Chapters 13-15

[Thomas]

The remainder of the Bhagavad Gita is concerned with the world (except for Ch 15) and how to obtain liberation from its entanglements. Chapter 13 is made difficult by the terminology and the two-fold nature of the "self", but this is my understanding for now:

Arjuna asks about "the field" and the knower of the field. (Arjuna's question is not in all editions.) Krishna says that the field represents prakriti, material nature. Prakriti includes the senses as well as the different levels of the mind: manas (everyday consciousness, aka "monkey mind"), buddhi (the discriminating, focused mind, aka intellect) and ahamkara (the self-consciousness, aka ego.) The field of material prakriti is responsible for desire, intelligence, emotions (the gunas), and the will. These are human faculties that are affected by and dependent on other things in the chain of causality. I think of this as the lower-case self.

So what's left? Purusha, the spirit, the "knower of the field." The knower of the field is a witness of the field of prakriti. The knower is not separate from the field but knows it for what it is. It is able to observe the thoughts and actions of the lower-case self, in the way that we can look at ourselves and question our thoughts and actions in retrospect as if they were done by a different person. It does not confuse the field of prakriti-- the lower case self -- for the true Self, the Atman which understands that Brahman, not prakriti, is not the ultimate reality.

Those who are able to see that it is Prakriti that performs actions, both good and evil, "while the Self remains unmoved" attain the supreme goal of fulfillment in Brahman. "They alone see truly who see the Lord the same in every creature, who see the deathless in the hearts of all that die. Seeing the same Lord everywhere, they do not harm themselves or others." Following the disciplines of yoga, one of the paths, results in the recognition of the true Self (aka Atman/Brahman.)

Is Purusha something like conscience? Does it have any responsibility other than observation?

The next chapter goes into more depth on the gunas, the qualities of prakriti which operate in humans and by which we can form attachments. The most positive of the gunas is sattva, which is characterized by wisdom and happiness, balance and harmony. Rajas is "passion, arising from selfish desire and attachment." Ambition, desire, and energy are rajasic. Tamas is the most negative of the gunas, in many ways the opposite of rajas. It is characterized by depression, darkness and ignorance. These threads are woven together, in various ways and at various times, to create a personality, the lower-case self.

Each of the gunas has its own fruits, and there is a potential for selfish attachment to each of these. Release from these attachments is to leave behind the cycle of birth and death, to realize that it is the gunas that are acting, not the Self. This sounds like an echo of 3.27, where Krishna says "All actions are performed by the gunas of Prakriti. Deluded by identification with the ego, a person thinks, 'I am the doer' But the illumined man or woman understands the domain of the gunas and is not attached. Such people know that the gunas interact with each other; they do not claim to be the doer."

[Thomas]

Chapter 15 references the ashvattha tree, also known as the bodhi tree, which is unusual in that it sends out roots from its branches which become new trunks. This appears to be a metaphor for the way in which Krishna animates matter (prakriti) by sending a fragment of his eternal Self into living things. In this way, Krishna is alive in prakriti, in the senses, and in sense objects. "With a drop of my energy I enter the earth and support all creatures. Through the moon, the vessel of life-giving fluid, I nourish all plants. I enter breathing creatures and swell within as the life-giving breath."

But the ashvattha tree is also a metaphor for samsara (the cycle of birth and re-birth) because its branches are also its roots. This is not Krishna's "true form," which is beyond the two orders of being (prakriti and purusha, the perishable body and changeless spirit of mortal beings.) Krishna implores Arjuna to cut down this tree "with the sharp axe of detachment," to enter Krishna's realm beyond "the changing and the changeless."

Krishna reaches a level of mysticism here which I think is beyond human speech and comprehension. What is neither changing nor changeless? What could that be?

[David]

I found this passage an interesting one.

[13.21] Spirit, embedded in matter,
feels the gunas born of matter.
Attachment to the gunas causes
its birth in good and evil wombs.
~Lombardo

I understand this to mean: Spirit (purusha) isn’t entirely aloof. It is “embedded in matter”; bound up with prakriti. Because of this embedding, it feels the guṇas, clarity, passion, darkness. When spirit becomes attached to these qualities, it accrues karma and is reborn. The type of rebirth (“good or evil wombs”) reflects which guṇas dominated its attachments.

At one point the Self is declared pure and uninvolved; here it is said to be “embedded” and affected. This allows the doctrine to have it both ways: if you wish to exempt the Self from blame, you say it is unmoved; if you need to explain suffering and rebirth, you say it is embedded and attached.

[Thomas]

David wrote: "At one point the Self is declared pure and uninvolved; here it is said to be “embedded” and affected. This allows the doctrine to have it both ways: if you wish to exempt the Self from blame, you say it is unmoved; if you need to explain suffering and rebirth, you say it is embedded and attached."

I think it's similar to the distinction that Spinoza makes between natura naturans and natura naturata. Nature/God is both the substance of the universe in its free or potential form, as naturans, *and* when it takes the form of a particular thing, as naturata.

In a similar way, the self as a particular spirit is embedded in prakriti, ala natura naturata. The universal Self as Atman/Brahman is free of the material and emotional constraints of the particular self (as natura naturans is free of the modes of naturata). The way of liberation that Krishna describes appears to be a process of un-embedding the particular self and releasing it to the universal Self. With that liberation comes the loss of an individual self, so no blame attaches.

[David]

Thomas wrote: "I think it's similar to the distinction that Spinoza makes between natura naturans and natura naturata."

The Spinoza parallel is useful, but more for contrast than comparison. Spinoza’s philosophy is strictly monist; there is only one substance, and nothing exists outside it.
Natura naturans: Nature as generating cause, the active, infinite substance itself.
Natura naturata: Nature as generated effects, the determinate modes that follow from substance’s necessity, including both bodies and ideas.

As an imperfect analogy to grasp Spinoza:
Natura naturans is like music as generative order, the compositional logic, rhythm, and harmonic possibilities inherent in the piece.
Natura naturata is like music as realized sound, a specific performance that represents that order in time.
They are not two separate items but two aspects of the same thing. The performance has its structure from the score, and the score’s musical order is realized in performance.

The Gita, by contrast, operates with a dualist psychology of pure Self and prakriti, a move Spinoza would reject. At times it distances the “true Self” from evil to preserve its purity, and at other times it proclaims unity by identifying the divine with everything. That is not monism but oscillation between separation and identification.

All this only adds to the Gita’s handling of evil being case of rhetorical oscillation. Sometimes Krishna identifies with everything, sometimes he distances the “true Self” from action. It is like blaming a software glitch (prakriti) for a system crash (evil) while ignoring the programmer (Krishna) who wrote all of the code in the first place.

[Thomas]

David wrote: "The Gita, by contrast, operates with a dualist psychology of pure Self and prakriti, a move Spinoza would reject."

I read it a little differently. The Gita maintains that dualism is the product of human misunderstanding, a delusion even. An understanding of the "true Self" is dependent on an understanding of the world as monistic, the one Brahman. I'm Brahman, you're Brahman, the dog is Brahman -- everything together in the universe is Brahman, the "true Self."

By contrast, the apparent self is dualistic and sees himself as a discrete thing separate from everything else in the universe. The discrete self sees himself in a relation to other discrete things in the universe, and this relation can be good or bad, depending on the situation. This is where judgements come from, where good and evil come from; they're relative to a subject. Dualistic separation of subject and object, or subject and other subjects, is required. But for Brahman there can be no good/evil because there are no separate entities to judge something as evil or be judged as evil. It's all one.

As a result, Krishna's endeavor is not a moral one. His mission is to treat and cure the delusion of dualism, thereby dissolving the problem of good and evil. This can appear quite immoral to someone still under the effects of that delusion. And it certainly does appear that way to Arjuna as he faces a war with his own kin.

[David]

If I am following the reasoning correctly, the Gita is ultimately monistic, ie., Brahman is all and dualism is a delusion. The "apparent self" sees separations and so invents good/evil, while the "true self" sees unity, and thus dissolves the problem of evil entirely. Krishna's mission seems to be a therapeutic one, not a moral one by curing the delusion of dualism. Arjuna is still resistant because he is still influenced by his dualistic thinking.

The problem is, Krisna does not sustain consistent monism himself, often reverting to dualism even giving them names, i.e., prakriti vs. prusha, divine vs. demonic, gunas vs. liberation, lower self and higher self, etc. When it suits him, Krishna claims he is everything, even death and deception.

[10.34] I am death and the origin
of future things. Of feminines
I am fame, speech, prosperity,
memory, wisdom, courage, patience.

[10.35] Of chants I am the Brihatsaman,
of meters I am the Gayatri.
Of months I am the Marga-shirsha,
of seasons the flowering spring.

[10.36] I am the gambling of the cheats
and the brilliance of the brilliant.
I am victory and exertion,
the goodness of those who are good.
~Lombardo

But when evil or responsibility threatens, he shifts it to prakriti insisting purusha/Atman remains untouched. This kind of rhetorical oscillation passing for higher wisdom does not make for a stable doctrine.

Furthermore, dissolving evil by declaring it a delusion does not resolve the very real problem of evil. It sidesteps it by redefining it out of existence, which in turn presents problems for responsibility and accountability.

The questions all this prompts is: if the Atman, the true self, is by definition pure and stainless, why the cosmic charade of endless rebirths? What lesson could there be for something that cannot, supposedly, be touched or corrupted in the first place?

It is the true self that supposedly obtains unity with Brahman, not the apparent self. After all, the apparent self is cast off like an old set of clothes, and no one mistakes a discarded shirt for the person who once wore it. Can a theology that punishes a supposedly pure soul for the shirts it wears really be called a system of justice?

[Thomas]

David wrote: "The problem is, Krisna does not sustain consistent monism himself, often reverting to dualism even giving them names, i.e., prakriti vs. prusha,"..."


The categories of Prakriti and Purusha are ways in which ancient Vedic culture understood themselves, but ultimately these are also Brahman (in the same way that extension and thought are ultimately substance for Spinoza.) But I think it's important to remember that the culture the Gita was speaking to was still thinking in those terms, so Krishna uses them. Language is dualistic by nature and there's no communicating without it.

I think the point is that Krishna wants to impress is that regardless of how we think of particular things, as good or evil, they are all ultimately divine because divinity suffuses everything. Re-birth is not punishment, it's just the way dharma works. Arjuna has to fight his own kin, not because he wants to but because it is what the universe has ordained for him as his duty. Dharma is not good or evil. It just is.

But removing the subject -- myself, the ego -- removes human values, and this is a serious sticking point. It means giving up free will (another nexus with Spinoza) and surrendering to the divine universe. We do our duty because it's what we do, not because it's what we *want* to do.

[Alexey]

I am not sure if I can make a valuable contribution in your discussion, but it is one of the moment that I currently try to understand in my commentary (which has roughly twice pages compare to the text of the Gita). It states that commentators of all schools of Indian philosophy accept Gita as the authority and according to traditions, it was interpreted in dualistic, non-dualistic, or hybrid way. Most of the modern commentaries and translations follow one of the great Advaita's philosophers: Shankara and Ramanuja; of course, both interpreted Gita in the non-duality manner.

It seems to me, that the possibility of both interpretation is in the text, though the translation could considerably affect how we interpret the text. Besides, terms monistic and dualistic are not always adequate to Advaita and Dvaita understanding of world.

[David]

Alexey wrote: "It states that commentators of all schools of Indian philosophy accept Gita as the authority and according to traditions, it was interpreted in dualistic, non-dualistic, or hybrid way."

A hybrid interpretation makes sense to avoid the fallacy of false dichotomy of Krishna’s proclamations, which oscillate rhetorically between dualism and non-dualism as convenience demands. Unfortunately, I fail to see how this resolves the contradictions; it merely thickens the Gita’s beguiling “fog of wisdom.”

[Alexey]

I believe that some contradictions are not intended to be resolved, but they could disappear if look from a certain angle. It is my best understanding of the teaching, so far...

[Thomas]

Alexey wrote: "I believe that some contradictions are not intended to be resolved, but they could disappear if look from a certain angle. It is my best understanding of the teaching, so far..."

Thanks for your thoughts on this, and I think you're right about the contradictions. Spinoza is the best at dealing with the mind-body paradox in a rational way, but even he runs into mystical territory when he says that the mind is eternal and survives the body. (Of course he doesn't mean a personal mind, but Atman is not personal either.) Hybrid explanations strike me as rationalizations that attempt to resolve an irresolvable paradox.