Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Bhagavad Gita
>
Chapters 16-18
date
newest »
newest »
Chapter 18Arjuna asks about the two types of renunciation: sannyasa (rejecting the world of action and withdrawing from society) and tyaga (remaining in the world of action without attachment to the results). Krishna points out again that complete renunciation is not possible. One has to act in order to live. Instead, he advises "giving up all desire for personal reward."
Krishna then details in the technical language of the Sanykhya system how action involves the cooperation of five factors. Action is propelled by knowledge, the thing to be known, and the knower. The kinds of knowledge (and quality of action it propels) are influenced by the gunas, so there are consequently three types of knowledge. Sattvic knowledge, which sees the unity of the One in all things, results in sattvic actions, which are performed without desire for personal rewards. Rajasic knowledge acts on the multiplicity of things and is motivated by desire. Tamasic knowledge is ignorant and acts stubbornly and dishonestly. Krishna then applies the guna categories to understanding, the will, and happiness.
These categories apply socially as well in the castes, but Krishna makes it clear that caste is not relevant to the ultimate goal. One can transcend the gunas, attain perfection and unity with Brahman by doing one's duty, selflessly and without attachment, regardless of caste.
Krishna once again passionately promotes bhakti yoga (devotion to Krishna), which makes me wonder again if this is something difficult for Arjuna. And curiously he tells Arjuna that his teaching is a secret and should not be spoken to those without austerity or devotion or to those who don't want to listen. But Arjuna has listened well and says his delusion has been destroyed, his doubts are gone.
Sanjaya, the narrator, returns to announce the end of this wondrous dialogue "which causes the hair to stand on end."
Krishna wants us to quench all desire, and to act without attachment to the outcome. How different that is from Jesus, who wants us to hunger and thirst after righteousness!
On my way to work this morning I was listening to J.S. Mill and this harmonized with my thoughts on the Gita.. . .Calvinistic theory. According to that, the one great offence of man is self-will. All the good of which humanity is capable, is comprised in obedience. You have no choice; thus you must do, and no otherwise: ‘whatever is not a duty, is a sin.’ Human nature being radically corrupt, there is no redemption of any one until human nature is killed within him. To one holding this theory of life, crushing out any of the human faculties, capacities, and susceptibilities, is no evil: man needs no capacity, but that of surrendering himself to the will of God: and if he uses any of his faculties for any other purpose but to do that supposed will more effectually, he is better without them. This is the theory of Calvinism; and it is held, in a mitigated form, by many who do not consider themselves Calvinists; the mitigation consisting in giving a less ascetic interpretation to the alleged will of God; asserting it to be his will that mankind should gratify some of their inclinations; of course not in the manner they themselves prefer, but in the way of obedience, that is, in a way prescribed to them by authority; and, therefore, by the necessary conditions of the case, the same for all.I suggest the Gita is a poetic version of Calvanism.
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty
The Parallels
• Both Calvinism and the Gita locate the “great offense” in self-will.
• Both define duty as obedience to a higher order: in Calvinism, God’s will; in the Gita, dharma/duty is your divinely assigned role or devotion to Krishna.
• Both diminish the value of distinct human faculties except insofar as they serve obedience to God or Krishna
• Both discourage individuality as an end in itself by subscribing to dogma.
• Both extend their doctrine to all, regardless of their beliefs.
• Both have punishments: Those not chosen/accepted remain condemned: eternal damnation (Calvin) or endless rebirth (Gita). Rebirth is understood as a punishment for failure to be sufficiently devoted to Krishna for him to choose you worthy of moksha.
The resemblance is real: both systems equate goodness with obedience and treat self-will as the central problem. Each dresses it up a little differently: Calvinism in the language of sin and corruption (immoral behavior), the Gita in the language of illusion and attachment (leading to immoral behavior). in both, the result is the same: a theology of submission, where moral responsibility is relocated from the agent’s own rational judgment to conformity with a divinely imposed order.
And we get another contradiction, is it duty or is it devotion?Duty (svadharma): Arjuna is told his highest obligation is to perform his warrior’s duty without attachment to results (2.47, 3.35).
Devotion (bhakti): Later chapters, especially Ch. 9 and Ch. 12, elevate devotion to Krishna as supreme: “Even if the most sinful worships Me with undivided devotion, he should be regarded as righteous, for he is rightly resolved” (9.30).
in Ch. 18: Krishna tells Arjuna to renounce all dharmas and take refuge in Him alone
[18.66] Abandoning all your duties,
take refuge in Me alone.
I will free you from all evils;
you should never grieve or sorrow.
~Lombardo
Rebirth doesn't seem to be a punishment. Rather it's the natural consequence of ignorance and desire.
Thomas wrote: "And curiously he tells Arjuna that his teaching is a secret and should not be spoken to those without austerity or devotion or to those who don't want to listen."Yes, Krishna repeatedly frames his teaching as a “secret”. That language is less a revelation of hidden truth than a psychological trick of persuasion and manipulation. Exclusive or secret knowledge creates a sense of scarcity and privileged access. This draws the listener into the speaker’s confidence, flattering them as chosen and discouraging skepticism, after all, if you doubt, perhaps you weren’t worthy of the secret in the first place. Manipulators rely on this dynamic: the rhetoric of secrecy binds the follower’s loyalty more effectively than any argument on the merits.
The techniques of the manipulator, like revealing a secret, are designed not only to deceive others but to draw them into collusion, into a relationship where doubt and dissent feel like betrayal.
We can see Krishna’s as a practiced manipulator from the start. Near the opening of the Gita, his first tactic is shaming: he calls Arjuna’s hesitation “unmanly weakness” (2.2), a dishonor worse than death. Only after undermining Arjuna’s confidence does he switch to the grander rhetoric of secrets and cosmic revelations. The sequence of shame, then flattery is a textbook manipulation strategy.
If anyone approaches you with a "secret", your first thought should be get away as fast as possible because you are the mark in a con game.
Finally, If this is a real “secret,” it is a curious one. It was whispered on a battlefield only to end up in a best-selling scripture. That is not secret wisdom; it is theater passed dressed as revelation.
Roger wrote: "Krishna wants us to quench all desire, and to act without attachment to the outcome. How different that is from Jesus, who wants us to hunger and thirst after righteousness!"This is one of the differences that fascinated me when I first read it because it's so different from the tradition I grew up in. There really is no righteousness in the Gita. The good/evil dichotomy disappears in Brahman. This seems very difficult to apply because it precludes moral judgements, which is how I like to think we proceed in the world.
"Time after time, according to their karma, I cast these malicious evildoers into the wombs of like-minded parents, subjecting them to the wheel of death and birth." (16.19)
Wow! Now I wonder if, while the good ones are removed from the pool, us remaining souls are a part of a world that is on average more evil? How am I supposed to look at cute babies now?
"...you are what you eat..." (17.8)
---waves to Grandma---
"The cow is sacred because of her selfless gift of her milk, which becomes the strength of life in other beings." (18.6)
Okay, I never knew why. PETA would like a word.
"It is as if dancing puppets imagine that they are the dancers rather than merely puppets, and because of this illusion they become increasingly entangled in the strings." (18.61)
I suddenly feel the urge to stamp my feet in protest and quote Trump, "No puppet, no puppet! You're the puppet!"
I actually got into an argument with an AI about the Gita and it offered this image as a defense saying that we are all just a part of "the great play" and that our role is not to prove we are worthy but instead to realize the way to avoid suffering is to untangle our strings by give ourselves over to dharma. According to the AI, likely recycled interpretations it was trained on, these tangled strings are meant to serve as a catalyst for change.
David wrote: "On my way to work this morning I was listening to J.S. Mill and this harmonized with my thoughts on the Gita.. . .Calvinistic theory. According to that, the one great offence of man is self-will. A..."There are significant differences as well, the most important of which is that God and man are separated in Calvinism (and in other Abrahamic religions), which sets up a completely different scenario. The "ultimate reality" in the Gita is that man is divine, as the entire universe is divine. This means that man and the universe are ultimately "good", whereas Calvin holds that man and the universe are fundamentally corrupt. There is no self-realization for Calvin. Man is in the hands of an angry God.
Surrendering one's ego and free will in the Gita is a matter of realizing that there is no distance between the divine and man -- doing your svadharma is "becoming who you are." Arjuna still has to decide if he going to fight or not, and how he comes to that decision is the story of the Gita. It's a spiritual journey with multiple paths, some more direct than others. If I understand Calvin correctly, man is so fundamentally corrupt that he doesn't get to make that choice. The decision has already been made and there is no journey. Calvin's God would demand obedience and that's it.
Michael wrote: ""I actually got into an argument with an AI about the Gita and it offered this image as a defense saying that we are all just a part of "the great play" and that our role is not to prove we are worthy but instead to realize the way to avoid suffering is to untangle our strings by give ourselves over to dharma.."
AI sounds partly right, but I think it misses the most important point. If our goal is to avoid suffering then we are still thinking about ourselves and acting with an interest in the outcome: the end of our suffering. That may in fact be a collateral reward, but the *desire* for it is the primary obstacle to actually attaining it.
Thomas wrote: “The ‘ultimate reality’ in the Gita is that man is divine, as the entire universe is divine. This means that man and the universe are ultimately ‘good’…”It is true that God and man are separated in Calvinism, while in the Gita man is divine (10.20: “I am the self in the heart of all beings”). Does this mean that man and the universe are ultimately good, whereas Calvin holds they are corrupt? Not quite. The Gita distinguishes divine vs. demonic dispositions (Ch. 16). Man partakes in both. To call man “ultimately good” is too generous.
Thomas wrote: “Surrendering one’s ego and free will in the Gita is a matter of realizing that there is no distance between the divine and man — doing your svadharma is ‘becoming who you are.’”
In the Gita, Krishna demands surrender (18.66), but also insists on duty (svadharma). There is an existential “be who you are” element, but it is framed devotionally. The problem is that if there is no distance, the claim collapses into tautology: if all is Krishna, man has no real independent identity. “Becoming who you are” romanticizes the point.
Thomas wrote: “Arjuna still has to decide whether to fight.”
Krishna spends 17 chapters systematically stripping away alternatives until only obedience remains. Arjuna’s “choice” is made under coercion of metaphysics and devotion. This is not a truly free decision.
The Gita and Calvinism do differ fundamentally: Calvin posits separation, sin, and predestination; the Gita collapses man into the divine and frames surrender as self-realization. But it is a misleading understanding to say the Gita holds man “ultimately good,” or that Arjuna faces a genuine free choice. The Gita sets up a staged dilemma and then devotionally erases the alternatives. Both systems resolve freedom by subordinating man to the divine, only with different vocabularies: Calvin is a bit of a fear monger convincing with wrath, Krishna manipulates with an unintelligible semblance of unity.
David wrote: " Does this mean that man and the universe are ultimately good, whereas Calvin holds they are corrupt? Not quite."For the person following dharma, there ultimately is no good and evil, (so I probably shouldn't use the word "good" even in scare quotes.) There is just dharma, following the order of the universe. In Chapter 16 the demonic is concerned with those things that cause a person to derail off the path of dharma out of selfish concerns. After puzzling over it for a while I found that I can't take "demonic" in a literal sense in this chapter because it doesn't conform to the earlier parts of the book that preclude the idea of good and evil. There are lots of demons and heroes in Hindu mythology, so I expect that is where the imagery comes from.
David wrote: "In the Gita, Krishna demands surrender (18.66), but also insists on duty (svadharma)."
I think the implication is that they are the same thing. Doing one is doing the other. Doing your duty without thoughts for the results is surrendering your selfish motivations, and once you've done this, it's the same thing as surrendering to Krishna, who is a manifestation of the universal order, Brahman.
Thomas wrote: "For the person following dharma, there ultimately is no good and evil. . .There is just dharma, following the order of the universe. . .the demonic is concerned with those things that cause a person to derail off the path of dharma"To say “there is only dharma” functions as a normative claim. It tells us what to value and follow. If all value distinctions are denied “ultimately,” the imperative to follow dharma loses force. You cannot prescribe without a standard.
“Order of the universe”, is a descriptive claim while, “One ought to follow dharma”, is prescriptive one. The Gita makes the leap from is to ought without explaining why the description entails the prescription. We are prescribed an "ought" that is not follow from a descriptive "is".
As far as I know, my behavior doesn't affect the order of the universe one way or the other. Stoicism posits that what is natural to a being is what fulfills it. For humans, living rationally and virtuously is in accordance with nature. Spinoza posits that good is what benefits our conatus (well-being) and evil is what diminishes it. This is not an absolute category, but relative to our nature.
Additionally, claiming people “derail from dharma” smuggles judgement back in. “Derail” already means “bad to do.” Denying good and evil and then using language that presupposes them creates contradictions. For example: chapter 16 explicitly classifies divine and demonic traits, praises the former, condemns the latter. The text speaks in moral terms. The “no good and evil” gloss does not match the text.
To sum up: The prescription to follow dharma rests on assertion. But If good and evil ultimately vanish then the prescription cancels itself.
David wrote: "To say “there is only dharma” functions as a normative claim. It tells us what to value and follow. If all value distinctions are denied “ultimately,” the imperative to follow dharma loses force. You cannot prescribe without a standard."This is the crucial issue IMO. There is no articulable standard. I can understand your argument about judgement, but in a system where there is no standard there is no need for judgement, there is no good/evil dichotomy. The rejection of the self is consistent with this because it is the self (the subject) that makes judgements.
But how are people supposed to make decisions if there is no standard? Or if there is no self to make that decision?
One possibility is that in an ideal world where people aren't concerned with themselves that their concern is with the whole community. The community sets the "standard" -- one's "svadharma" is a community function. Every person is a part of the community and has a responsibility for the well-being of the community. Ultimately in the vision of the Gita this community is expanded to the universe as a whole, so that one's "svadharma" is a function of Brahman. Every person has a responsibility for the well-being of the world itself, without regard for himself.
Thomas wrote: "in a system where there is no standard there is no need for judgement, there is no good/evil dichotomy. "This does not seem to be supported in the text when Krishna defines the divine (good) in 16.1-7, and the demonic (evil) right after that in 16.8-23. He even mentions a triple gate to hell. But Krishna explicitly sets a standard
[16.24] So let scripture set your standardIf “No need for judgment” is posited, then the very act of teaching dharma is contradicted and the entirety of Chapter 16 where Gita’s catalogues the virtues/vices are superfluous and could be left out.
for what may and may not be done.
Knowing what the scriptures prescribe
should guide your actions in this world.”
~Lombardo
Thomas wrote: “The rejection of the self is consistent because it is the self (the subject) that makes judgments.”
This seems a bit overstated. The Gita urges transcendence of the sense of ‘I’ as the independent doer, but not the annihilation of the conscious self that perceives and acts. Arjuna still deliberates, and Krishna still guides him in that deliberation. Logically, If judgment is eliminated, then decision-making collapses. Yet Arjuna is urged to decide 18.63: Reflect on this fully, and then do as you choose. It also seems to me that the reader is also being asked to decide as well.
Thomas wrote: "Ultimately in the vision of the Gita this community is expanded to the universe as a whole, so that one's "svadharma" is a function of Brahman. Every person has a responsibility for the well-being of the world itself, without regard for himself."
Yes, Krishna says he sustains the world through dharma (3.22–24). But the Gita itself ties dharma to one’s caste and role, not to universal well-being. Reading it as concern for the whole world is a modern reinterpretation, not what the text actually says. The Gita isn’t preaching global ethics, it’s preaching caste duty dressed in cosmic language.
I was struck by 16:19:I forever fling those vile,
hate-filled, cruel, pure men
into the cycles of rebirth,
just so, into demonic wombs. (Flood and Martin trans.)
Elsewhere Krishna just describes how the world works; he doesn't claim to be a lawgiver or a judge. But in this stanza he does seem to be a judge, or at least an executioner.
Thomas wrote: "In Chapter 16 the demonic is concerned with those things that cause a person to derail off the path of dharma out of selfish concerns. After puzzling over it for a while I found that I can't take "demonic" in a literal sense in this chapter because it doesn't conform to the earlier parts of the book that preclude the idea of good and evil. There are lots of demons and heroes in Hindu mythology, so I expect that is where the imagery comes from."I got so deep into the details of the apologetics I nearly missed this. It seems odd to dismiss the ‘demonic’ as myth while treating ‘Krishna,’ ‘dharma,’ or any other feature of the Gita as if it were somehow more than myth. From the standpoint of reason, they all belong to the same category: imaginative creation.
It is special pleading to pretend some of the fantasy is profound philosophy while the rest is just colorful folklore. The Gita is not just partly myth disguised as wisdom; it is myth from start to finish, every cosmic syllable. To pretend otherwise is the mistake. The only honest thing to say is that it is beautiful poetry, but not a syllable of its theology or metaphysics is true.
David wrote: "He even mentions a triple gate to hell. But Krishna explicitly sets a standard[16.24] So let scripture set your standard
for what may and may not be done.."
It seems odd to me that after Krishna describes the demonic and says scripture is the standard that Arjuna's next question is "what about those who disregard the scriptures?" The only sense I can make of this comes from Chapter 2 where Krishna treats the scriptures as an expression of the Samkhya philosophy of the gunas. The scriptures are useful for those who follow the letter of the law, but Krishna tells Arjuna to be free of them:
The scriptures describe the three gunas. But you should be free from the action of the gunas, established in eternal truth, self-controlled, without any sense of duality or the desire to acquire and hoard.
Just as a reservoir is of little use when the whole countryside is flooded, scriptures are of little use to the illumined man or woman, who sees the Lord everywhere. 2.25-46
It sounds like Arjuna anticipates that not everyone in his community will accept Krishna's message. For those who don't, the "reservoir" of scripture will guide them away from their demonic tendencies. If they worship other gods with faith, that's okay as well. Ultimately though Krishna wants Arjuna to accept the non-dual divinity of everything rather than the dualism of good and evil that is described in chapter 16. (Chapter 14 also deals with going beyond the gunas to attain "unity with Brahman")
Thomas wrote: “The rejection of the self is consistent because it is the self (the subject) that makes judgments.”
David: This seems a bit overstated.
Fair enough. There has to be a self to decide to be selfless, but ultimately that decision is to literally be selfless. My understanding of Hindu theology is that this is what liberation means, to be free of the self and all of the karma that it carries around. Whether this is practical or not is another question, but since this advice is given to Arjuna on the battlefield I suspect that it is meant in all seriousness.
David: Yes, Krishna says he sustains the world through dharma (3.22–24). But the Gita itself ties dharma to one’s caste and role, not to universal well-being.
It might just be my interpretation, but I think it's the core message of the Gita. The universe itself is divine and everything is a manifestation of Brahman, so Arjuna's duty is ultimately in service of Brahman, the universe itself.
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. Thus they attain the supreme goal. 13.27
He's fulfilling his role as a warrior, but if he embraces Krishna's message of universality and non-dualism then he is doing more than that. He sees the deathless in the hearts of all that die, so he can even kill without thoughts for the results of his actions. The "supreme goal" is a universal, divine one. I think it must take a lot of yoga to get to that point, but that seems to be the "supreme goal."
Roger wrote: "I was struck by 16:19:I forever fling those vile,
hate-filled, cruel, pure men
into the cycles of rebirth,
just so, into demonic wombs. (Flood and Martin trans.)
Elsewhere Krishna just describes..."
I'm starting to wonder if the Vedic scriptures are placed in a similar relation to the Gita as the Old Testament is to the New Testament. The original laws and scriptures are not abandoned, but an emphasis is placed on the spirit rather than the letter of the law. The Vedic system required rituals and sacrifices be done in a specific way, and the recitation of the Vedas was more important than their meaning. Krishna emphasizes the spirit of Brahman over the ritual performances. But that doesn't mean that if you don't follow Krishna's vision of selflessness and nonduality that you're off the hook. Karma will still get you the old fashioned way, and Krishna is still the god of the Vedas as well.
Here is a thought experiment for you:WHAT IF Arjuna said to Krishna,
“Krishna, I have heard your teaching. You tell me my dharma is to fight as a warrior, and that I should not fear killing, since the Self cannot be slain — bodies are like garments, discarded and replaced. You tell me to fight without attachment, without concern for the fruits, to act only in accord with my caste and station.What do you think Krishna would say in response to this? Would he still praise Arjuna for detachment and duty, or would the mask slip, revealing that his “universal teaching” was always just a justification for the Pandavas’ victory?
Very well — I accept it. I will fight. I will fulfill my dharma as a warrior.
But if I truly must be detached from the fruits of action, then victory or defeat must not matter. If the Self cannot be harmed, then the lives of those I cut down cannot truly be lost. In that spirit, I will take my service as a warrior not against my cousins, but alongside them. I will fight for the Kauravas. For to me they are family, and if I must fight, let me fight in their defense.
Thus I embrace my dharma as a warrior — but I choose to fight for the other side.”
And lets just assume there is textual justification for any objection to Arjuna's decision.
David wrote: "What do you think Krishna would say in response to this?"I submit the following response for Krishna: "Why?"
Or are you saying that dharma is arbitrary?
Thomas wrote: "I submit the following response for Krishna: "Why?" Or are you saying that dharma is arbitrary?"Arjuna might simply respond back, "why not"?
And yes, I am suggesting that dharma is arbitrary. Any objection Krishna raises to Arjuna’s choice would only expose the fact that dharma is just a tool for tribal loyalty and control dressed up as cosmic order.
The context of the story makes it clear why he should fight -- the Kauravas are liars and thieves. Arjuna and his brothers have been the victim of the Kauravas and there's no question the Kauravas are the "bad guys." The only way that Arjuna would make the choice to fight for the Kauravas is that he had a desire to be intentionally perverse (see Notes from Underground for more on that.) There is an assumption from the start that there is a cosmic order, and that dharma is an expression of that. If there is no order, then it could be that dharma is arbitrary, but that's not the situation here.
Thomas wrote: "The context of the story makes it clear why he should fight -- the Kauravas are liars and thieves"Krishna’s own teaching is that Arjuna must “do his duty without attachment to the fruits of action.” But the moment one says he fights to “put down evil” or to “defeat the liars and thieves,” outcome has been smuggled back in which is acting with a very definite result in mind; the opposite of without attachment to the fruits of action.
Thomas wrote: "Arjuna and his brothers have been the victim of the Kauravas and there's no question the Kauravas are the "bad guys."
It oversimplifies things to call the Kauravas the bad guys. The Mahābhārata is not a comic book. The Kauravas act treacherously, but the Pāṇḍavas are not spotless. Both sides are compromised, which is why the epic itself is often read as tragic event, not as a battle of good vs. evil. It is less Star Wars and more War of the Roses where no side is good and both engaged in betrayals, executions, and shifting alliances.
Thomas wrote: "The only way that Arjuna would make the choice to fight for the Kauravas is that he had a desire to be intentionally perverse"
Arjuna could rationally side with the Kauravas. Not out of perversity, but out of loyalty to family. To dismiss a decision like this as “perverse,” intentional or not, is to ignore the fact that the tragedy of the Gita is precisely that there is no purely righteous choice and all the misgivings Arjuna laments in 1.31-46.
Furthermore, Krishna himself seems to have his own selfish motives for a Pandavas victory. The introduction to the Lombardo translation reveals:
In the Mahabharata, Krishna is a Kshatriya prince, like Arjuna. He is the leader of the Vrishni clan, and he rules a kingdom in distant Dvaraka on the Gujarat coast. He is cousin to the Pandavas, since his father Vasudeva is the brother of Kunti, mother of the three oldest Pandavas. He also becomes Arjuna’s brother-in-law when he encourages Arjuna to abduct and marry his own sister Subhadra as a second wife. Krishna forms a close friendship with Arjuna and the other Pandavas and often acts as their advisor. And at {xvii} Kurukshetra he acts as Arjuna’s charioteer, a weaponless noncombatant who is nevertheless extremely close to the action.
~Lombardo
David wrote: "But the moment one says he fights to “put down evil” or to “defeat the liars and thieves,” outcome has been smuggled back in which is acting with a very definite result in mind;."The suggestion of the Gita is that Arjuna doesn't have to think about the outcome, or even make a moral decision, if he has perfected one of the paths of yoga and is able to act selflessly. The decision Arjuna has to make is not really a decision whether to fight or not to fight but whether he is willing to follow the path of yoga to selflessness. If he does that, the decision is made for him; he acts knowingly and consciously as an agent of Brahman/Krishna rather than himself. I think there is an implicit assumption that Brahman is just and reasonable. It just wouldn't make any sense in the story if Arjuna decided to switch sides.
Thomas wrote: “The decision Arjuna has to make is not really a decision whether to fight or not to fight but whether he is willing to follow the path of yoga to selflessness. If he does that, the decision is made for him; he acts knowingly and consciously as an agent of Brahman/Krishna rather than himself.”That is exactly where the logic slips and turns the supposed teaching of nonattachment into obedience. Arjuna is told he need not deliberate about outcomes, but only surrender his agency to Krishna. That is not selflessness, it is servitude. If the decision is “made for him,” then the doctrine of acting without attachment becomes little more than a command to carry out Krishna’s will.
Thomas wrote: "It just wouldn't make any sense in the story"
You are right of course. That is the point of the thought experiment of Arjuna choosing to fight, but for the other side. The Gita keeps saying “do not cling to outcomes,” but the only way the teaching works in the story is by guaranteeing the very outcome Krishna wants.
The fact that it is a "story" is also the crux of all of the issues that I have with the Gita. As the sacred text of the world’s third largest religion, I cannot simply read it as imaginative literature; it must be judged by higher standards. Yes, it is poetic, and it was interesting to encounter the source of Oppenheimer’s famous quote, but as a religion, or even as a cherry-picked paradigm for living, it has major problems.
I can even appreciate, as a story, the dramatic setting: a battlefield, moments before the fighting begins. That weight of circumstance adds force to the ‘don’t think’ policy, for the time for thinking has indeed expired. But what works as a literary device becomes disastrous as theology.
Not thinking is my greatest issue with the Gita. It echoes the ‘don’t think, just believe’ policy of so many other religions, but disguises it as contradictions dressed up as higher wisdom, gift-wrapped in philosophical paper. Arjuna is told that the highest path is not to deliberate, not to weigh outcomes, but to surrender his agency and act as Krishna’s instrument. That is not philosophy; it is the suspension of philosophy in favor of obedience. And when a religion sanctifies the refusal to think, the result is always dangerous.
Arjuna is supposed to act without attachment to the consequences. Is that anything like doing the right thing, regardless of what happens?
David wrote: "That is not selflessness, it is servitude. If the decision is “made for him,” then the doctrine of acting without attachment becomes little more than a command to carry out Krishna’s will."You can think of it as servitude to Brahman, which is accomplished by following one of the paths of yoga and all it entails.
Not thinking is my greatest issue with the Gita. It echoes the ‘don’t think, just believe’ policy of so many other religions,
It does require thinking, but thinking selflessly. (One of the paths of yoga, jnana yoga, is the "thinking" path. I think it actually has some things in common with rational nondualism, but that is for another day. ) In any case, this thinking is not thinking "for yourself." But it isn't following orders blindly either -- it is thinking from a nondual perspective that is arrived at through the disciplines of yoga.
Roger wrote: "Arjuna is supposed to act without attachment to the consequences. Is that anything like doing the right thing, regardless of what happens?"I think it is. Even adverse consequences (like the death of Arjuna's cousins on the battlefield) are "right," from a universal perspective, if Arjuna acts without selfish attachment to them.
Roger wrote: "Arjuna is supposed to act without attachment to the consequences. Is that anything like doing the right thing, regardless of what happens?"A problem with the Gita is that it hijacks the idea of ‘doing the right thing’ by redefining it as doing your caste function. Morality becomes obedience to role. What counts as ‘right’ is no longer open to question; it is predetermined by caste and cosmic order. That’s the danger: it erases independent moral reasoning and makes your duty, whoever convinces you what that duty is, as the standard. It’s the classic setup for the excuse down the road: "I was only following orders.”
I enjoyed reading the Gita, and in fact I voted for it, but we should note that it is outside our charter, which is limited to the "Western Canon."
Roger wrote: "I enjoyed reading the Gita, and in fact I voted for it, but we should note that it is outside our charter, which is limited to the "Western Canon.""Our charter is Classics and the Western Canon, so classics can include works that are not in the western canon.
Roger wrote: "I enjoyed reading the Gita, and in fact I voted for it, but we should note that it is outside our charter, which is limited to the "Western Canon.""Is it outside the Western Canon, though? I originally would have thought so, but no less an authority than Harold Bloom has it on his list — http://sonic.net/~rteeter/grtbloom.html. Some day I’ll have to read the book that this list comes from to fully understand his rationale that they are included because of their influence, but I think it shows the lines can be more broadly drawn than they have been in the past. His list also includes more recent authors where at one time to be in the Western Canon required a long waiting period…
That is a big question of West and East, where is the border, etc. Particularly from where I am: here a shallow (but long) river a couple kilometres to the south formally separates Asia and Europe. But I believe we mean civilisations, and if I remember it correctly, the Western Civilization began from some communities around Fertile Crescent, who invented the peculiar structure of society that is so obvious for us (because it is everywhere now), but wasn't known in other part of the world. And authors of Gita belonged to this same root. Of course it was quite isolated part of Western World, and became quite different from the other parts of it. But it had contacts on different levels, e.g. Greek philosophy and Buddhism had significant impact on each other at some point. So for me Gitta is rightly a part of Western Canon.
Susan wrote: "Roger wrote: "I enjoyed reading the Gita, and in fact I voted for it, but we should note that it is outside our charter, which is limited to the "Western Canon.""Is it outside the Western Canon, ..."
It's interesting that Bloom includes the Gita, as well as the rest of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, but does not include any Chinese or Japanese classics. What would make him include the one and not the other? Are the Indian works closer to the West?
As a point of interest, St. John's College now includes the Bhagavad Gita, as well as Daode Jing and Zhuangzi as elective works in the reading list for Juniors and Seniors in the undergraduate program in the Great Books program.
Thomas wrote: "As a point of interest, St. John's College now includes the Bhagavad Gita, as well as Daode Jing and Zhuangzi as elective works in the reading list for Juniors and Seniors in the undergraduate prog..."Annapolis, Santa Fe, or both? And does "elective" mean a preceptorial?
Roger wrote: " It's interesting that Bloom includes the Gita, as well as the rest of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, but does not include any Chinese or Japanese classics. What would make him include the one and not the other? Are the Indian works closer to the West?"In the brief info at the top of the link, Bloom explains a bit:
”I have included some Sanskrit works, scriptures and fundamental literary texts, because of their influence on the Western canon. The immense wealth of ancient Chinese literature is mostly a sphere apart from Western literary tradition and is rarely conveyed adequately in the translations available to us."
Roger wrote: "Annapolis, Santa Fe, or both? And does "elective" mean a preceptorial?."Here’s a link to the St John’s reading list, which notes that works may be read on one campus or both campuses, but doesn’t specify: https://www.sjc.edu/academic-programs.... It also doesn’t explain what’s meant by “works” and “elective” although it does show subject areas for each title.
Susan wrote: "Roger wrote: "Annapolis, Santa Fe, or both? And does "elective" mean a preceptorial?."Here’s a link to the St John’s reading list, which notes that works may be read on one campus or both campuse..."
It looks to me like the "electives" include both works studied in preceptorials (one elective class in each of Junior and Senior years) and in tutorials (different faculty may use different texts in the same curriculum).
Roger wrote: "It looks to me like the "electives" include both works studied in preceptorials (one elective class in each of Junior and Senior years) )..."I found this page and they do appear to be preceptorials.
https://www.sjc.edu/academic-programs...
And a little more about the undergraduate curriculum for those who aren't familiar with St. John's:
https://www.sjc.edu/academic-programs...
This is the structure for the 4-year undergrad program which focuses on the classics of the west. SJC (on the Santa Fe campus) also has graduate programs in Eastern Classics, and a new program in Middle Eastern Classics.
Alexey wrote: "That is a big question of West and East, where is the border, etc. Particularly from where I am: here a shallow (but long) river a couple kilometres to the south formally separates Asia and Europe...."As you point out, another connection/influence is the Indo-European origins of both cultures and languages. This could play a role in Bloom’s thoughts about Indian and Far Eastern influences.
I'm more impressed by the differences between the Gita and the Western classical world than by the similarities. In the Classical world gods appear to men to warn, to advise, or to punish. They don't deliver an 18-book pep talk on philosophy, the cycle of rebirth, the nature of reality, and how to achieve salvation.
Roger wrote: "I'm more impressed by the differences between the Gita and the Western classical world than by the similarities. In the Classical world gods appear to men to warn, to advise, or to punish. They don..."Yes, I agree with you. Just some words that they may be not so different, however. In Classical world, this function is reserved to the late philosophers, and some of them could become quasi divine figures, though of course none of them became a major deity. Afaik, there is little known for sure about the development of Krishna before he was unified with Vishna, but some hypotheses assume that he was a 'real' king and philosopher or religious reformer who was deified by his followers. But these are only theories. Supposedly, Gita went through nine centuries of oral development before being 'fixed' in written form; who knows what would be Socrates if Plato's dialogues had the same fate.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
The Blood: The Stone’s Blade: Book One (other topics)Chesca and the Spirit of Grace (other topics)
Chesca and the Spirit of Grace (other topics)
In Chapter 17 Arjuna asks about those who have faith but do not follow the scriptures. This question may be prompted by the fact that the Sankhya school of philosophy does not recognize gods or sacrifices. Is Arjuna asking this for himself? Does Arjuna lack faith in Krishna, despite all of his arguments and demonstrations?
Krishna says all creatures have faith of some kind; "A person is what his shradda (faith) is." He describes the three types of faith in terms of the gunas: sattvic faith is self-disciplined and follows the scriptures (which appears to ignore Arjuna's query.) Rajasic faith is self-aggrandizing, worshipping power and wealth. Tamasic faith is ignorant, worshipping phantoms and things with no substance.
Krishna says the Vedic scriptures, priests, and rituals come from Brahman (but doesn't everything come from Brahman?) which is represented by the three words Om Tat Sat. Non-Hiindus will have to go to a commentary to know what this means:
Om is the most ancient of Hindu mantrams; it is the sacred syllable that is Brahman, the cosmic sound heard in the depths of meditation. Tat is 'That', the supreme reality beyond what language can describe or thought can think. And Sat means both 'that which is' and 'that which is good.' The mantram Om Tat Sat affirms that only the good really exists; the opposite word, asat, implies that evil is transient and is therefore not ultimately real. (Diana Morrison in the Easwaran translation)
To repeat these words appears to be an affirmation of faith in the goodness of ultimate reality or Brahman.