Arjuna's Dilemma

[vcindiana]

In Ch 1: 25 and 26 First thing that is mentioned here is the FEAR factor and it is well expressed. Dry mouth and hair standing are the physical signs of getting scared or fright or even panic. His mind is reeling, His bow is dropping, and he cannot hold it any longer. He is not able to even stand. Arjuna, a very powerful warrior is totally overwhelmed looking at his own relatives ready to fight with him. It appears FEAR is the first one that enters his mind before he thinks about the Sin factor.
Ch 1: 27 are about SUPERSTITION. He is seeing the omens. Arjuna considers these inauspicious.
In subsequent verses Arjuna changes the gear. Now, he tells Krishna that he does not want to kill them and starts to give his reasons.
He brings the Sin factor; he must have studied or known fully about this. I presume he learnt this from Vedas. He knows killing a human being is one of the worse sins and it carries its own Karma Phala.
It is interesting Arjuna is not only concerned about damnation that would happen to him, but also worried about its effect on family.
He picks on women especially, they are the ones going to become corrupt and he is worried about intermixture of castes as the higher class women will start to have relationship with lower caste men!!
Then comes the destruction of the races and all are doomed to hell.
Ancestors of their race will fall because of lack of Ceremonial offerings of Sharaddha and tarpana.
Again it is about caste, Arjuna is worried about loss of traditions and customs of the race and the race would dwell in hell for indefinite period of time.
He settles for Renunciation of all earthly desires and finds reclusive life of Abstinence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My observations and questions: 1. Regardless how bold or confident or powerful one, there can be a period of time one will be overwhelmed by an opposing person. Fear is natural and Arjuna cannot be an exception.
2. Arjuna must have read this Sin theory well somewhere. Was he given wrong message or he understood in a wrong way?
3. If the Karmic law says bad thing always bring bad things how can a little Grace from God wipe out any huge Sin?
4. Why Arjuna is mostly concerned about the problem with intermixture of caste, I presume this is not his idea; it must have come from Vedas? (I may be wrong) Why does he talk about superstitions, corrupted women and ceremonial things?
Please correct me if I am wrong, it appears to me these are clear historical facts. Earlier religious belief s were very much about
1. Strict Caste system
2. Accrual of sin by killing other people
3. Making up the sins already committed, by having ceremonial observances such as sacrificing animals/plants or some other ritualistic temple theology things in the hope of washing away the sins
4. Superstitions
5. To live a reclusive life of absenteeism to become a Sanyasi or hermit and try to live away from this world.
Evolving from these thoughts BG gives me fresher thoughts. In BG, I did not find Krishna directly answering to any of Arjuna’s concerns. I conclude his concerns were not relevant in a bigger picture.
Hope we can discuss this well.
Love………………………VC

[Sudarshan]

Namaste vnc,

My observations and questions: 1. Regardless how bold or confident or powerful one, there can be a period of time one will be overwhelmed by an opposing person. Fear is natural and Arjuna cannot be an exception.

True. But remember this context is spiritual. kurukshetra is of deep philosophical significance and not a mere place of war. Arjuna is a yogi of a tall order unlike most of us. Yes, he can get sometimes get overwhelmed by bhagavat mAyA inspite of being a jnAni.


2. Arjuna must have read this Sin theory well somewhere. Was he given wrong message or he understood in a wrong way?

Neither. I cant elaborate because it would be too long. Arjuna's doubts are encountered by everyone at some point of time. Many of us have no doubts because we choose to blindly follow some tradition. A true seeker is full of doubts all the time and does not choose to believe in any absolute truth without experiencing it.


3. If the Karmic law says bad thing always bring bad things how can a little Grace from God wipe out any huge Sin?

It does not. People merely believe that God's grace saves them from their sins. They cant prove it. Repentence is good because it prevents you from repeatedly indulging in sin and saves you from future sin. All past actions can be overturned by turning over a new leaf because it is the present that matters. Past is past and cant be reversed. Future is unknown. So utlize your present to the fullest without worrying about your past sins or its future consequences. As long as your present is good, God is with you as long as you dont get back into your old ways. God does not wipe out any sins, that is a dangerous teaching for the world. DOes that mean I can kill someone and expect God to wipe my sins? Isn't that thinking flawed by itself? Christains have killed people over the ages because they thought that God forgives the sins of a christian. It is an immoral teaching. We must be mature enough to take responsibility for our actions and pay the consequences. Some people are still immature so they have to be taught that their sins have been paid for by the death of the son of God.




4. Why Arjuna is mostly concerned about the problem with intermixture of caste, I presume this is not his idea; it must have come from Vedas? (I may be wrong) Why does he talk about superstitions, corrupted women and ceremonial things?

So what you do not believe is superstition? What about the stories of Adam and Eve? Are they also superstitions? Omens are a part of the belief of some Hindus. You cannot call them superstition just because you do not believe in them. Some one might call God a superstition as well. Your comments are based on a textual reading of the Gita sans its philosophical understanding.




Please correct me if I am wrong, it appears to me these are clear historical facts. Earlier religious belief s were very much about
1. Strict Caste system

Yes, but caste system is a spiritual classification - it is not physical though people continued to believe so due to ignorance. Whar do you say about the christians calling others as heathens, devil worshippers etc? How is it better than the caste system in its present form?



2. Accrual of sin by killing other people

Does this even need an explanation? It is a sin to kill others regardless of whether you believe some being sitting in the sky forgives your or not.

3. Making up the sins already committed, by having ceremonial observances such as sacrificing animals/plants or some other ritualistic temple theology things in the hope of washing away the sins

All these are based on textual and superficial interpretations of religeous texts. Not all rituals are blind. Vedic rituals work at the level of the subtle body. Mantras produce spiritual vibrations that redeem sins. Visiting holy places brings us to a spiritual vibrant atmosphere that makes us think pure and holy and reduces our sins. So all these are not empty rituals.



4. Superstitions

No comments. You have a habit of calling whatever you dont believe as a superstition. As if your beliefs were not superstitious to some of us.



5. To live a reclusive life of absenteeism to become a Sanyasi or hermit and try to live away from this world.

This is suitable for some people, not all. No vedic text teaches exclusive renunciation though it is good to be a renunciate ( in practice) if possible. You cannot become a hermit by simply going to a forest. Your thoughts will always chase you. True renunciation is in the mind, not the body. Ultimately you have to relinquish the mind as well and go beyond. You can live as a hermit as a house holder as well. Yes, it is necessary to become a hermit to achieve liberation but it does not necessarily involve running away from the world. You can achieve it in the midst of worldly life if your mind is ready to live like a hermit( who sees every one equally and acts dispassionately) in the midst of worldly life.

[atanu]

Namaste vnc,

3. If the Karmic law says bad thing always bring bad things how can a little Grace from God wipe out any huge Sin?

It does not. People merely believe that God's grace saves them from their sins. They cant prove it. Repentence is good because it prevents you from repeatedly indulging in sin and saves you from future sin. All past actions can be overturned by turning over a new leaf because it is the present that matters. Past is past and cant be reversed. Future is unknown. So utlize your present to the fullest without worrying about your past sins or its future consequences. As long as your present is good, God is with you as long as you dont get back into your old ways. God does not wipe out any sins, that is a dangerous teaching for the world. DOes that mean I can kill someone and expect God to wipe my sins? Isn't that thinking flawed by itself? Christains have killed people over the ages because they thought that God forgives the sins of a christian. It is an immoral teaching. We must be mature enough to take responsibility for our actions and pay the consequences. Some people are still immature so they have to be taught that their sins have been paid for by the death of the son of God.

Namaste Sudarshan,

What you say is correct, as one is responsible for one's actions. Yet, the Karuna aspect of God ensures grace through the means of Viveka. Else, how one repents? The realisation of a negative deed done (sin in Christian parlance) is itself the grace.

In Sanatana dharma, any act that takes one away from yuktAtman state is adharmic karma. Any act that helps to attain and remain in yuktAtma state is dharmic karma. Yet unswerving Viveka that ever guides itself is the grace.

Om

[vcindiana]

Chapter 1 in BG appears to me has a huge purpose. I recognize this is a setup for a bigger purpose. I realize Geeta is more than a religious doctrine. The situation may be viewed as the battleground I find myself in on a daily basis. The author, Vyasa must have a thought well about this. Krishna does not start out with his teaching and actually waits till Arjuna recognizes his weakness of dejection/ dilemma/confusion and comes to his knees. He physically expresses his fears, then his superstition about the omen and then most importantly his mis? understanding about the law of Karma. His fears about Karmic effects on himself, his family, race, traditions, customs and even on his dead ancestors. He does not directly ask Krishna what he should do but he finds his own answer by settling into ideology of renunciation of all earthly desires and reclusive life of Abstinence. I guess he is bluntly telling Krishna, “Hey my friend Krishna, I am NOT going to do this, this is too much for me to take.”

Love..................VC

[vcindiana]

As I continue to ponder about Arjun’s dilemma here are some of my personal observations in Chapter One of BG.

1. Meaning of Dharmaksetra and Kurukshetra:

I find battlefield of Kuruksetra, a place of constant conflict between the good and the bad. Also it is a place of uncertainty, a place of confusion, a place of dilemma, a place of dejection etc. It is also a place (Dharmaksetra) to discover knowledge and wisdom to do righteous action to the best of my ability. Dharmakshetra is significant to me in the sense that it is analytical and discerning. A Conscious mind has to choose the right action before any emotion, dogma or doctrines. I hope to explore this more in my future posts.

Love..................VC

[vcindiana]

2. Dilemma:

It is easier for me to choose good over the bad things. It is easier to spot black and white things. Unique thing about Kuruksetra is in choosing the “right” in gray situations. It is hard (dilemma) to choose between what appear to be equally “good” things. For me such situations arise from time to time and I have had hard time choosing one over the other. Retrospectively good outcomes have always been preceded by “right” decisions and I am thankful to those decisions I made. As I read in BG chapter 1, I see how Arjuna is seized with this type of dilemma. The example given in BG is very appropriate. Krishn even though he meant to everyone, for a greater purpose that need to be discovered, does not give example by explaining to a Brahmin or a Vaishya or Shudra. I see Arjun, a warrior by profession had to make a choice between
1. Fighting in a war that involved pain, suffering, and killing, destruction, violence or the “Himsa” at its best.
Or 2. Running away from the battle field for the sake of dogma or doctrine of Ahimsa or nonviolence. Nonviolence or Ahimsa is one of the most fundamental tenets of Hinduism. I want to see whether Krishn gives a straight answer and how he defines "Ahimsa" which is the core of the Hindu thought in the subsequent chapters.

[vcindiana]

3. Timing of this event is very interesting, how this concept was introduced in Mahabarata just before the war. Long diplomatic efforts have failed and elaborate war preparations have been made to begin the battle. All the warriors are assembled and both parties have blown their respective whistles (conches). There have been loud noises of the conch shells, bugles, trumpets, drums and horns. The atmosphere is very tense. There is pure adrenaline. There is a heightened sensation among both the parties ready to fight. Geeta has a great purpose to set this stage up. Arjuna is a great warrior and he knows his strength. For years he had been trained to fight and it is only just before the war it occurs to him that this war is wrong. Natural instinct, past upbringing, past education, dogma, experiences etc often play unconscious (not Self) roles in this quick decision making process. More than anything else, emotional factor which is equally unconscious thing plays a major role as I follow Arjun’s thinking. Geeta (text 27) says “krpaya parayavistovisidann”, meaning that he was deeply moved by the impending destruction of his relatives and own people. These are the people he was brought up with, he has eaten with them, played with them, gone to school with them and perhaps celebrated several happy birth day parties with them. Arjun never thought about these things till they are just ready to fight. Author Vyasa knows when to strike it! Crisis situations, at least to me happen in a short period of time with little notice. Often these are real tests or dilemmas in my life. Somehow I need to act fast to swing my bat. There is not much time to think. Usually I find comfort in choosing in what I am already used to and I often get carried away by my emotional reaction. But I learn that this option is not the best as I see further in Geeta.

[vcindiana]

4. Fear: Arjun’s first reaction was fear as it is well described in the verses 28, 29 and 30 “sidanti mama gatrani ….mukham ca parisusyati … vepathus ca sarire me ….roma-harsas…..gandivam sramsate hastat …..tvak caiva paridahyate ..” quivering of limbs of body, drying of mouth, trembling of the body, standing of the hair, slipping of weapon from the hand, burning of skin are the very descriptive physical signs of panic or getting scared or frightened. These are natural sympathetic (physiologic) responses. His body is really shaking, he mentions this twice! Hyperventilation in response to anxiety or fear can make mouth dry. There is a tiny muscle at the base of each hair making the hair to go erect in response to fright. (goose bumps). His palms are sweaty and slippery and his bow is dropping as he no longer can hold it. Skin is burning as it gets flushed with more blood. (Vasodilatation).
Then he goes on to say … na ca saknomy avasthatum… He is not even able to stand as the parasympathetic response (vasovagal ) also comes to play in response to fear. I wonder in spite of being a great warrior, he becomes overwhelmed at least for a period of time, by looking at the powerful enemy that consisted of Bhishma, Drona and Karna assembled to fight. I guess this is natural and it reveals his basic human response. Also I see a sign of humility to find his (human) weakness in spite of his strength. He knows he is not "God". I love this guy's reaction, He is not different from me!.

It is an interesting to note that Arjun's fear is in contrast to the falsely fearless Duryodana's earlier boasting remarks about the strength of his military power and showmanship.
Verse 30 goes on to say “bhramativa ca me manahnimittani ca pasyami “ that his mind is reeling by forgetting himself. I guess fear leads to delusion or false belief and irrationality. Arjun in this mind sees omens and considers these not auspicious. In fear everything I see or hear is negative. Negative thoughts dominate under the grip of fear, my mind gets blurred and there is little Conscience or Self in it.

Love....................VC

[vcindiana]

From verse 31 it appears his initial fear factor is over. He changes his gear here. Arjun, not clear about the purpose of killing his own kinsmen, starts to question about the anything good in post war victory, life and happiness.

Verses 32 to 35 are like “timeout”, a time to clearly analyze things just before we actually engage in a work or an event. Here it is a battle that is about to begin any time now and at this heightened moment Arjuna expresses his no desire in the victory and he decides not to fight.

Arjun at first, seems to be blinded by the emotional feelings as I see him (verse 26 and 32 ) identifying the enemies individually as fathers, fathers-in-law, grandfathers, teachers, maternal uncles, brothers, sons, grandsons, friends etc. These were the very people he grew up. He ate with them, played with them, went to school with them and probably celebrated some happy birth day parties with them. The emotional impact is so strong that he thinks it is not good to fight with them even in exchange of the three worlds (verse 34).

Arjun having decided not to fight, in verse 36, starts to reason with Krishna by stating his own understanding about the nature of the sin. He must have gathered this information from Vedas. He knows he is a warrior but he finds sin of killing worse than his obligation in fighting. He feels this would cause greater damage. When he says in verse 36 “papam evasrayed asman hatvaitan atatayinah “he is very much convinced that the sin of killing will certainly (eva) come back to him. His thoughts seem to be based on his understanding of religious doctrines, dogmas and the concept of Karma.

In verse 37 Arjun rightly points out that it is the greed (lobha) that results in sinful activities such as hatred (drohe) and killing. Greed is all about me, it is the ego thing and as Arjun puts it well, it is ‘lobhopahata-cetasah” meaning greed overpowers the heart leading to sins. He knows there is no heart or Love in greed. His enemies in their greed do not see anything wrong in killing, but he himself without greed cannot justify killing or sinning.. This is indeed a “common sense, one way” statement.

But in verse 38, he being a self proclaimed expert in knowing this, questions the purpose of killing. I can see his confusion whether killing or violence or Himsa is always the result of greed? If I understood right, greed can lead to killing, violence and pure Himsa, but these things can occur without greed. Is Himsa without greed Ahimsa ? I also equally get confused about this conflict. Nonviolence or Ahimsa is one of the most fundamental tenets of Hinduism, but not "Greed"!. I think without factoring the “greed”, the word Ahimsa is meaningless. I find this is very much misunderstood even today when I hear so much talk about Himsa and Ahimsa but not about its source that is Greed. Arjun knowingly or unknowingly mentions the word “heart” here. That makes sense to me, this is about “Love” which is the absolute and the Himsa and ahimsa are the relative things. Here I wait for Krishna’s response in the subsequent chapters.

Love………………….VC

[srivijaya]

I find battlefield of Kuruksetra, a place of constant conflict between the good and the bad. Also it is a place of uncertainty, a place of confusion, a place of dilemma, a place of dejection etc. It is also a place (Dharmaksetra) to discover knowledge and wisdom to do righteous action to the best of my ability.

I think that Kuruksetra is where we all stand, every day. The army who face us are all those to whom we owe so much and who have made us what we are: our desires, our prejudices, our opinions, our intellect, our ego and self-grasping mind.

Please ask yourself this question honestly (as I often do) - where would you be without them? Seriously, would your life have any meaning? Would it not be some kind of miserable void? Have they not (in one way or another) brought you the things you desired? Haven't they taught you all you know and lead you through the world? Are they not life-affirming friends with your best interests at heart?

So, now you have the ingratitude and perhaps even the stupidity to draw your bow against them, to take up arms on the field of Kuruksetra.

Surely it would be easier to leave things as they are but there is the small matter of the divine in your chariot showing you the compromise you make every time you bend your neck to their yoke. It would be easier to hand them the victory and dress it up as a grand self-effacing gesture but this is cowardice and somewhere inside, you know it too.

When you draw the arrow, do so without doubt or hesitation. The time for soul-searching is over. There is only the moment, the space, the arrow, the quarry.

Victory is not guaranteed - failure is waiting for us. No one said it would easy, but interesting it most certainly is.

Well, that's my take on this wonderful scripture.

namaste

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namaste,
It is my opinion that kurukśhetra¹ is in fact the world we live in, the field of the senses of action. Yet the instuctions from Kṛṣṇa is how to live within this field of action without blemish.
How does one do his/her duties without the binding influence of action that propells one to rebirth, again and again? To this, skill in action is the song of the Lord i.e. Bhāgavad gītā. To think one can do this by thinking, by acting within the world of the 3 guna-s is delusion.

One must go beyond the 3 guna-s so they do not act and influnce one's judgement - this is the skill Kṛṣṇa suggests to Arjuna and the world. To think rightious action will be performed without living and breathing svātantrya¹, independent consciousness, Being, is to be caught up in the ocean with no rudder. One is pushed from here to there at the whim of the guna-s, desires, and the graha-s¹.

Actions are the virtue and ownership of the 3 guna-s; One's true nature, Divine nature, the SELF, is uninvolved in actions.

The wise, those established in sattā (Being, Fullness, śaśvat¹) gain freedom from the binding influence of action; Knowing the full meaning of action and inaction is another story. Yet to consider the notion of action and inaction that Kṛṣṇa offers without considering Being, the SELF, misses the whole point of the conversation with Arjuna.

So where does action in inaction come in? Verse 20. Kṛṣṇa says 'even though fully engaged in action he does not act at all'. When one is established in the silence of the Self, this is the condition of Self-referral. One's identity is on that level , not with the body or actions or height, width, color, etc. all productions of the 3 gunas.
That is why one associated and established with the SELF can say I do not act at all ( I = aham), what acts is the 3 guna-s.


...truely there is in this world nothing so purifiying as knowledge -Bhāgavad gītā Chapt 4.38


pranams


words


svātantrya स्वातन्त्र्य -independence; one's own will, of one's own free choice
kurukśhetra कुरुक्षेत्र - the field of the kuru-s; kuru is the ancestor of both pāṇḍu and dhṛtarāṣṭra

graha ग्रह - that which binds, seizing , laying hold of , holding i.e. the planets of Jyotish
śaśvat शश्वत्- eternal , constant , perpetual , evermore

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namaste


So where does action in inaction come in? Verse 20. Kṛṣṇa says 'even though fully engaged in action he does not act at all'. When one is established in the silence of the Self, this is the condition of Self-referral. One's identity is on that level , not with the body or actions or height, width, color, etc. all productions of the 3 gunas.
That is why one associated and established with the SELF can say I do not act at all ( I = aham), what acts is the 3 guna-s.

Yet what does this person (yogī) experience? One śloka of the Śiva sūtras 2.9 suggests the following,
jñānamannam |

This one word is very potent. The roots of the sūtra is jñāna¹ (knowing) +anna¹(food). But what is the wisdom in this one sūtra? We look for help from svāmī Lakṣman-jū. He tells us differentiated perception (jñāna) is his ( yogī is implied from the subject matter of Chapt 2) food (anna). But what does this mean?
The yogī that is established in the SELF (āhaṁ) consumes the differented (diversity) perception. That is, the multiplicity of the world, of thoughts, of sight, objects,etc. are consumed into undifferentiated awareness.

This śloka can also be read as knowledge of his/her own nature (SELF) is his/her food.

Now svāmī-ji refers to the Bhargaśikhā śastra to assist in this understanding: In that state (of Being) where the yogī carries all differentiated perception into one Supreme Consciousness ( God Consciousness) and digests it, not only are differentiated perceptions (diversity of creation) digested but also death, time, all actions good or bad and all discussions of the question of monism, or dualism are also digested in the supreme oneness of God Consciousness.

I offer this because it gives one a deeper understanding of the quote above i.e. this is the condition of Self-Referral, of svatantraya¹ that was mentioned in post 11.

It points out the wholeness of the sadhu (yogī), that his/her consciousness is established in the fullness of being, bhūma¹. All diversity is consumed as if it were food. And from this consumption it brings delight.
The diversity of life coming through the senses i.e. eyes, nose, tongue, ears, etc. is considered food. He/she is complete in the SELF of Being (sattā) because the knowledge of his/her real SELF brings complete satisfaction.
Hence it also tells us there is no trying to be good/bad. All is done, all is complete, and one is the enjoyer of the world; One has gone beyond effort and trying.

pranams


words

bhūman भूमन् - the aggregate of all existing things ; fullness, abundence.
jñāna ज्ञान knowing , becoming acquainted with , knowledge;
anna अन्न - food; rooted in ad अद् to eat, consume,
svātantrya स्वातन्त्र्य -independence; one's own will, of one's own free choice

[vcindiana]

Continuation of Arjun's dilemma.............as I see it

In verse 39 Arjuna now convinced of his understanding on sins, continues to lecture Krishn in defense of his non refusal to fight.

Now he goes further telling about all the evil things that would happen with the sinful action of fighting in this war. Sinful action, as I understood and so did Arjun was an action that carried bad karmic repercussions. Arjun now starts to list these explicitly. He has done his homework. Here it appears Krishn purposely lets Arjun to do all the "talking" without interruption.

“As sin takes hold of the family, it destroys the entire family” There will be loss of age old traditions and customs. Dharma or the religion will be destroyed, the family will transform into irreligious (Adharmic) practices. Women folks become corrupt, ( Arjun does not say about men.) These women will have relationship with people of lower caste and intermixture of castes will then be ensued. Once the caste system goes away there will be destruction of the race and it will be a hellish experience. With the loss of family tradition, customs, rituals and ceremonies, there will be no proper person to perform Shrada and Tarpans. This would result in the fall of the dead ancestors. People who have lost family traditions will enter Hell and stay there indefinitely. It sounds powerful defense on the part of Arjun. Even though he went to military school, he also learnt some Vedas as well. Personally I do not know whether the Vedas say that way. Some experts in this forum can explain that. Whatever it is, this kind of thinking about Women, Caste and ceremonial rituals are very much alive even now for good or bad reasons. I wonder are these any different from the way Arjun thought just before the war?

Arjun after arguing his case on his own behalf decides to disarm himself. I guess Chapter One sets up a stage for me to learn from Krishn in the subsequent chapters. Am I going to see Krishn debunking all the above understandings of Arjun ?

Love................VC