We are in the last phase of the Chapter 1 where Arjuna explains to Krishna why he would not fight. He provides a learned argument as to why killing his 'own' people is an unpardonable sin. Next 17 chapters are on how Krishna refutes them.
The relevance to our daily life is something worth pondering about : In our daily life, we too 'live' by the very principles that Arjuna delineates. We too hold the very same moral and ethical values that Arjuna holds dear - and we call them worth defending. Question is : If they were wrong - as Krishna would later point out - where do we stand in our 'fight'. Are we fighting a wrong battle? I haven't resolved this issue within myself. I would really like some insights. Thanks!
Gopal
6 comments:
C.S. Lewis, American author of fiction and non-fiction, wrote a wonderful book titled "Mere Christianity." The basic premise of the book is that there is an inborn moral code that all humans possess regardless of culture. He refers to this as "The Law of Human Nature." He has studied the moral teachings of many different cultures and to no surprise, found that they are basically the same. For example, there is no moral code, neither Christian nor Jewish nor Hindu etc., that believes that being selfish is virutous. Similarly, are their any cultures "where people are admired for running away from battle"? Our intuitive Self knows what is "right" and "wrong." This issue is this: We don't always listen to our intuitive Self or in some cases we aren't even aware of its existence. So how does this apply to the opening chapter of the Gita?
Arjuna, trained as a warrior, goes into battle based on the belief that what he is doing is right...that he will be fighting for what is "right"...then when he discovers that he will have to kill members of his own family, his intuition kicks in...he's feels that this is "wrong." Krishna tells him to fight...that it is his duty.
I'd like to interject a summary of a Biblical story here from Genesis Chapter 22. This is an Old Testament story...written before the life of Christ. The story is about Abraham, a devout follower of God. God instructs Abraham, "Take your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and offer him as a burnt offering." So Abraham travels with his son, carrying wood and a knife, to make an offering to God. His son makes the observation, "where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" Abraham tells his son that God will provide the offering. When they reach their destination, Abraham builds an altar, binds his son and lays him on top of the wood. As he is preparing to slay his son, an angel calls to him, "Do not harm your son!... because you have not withheld your son, your only son, indeed the Lord will greatly bless you." At that time a ram catches his horns in a thicket and Abraham offers the animal as a burnt offering in place of his son.
In this story we can certainly imagine the anguish that Abraham must have felt in being asked to sacrifice his son as an offering to God. Intuition tells us that killing members of our family (immediate or otherwise) is "wrong." However, Abraham loved God so much that he was willing to give up anything, including his only son. If we truely know God, then our intuition tells us that it is "right" to do ANYTHING that God asks.
Likewise, Arjuna's intuition is telling him that killing members of his own family is "wrong." But his intuition to follow the instructions of God (the command to "fight..it is your duty" from Krishna) overrides.
It is often difficult to do what we know is "right." The examples in the stories of Abraham and the Gita are extreme examples. However, we are faced with challenges to choose a "righteous" path everyday...to gossip or not...to tell a little "white lie" or not...to have a second piece of cake or not...etc. We must listen to our intuitive Self and cultivate an awareness of what we KNOW in our hearts to be right...and then act according to that guidance.
Thanks for the insightful thought provoking comments!
I've been thinking about it from a different angle. I wish (WISH!!) to believe the existence of a system of morality that encompasses the ordinary 'everyday' morality as a subset.
For example, in science the everyday Newton's laws of motion are a 'special' case and a subset of 'Theory of Relativity'. To understand the workings of universe from the 'science' point of view Newton's laws of motions help, but till we really understand 'Theory of relativity', our understanding of universe remains incomplete.
Similarly, I am beginning to believe that Krishna's 17 part lecture on the 'secrets of life' is a 'General Theory of Life'. Our everyday morality (to which Arjuna and Abrahma too bound) is a special case, where we impose the limitations based on various assumptions - that we are this body, the body has relatives, it has social, moral, dharmic responsibilities etc.
As you say, Arjuna and Abraham faced 'extreme' situations where the limitations broke down and the 'General Theory' needed to be applied to resolve an otherwise irresolvable situation.
Or... may be I am taking the example of Newton's theory and 'General Theory' too far...??
Exactly, Gopal! Not that you are taking the laws of science too far, but that the struggles are presented through the limitations associated with having a body. C.S. Lewis goes on to explain..."Each man is at every moment subjected to several sets of law but there is only one of these which he is free to disobey. As a body, he is subjected to gravitation and cannont disobey it; if you leave him unsupported in mid-air, he has no more choice about falling than a stone has. As an organism, he is subjected to various biological laws which he cannot disobey any more than an animal can. That is, he cannot disboey those laws which he shares with other things; but the law which is peculiar to his human nature, the law he does not share with vegetables or inorganic things, is the one he can disobey if he chooses." You can expand this statement to include the Laws of the Universe...we have no choice but to follow these laws. However, God did not create "blind" followers. He has given the gift of choice. (What Lewis refers to as the Law of HUMAN Nature...vs. the Law of Nature.) In order to return to our Source, we have to choose to do so. We have to listen to the Divine within us.
Wonderful!
I have heard about CS Lewis's works, but haven't had a chance to read them yet. I'll add 'Mere Christianity' to my list of 'must read'.
Ah! the question of 'free will'... philosophically speaking, I do not believe it exists, but I haven't been (yet) able to bring to everyday life...in everyday life 'I' am still the originator of action (out of my 'free-will'. The every day explanation is easy... so here's my 'philo' (General Theory) version of it:
Take any action, even the smallest act...of writing these words...if I start analyzing when did the action 'begin', it begins as a 'thought', but I cannot really say 'I, Gopal, thought of the action at 'this' point in time'. Simply put there are too many variables involved!! Time, thought, the act of thought (is thought an action?) etc.
Further, is it 'my' thought, or is it a 'thought' that I 'caught'? When I meditate and focus on the origin of thought, I do observe that I 'cannot' think, I can only observe thoughts come and go (if I let them go), or begin to flow with the thoughts (if I get caught). So, 'thoughts' have an 'external origin' - this is my observation and I am personally convinced of it.
Question is what are 'Thoughts?' Where do they originate (since they do not originate in me - certainly not out of my effort). I can create 'situations' (by mentally preparing myself - example read a book etc.) where I can 'tune-into' a particular set of thoughts. Its like having a radio, all channels exists, and I can tune into any channel I want by turning a knob. I have tried it and it works. In fact, it works for everyone... whether someone accepts it or not... of course, everyone has a different 'tuning' frequency... and so on.
Lastly, when I 'flow with the thought' I provide a venue for 'action' (my body) to happen that originate in the thought. Sometime between these two (origin and action), I begin to take 'ownership' of the 'thought' and I call it 'my thought'. And here's what i believe : this is the point where my 'ego' arises - the merger of thought-body-ownership-action!
So, to put it all together, if thoughts are external, the merger of thought and body is 'I' then :
1. Who 'exactly' has the 'Free-will' - the thought? the body? the pseudo-entity that arises out of merger of the two?
2. Even if I assume 'I, Gopal' am the 'entity' then too, since the 'thought' is external, I do not have the free-will.
So, philosophically speaking, there's no 'free-will', there is an 'appearance of free-will' born out of the merger of thought-body-action and this is an instantaneous event. If we take it one step further, we can clearly see that - 'memory' too is a pseudo-stuff... and so on.
Now, all said, how do I translate it into 'daily-life'? Or, do I need to translate it into daily life? Is that what Krishna teaches Arjuna? If I do translate it, what 'principles' do I live by? The fall out questions are too many and I haven't really answered them to even a small extent.
I am sure Mr. Lewis has provided an insight into this stuff and am eager to know about it....Thanks!
Dear Lisa/Gopalji
Yesterday I was listening to Seema Dewan's talk on www.kingdomofsai.org --> videos --> interviews --> seema dewan part2 and she was talking about free will being the part of the cosmic will that we utilize. It was a very nice explanation, though I am not able to put it in exact words now. Part1 of her talk is excellent as well, and I thought I would pass it on to you.
Hari,
What a find!! The two part interview is really wonderful.
Here's the transcription of what she says about 'Free Will'. The discussion begins at : 18'24" of the interview (of course Part 2):
"There is nothing like free will. Free will is nothing because 'Ted' is isolated in this body. 'Ted' is not this body, if 'Ted' is this body, what happens when 'Ted's' body dies? Right? 'Ted' is still somewhere there...correct? So...[...] as long as you feel you are 'Ted' the 'will' gets isolated. Then the cosmic will, you cannot merge with it. Basically, even though this is a large room, you still say this space is 'for me'. This does not mean the (ed: rest of the room space) space is not there....it is there. It is one with the room, you are making use of only 'that' space. So 'free will' is nothing but making use of the restricted or limited portion of the Divine Will."
Great explanation!
Regards,
Gopal
Post a Comment