups in classical Hindu society (women, merchants, outcastes), provided they take refuge in him.

Who is excluded
Those who do not worship Krishna — including the pious who worship other gods, ancestors, or spirits (cf. 9.23–25). They may attain temporary fruits but not liberation.

The virtuous non-devotee: someone morally upright but not aligned with Krishna does not receive the “peace everlasting” promised here.

In short: all paths lead to Krishna, but only conscious devotion to Krishna yields liberation.

[Rafael]

David wrote: "Rafael wrote: "in the Chapter 9 that those that are not decent people, but follow him (Krishna) should be accepted/regarded as good people because of this."

I think you are referring to:[9.29] I a..."

Thank you. It was that part. I didn't stated that to attack the religion, It seems that every divine being whitewashes in favor of those that worship them, even if they have done harm.

[Roger]

Krishna doesn't seem to enjoin a code of conduct. Just follow your dharma. If you're a warrior like Arjuna, just fight and don't worry about it. If you worship Krishna and meditate on his oneness with and lordship over everything you'll achieve peace and union with the divine.

[Roger]

So does Krishna choose how he acts, or does he act in the only way that is possible for him? From what he says, he has benevolent motives for his actions--to show men the way, to uphold dharma. But he doesn't seem to stand outside the universe, telling us how to get it right--it's more like he's the highest, best, impelling aspect or part of the universe. It's like there's an impersonal, all-pervading spirit that just is what it is, the basis for how the universe works. Krishna's an incarnation of that spirit, maybe, who captures some of that universal dharma in a form that can speak to Arjuna. Does he have free will? In a sense, but it's the free will of the universe and cannot be other than it is. Men can choose to do evil. So can Krishna, but he won't, being who he is.

[Thomas]

David wrote: "That is a tautology, not an explanation. If he acts freely, he has motive; if he acts by compulsion, he is bound. The claim that he is both detached and compelled is not a resolution, but a paradox."

I'm not sure how logical propositions can proceed at all from a premise that claims both X AND Not X. If a situation like that is analyzable I suspect it looks something like Kant's resolution of the antinomies in the Critique of Pure Reason. Kant says the paradox is a confusion of the ideal and the empirical, both of which are logically consistent in themselves but create a paradox when they are combined. I would bet there is a school of Vedanta that deals with this in their own way.

[Thomas]

Rafael wrote: "I have a problem (and maybe this is a problem with me, not with the text) when Krishna states (I'm reading in Portuguese, so I cannot quote it in English) in the Chapter 9 that those that are not d..."

Easwaran's translation:

Even sinners become holy when they take refuge in me alone. Quickly their souls conform to dharma and they attain to boundless peace.

How I read this:

Taking refuge in Krishna requires a surrender of the self to him. If one does this, then the selfless attachment and union with Brahman (that the other paths of dharma yoga, jnana yoga, and meditation also lead to) is automatically accomplished. Even the soul of a sinner is corrected and conforms to dharma if the sinner gives up his self. You can't be a sinner if you give up your self to another. (Though in this case there is an interesting detail: "another" is not exactly other; "another" is the material of which one is already a part.)

[David]

Thomas wrote: "Kant says the paradox is a confusion of the ideal and the empirical, both of which are logically consistent in themselves but create a paradox when they are combined. I would bet there is a school of Vedanta that deals with this in their own way."

I have not studied the Kant source directly, but I can give an example of the kind of contradictions he was addressing. If I have evidence, i.e, statements, ATM slips, etc., that indicate I have a $500 balance, I can make a case to say, “I have money in my bank account.” But if I recall that money is, ideally, only a social construct with no independent existence, I can also make a case to say, “I do not have money.” I then have two different cases that allow me to say “I both have money and I do not have money”. The X/Not-X formulations in the Gita are a deceptive semblance of this.

Some research indicates Vedanta apologists do indeed offer a similar solution. Instead of domains, they speak of “realities”. They suggest an ultimate level where Krishna as Brahman is beyond action and unattached, and an empirical level where Krishna manifests from time to time to restore dharma.

The problem is that the Gita itself crucially insists on unity of identity: Krishna = Brahman = Atman = Lord = ground = dharma. It does not mark off clean “domains” in the way Kant does. Even where it offers two “natures” (inferior and higher, 7.4–7), (view spoiler)[
[7.4] Earth and water, fire and wind,
space, mind, intellect, and ego:
My material nature is
divided into these eight parts.

[7.5] That is My inferior nature,
but know that it is different from
My highest, spiritual nature
by which this universe is sustained.

[7.6] My highest nature is the womb
of all beings. Understand this!
I am the origin and the end
of the entire universe.

[7.7] There is nothing higher than Me,
O Arjuna, Wealth’s Conqueror.
All that exists is strung on Me
like pearls and jewels on a thread.
~Lombardo (hide spoiler)]

Krishna immediately absorbs both natures under “mine,” treating them as aspects of himself rather than distinct standpoints. Transcendence and immanence are presented in a single register, not carefully separated. The resulting collapse into a unified identity is precisely what generates the appearance of profound paradox and higher wisdom without playing by Kant's or Vedanta rules.

[Thomas]

David wrote: "I can give an example of the kind of contradictions he was addressing. If I have evidence, i.e, statements, ATM slips, etc., that indicate I have a $500 balance..."

That's a great example, and a nice analysis. There is a school of dualistic Vedanta that tries to resolve the paradox with two "levels" of reality, where Brahman is a higher independent reality while individual souls exists in a separate but dependent reality. Maybe those levels correspond to Kant's transcendental and empirical planes, but without the dependence relation between them. I'm not really sure.

I can also see a resemblance between Brahman as described in the Gita and Spinoza's God/Nature in the Ethics. Spinoza also believes that man is in God/Nature, and vice versa, so he proposes a similar kind of pantheistic monism. If I remember correctly, Spinoza resolves the paradox by saying that thought is one kind of attribute of substance (God/nature) and physical reality is another. These two different qualities are expressed simultaneously in human existence, but they are independent attributes.

[Michael]

Thomas wrote: "I can also see a resemblance between Brahman as described in the Gita and Spinoza's God/Nature in the Ethics. Spinoza also believes that man is in God/Nature, and vice versa, so he proposes a similar kind of pantheistic monism. "

Well, look what you've done. I now need to change reading Spinoza from a someday-maybe priority to a yeah-i'm-for-sure-going-to-read-that priority.