Chapters 10-12

[Thomas]

Chapter 10

Krishna declares that he is the source of all of the qualities found in human nature. The interesting thing to me is that all of the qualities seem to exist in the Platonic sense. Plato has Socrates argue that evil per se does not exist; evil is properly understood as an absence or degradation of the good. The listing of qualities makes me wonder if the same holds for the qualities that Krishna claims. He says he is the source of all things, all Being, but evil does not appear among those qualities. However, destruction does: "I am death, which overcomes all, and the source of all beings still to be born." 10.34

The rest of the chapter strikes me as poetic -- Krishna says he is the greatest this, that and the other, but then he concludes by saying this is not really useful to know.

But of what use is it to you to know all this, Arjuna? Just remember that I am, and that I support the entire cosmos with only a fragment of my being. 10.42

Krishna takes credit for everything in the universe. Does this include the evil that men do?

[Thomas]

Having heard Krishna's lessons on the nature of the Self, Arjuna asks to see him in his infinite glory. This turns out to be a brave request. Krishna must give him a "spiritual" rather than a purely visual image, so that he is able to convey the abstract qualities of his supreme infinitude, but many of these images are quite violent and threatening..

When I see your mouths with their fearful teeth,
mouths burning like the fires at the end of time,
I forget where I am and I have no place to go. O Lord,
you are the support of the universe; have mercy on me!
Easwaran, 11:25

The verse at 11:32 is well known as what came to Robert Oppenheimer's mind upon the detonation of the first atomic bomb in 1945: "Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds." The word for "death" may also be translated as "time." Easwaran has Krishna say, "I am time, the destroyer of all; I have come to consume the world. Even without your participation, all the warriors gathered here will die."

The second part of that verse might be more important than the first. Krishna continues:

Therefore arise, Arjuna; conquer your enemies and
enjoy the glory of sovereignty. I have already slain all these warriors; you will only be my instrument. 11.33

Instead of being emboldened, Arjuna is frightened by this vision. Krishna tries to calm his fear and returns to human form. Does Arjuna see Krishna in this aspect because he is a kshatriya, a warrior? Would Krishna perhaps appear differently to a scholar Brahmin or a merchant?

Chapter 12 addresses the different paths to unification with the divine, i.e., which is the best form of yoga. Krishna says devotion to him is the best, but those who seek "the transcendental Reality" via contemplation will also come to him. But this path is "hazardous and slow...difficult for physical creatures to tread."

It's fascinating that a religious text would suggest that there is a path to the divine that doesn't require faith. Krishna certainly advises faith as the easiest path for most people, but it's remarkable to me that there are alternate roads at all.

[Michael]

Thomas wrote: "Krishna takes credit for everything in the universe. Does this include the evil that men do?"

I think yes.

When I read 10.31, "of all fish I am the shark," I thought to myself, that is very quotable; someone should make a t-shirt. Then I questioned whether it was heretical to say that. I don't think so. Don't we just have to realize that we are god? If Krishna is the shark, then can't I say I'm the shark? And, if I'm the shark, then I'm also the whirlwind (10.21), January (10.21), Mount Meru (10.23), Om (10.25), the compound word (10.33), Arjuna (10.37), etc. This concept is perhaps most powerful when considering the virtues listed in 10.4-5. I am, or should strive to realize that I am "...wisdom, peace of mind, self-restraint, control of ego, discrimination..." NOTE: Not all translations have the same impact on modern English-language ears. These quoted words come from the Jack Hawley translation. He seems to strive to communicate the meaning but doesn't go for strict word-level equivalents, e.g. shark works perhaps better for us than crocodile which surely worked well for ancient river valley civilizations (Nile, Tigris-Euphrates, Indus).

Overall, these chapters left me asking, what is this god? It seems the answer is an all-encompassing everything. This idea is reinforced in 12.1 when Arjuna asks about worshipping the "formless god" and Krishna confirms in 12.5 that while difficult, ultimately this is the way. I gave up the faith of my family about 20 years ago and it is no longer possible for me to believe in a personified god creator, ruler, and moral judge. It just doesn't fit. But, I can say I believe there is an everything and that it is good for us to recognize or become mindful that we are a part of it and to Thomas' question above, "Does this include the evil that men do?", I say yes, we are a part of the good and the evil, even enough to share Oppenheimer's realization that we play a part, small or large, in death and the destruction of worlds. So, interestingly, these devotional chapters have made it easier for me to warm up to this poem.

[David]

Michael wrote: "I think yes. When I read 10.31, "of all fish I am the shark,"

I like the t-shirt idea, but does this alter your understanding?

[10.31] Of purifiers I am the wind;
of warriors I am Rama,
Makara among sea monsters,
and of rivers I am the Ganges.
~Lombardo

The Makara, translated as shark in some editions, is a mythical sea creature. It serves as the vehicle of the river goddess Ganga and the sea god Varuna and represents power, mystery and sovereignty over the waters. Krishna is not claiming evil, but excellence in nature the mightiest or most striking form within each category: Wind among purifiers, Rama among warriors, Makara among sea monsters, Ganges among rivers.

Edited to add: I think we couild stick with the shark translation; it just needs to be understood with the same amoral academic respect that Matt Hooper has for them:

Mr. Vaughn, what we are dealing with here is a perfect engine, an eating machine. It's really a miracle of evolution. All this machine does is swim and eat and make little sharks, and that's all. (Jaws 1975)

Talk about aligning with your dharma!

[Roger]

Krishna spends so much time praising himself, there doesn't seem much left for a mortal to add.

[David]

Thomas wrote: "Krishna takes credit for everything in the universe. Does this include the evil that men do?"

We are faced with the matter that evil exists and the Gita requires us to reconcile two claims. The first claim is that Krishna is the source of all that exists.

[10.8] I am the origin of all,
everything comes forth from Me.

There are problems right away with this. When one says “Krishna is all qualities,” one risks tautology, i.e., everything is everything. But it does follow If evil is excluded, then he is not all. If evil is included, then devotion to him is morally perilous,

But there is another claim that evil is the product of human failure to align with Dharma/Krishna, et.al.

[3.36] “What then can impel a person to commit this harmful evil
even against his will, O Krishna,
as if he were compelled by force?” And the Blessed Lord answered:

[3.37] “Desire and anger are the force,
stemming from the rajas guna,
devouring and ruinous.
Know this as the great enemy.”

Now a conflict emerges, and surprise! Krishna is both the source of evil (because all things, including prakriti and its gunas, come from him) and not the source of evil (because it comes from human desire and anger and his higher nature is said to be free of it).

Does Krishna take credit for everything including evil? No, because he blames human failings but if we are to take his claim that he is all he claims to be, he should take credit for it.

[Thomas]

David wrote: "We are faced with the matter that evil exists...."

That's what I wonder though. Does evil exist for someone who is both creator and destroyer? Krishna creates and destroys in equal measure, keeping the cycle of life and death in motion. Is he alternately good and evil then, or is he neither? Is Krishna any different than the shark that is playing its part in the marine ecosystem by killing its prey? Is Arjuna evil for playing his part in the battle and killing men who happen to be his brothers?

I keep thinking about Socrates saying that no one knowingly does evil. Those who destroy something, or lie, or cheat, or steal, think they are doing it for some good. That "good" usually means good for them, or the team they play for. It usually comes back to them somehow, even if it's only a victory they can claim as their own and take pride in.

I wonder also if evil exists for the person who lives selflessly, when "a person responds to the joys and sorrows of others as if they were his own." (6.32) How does a person who lives selflessly make decisions? If not for himself (or by extension, his people or tribe), then what is the basis or justification for his actions?

[David]

Thomas wrote: "That's what I wonder though. Does evil exist for someone who is both creator and destroyer?"

We are circling the drain of the classic theodicy trap. Both the Gita and the God of Abraham’s religions fall into the same two-step:
1. The Divine is the source of all.
2. But evil? That’s your fault, because you have free will.
This preserves devotion, Krishna (or God) stays pure, and humans take the blame. But it fails philosophically: if the Supreme Principle creates prakriti with its passions, or endows humans with free agency knowing it will be misused, then the Supreme Principle still indirectly creates evil by setting the stage for it, knowing it will come.

There are stronger philosophical responses:
• Evil is real at the human level. To pretend it dissolves into cycles of creation and destruction is to evade responsibility. Sharks are amoral; humans are moral agents. When humans inflict cruelty or injustice, that is evil, and the fact cannot be explained away.
• Spinoza reasons that evil does not exist as a metaphysical category at all. What we call “evil” is simply what diminishes our striving (conatus), just as “good” is what enhances it. These are relative judgments, not attributes of Nature itself. From the standpoint of substance, there is only necessity.

This is why the Gita is not philosophy. It cannot resolve the problem of evil without contradiction, and so it defaults to obedience through devotion. Philosophy, in contrast, does resolve it: one way grounds evil in human conduct without multiplying entities, while another withholds elevating evil to a metaphysical principle, dissolving it into relative judgments; denying its existence in the order of Nature.

[Roger]

The Gita doesn't seem much concerned with theodicy at all. Brahman and Krishna just are. Or maybe just are and are not. Come to terms with it, or you'll come back as a wombat.

[Michael]

Roger wrote: "Krishna spends so much time praising himself, there doesn't seem much left for a mortal to add."

I suspect a lot of that is symptomatic of the dialog genre being used as devotion. Plato's Socrates doesn't need to explicitly say he's the best. Well, saying that, he does communicate it by being a serious jerk with a superiority complex. So, back to my theory, the sage in a wisdom dialog needs to show why they're the sage. And, if that sage is a god requiring devotion, you get chapter 9.

[Michael]

David wrote: "This is why the Gita is not philosophy. It cannot resolve the problem of evil without contradiction, and so it defaults to obedience through devotion."

Roger wrote: "The Gita doesn't seem much concerned with theodicy at all."

It's an ancient text for sure.

Would it be fair to say that Western philosophers and religious thought weren't sensitive to this until much later either, perhaps not until the Enlightenment?

[David]

Michael wrote: "Would it be fair to say that Western philosophers and religious thought weren't sensitive to this until much later. . ."

No, it would not. The Gita attempts to deal with it by providing an explicit answer: evil comes from desire, anger, and “demonic” dispositions, while Krishna’s higher nature remains untouched. That’s already a theodicy move; an attempt to absolve the divine.

We must be careful with the history point. The formal word theodicy belongs to Leibniz, but the underlying question, "how can the divine be good if evil exists" is much older. You see it in Plato’s dialogues, Augustine, and especially in Job. So it isn’t only a late Enlightenment concern.

What makes the Gita does is not rooted in its antiquity but its strategy: it resolves the problem devotionally rather than philosophically. It asks for trust that Krishna is pure and shifts responsibility to human failings. That works as religion, but logically it collapses: Krishna is claims to be the source of all but claims not to be the source of evil. Clearly Krishna should have waited around for Venn diagrams to be invented.

[Thomas]

David wrote: "We are circling the drain of the classic theodicy trap. Both the Gita and the God of Abraham’s religions fall into the same two-step:."

They strike me as quite different because the God of Abraham actually sets out laws and defines morality pretty specifically for his people.

Krishna doesn't do that at all, and coming from a western perspective I find this really interesting. Theodicy isn't a problem for Krishna because good and evil aren't recognized as moral qualities; they are products of human thinking and bear the hallmark of human thinking: self-centered relativity, which is manifested emotionally as desire, greed, envy, resentment, anger, shame, etc. Remove the self and the issue of good and evil goes away. Good and Evil lose their reified status, so you're right to say that the Gita does not resolve the problem of evil. It doesn't recognize it as a problem to begin with. The problem of evil is a delusion, one that humans must be liberated from.

Plato (and Spinoza, as you point out) say that evil does not exist in itself, but then they are unable to define what "the good" actually is.. The enterprise of western ethics is almost entirely occupied with this, so it seems natural to identify this with philosophy itself, but I think Krishna would say that western philosophy is based on a separation of self and the other that is delusional, which is maybe why it has never succeeded in a definitive way. Krishna starts on grounds that disallow the notion of morality (and theodicy) from the start. To me that's the really shocking thing.

[Thomas]

David wrote: "Clearly Krishna should have waited around for Venn diagrams to be invented.

But there are no boundaries of separation in Krishna's conception! So it would have to be a Venn Mobius strip or something... lol

[Thomas]

Roger wrote: "The Gita doesn't seem much concerned with theodicy at all. Brahman and Krishna just are. Or maybe just are and are not. Come to terms with it, or you'll come back as a wombat."

Spot on. Though I think its concern is how NOT to come back as a wombat.