For Friday: Finish The Bhagavad Gita, Chs.16-18

No questions, but we'll do a brief in-class response to an important idea/passage from the last three chapters on Friday. After this, you'll get a nice break because (a) we'll be moving onto modern works--all from the 20th century, and (b) we'll screen a film in class next week and discuss it as a break from heavier reading. Stay tuned to learn more about it...

For Wednesday: The Bhagavad Gita, Chs. 12-15

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: In Chapter 13, Krishna is explaining the ‘freedoms’ needed to break away from ignorance, among which is, “Freedom from the chains of attachments, even from a selfish attachment to one’s children, wife, or home; an ever-present evenness of mind in pleasant or unpleasant events” (63). Does this mean that human relationships are ‘evil,’ in that they create delusion and lead men and women away from the light of truth? Is human love wrong or deluded? How did you read this passage/chapter in light of the rest of the book?

Q2: Throughout the book, and especially in these chapters, Krishna warns of the danger of following thoughts of “I” or “mine.” What is wrong with a sense of self? Is it possible to be without such a sense? Why might the individual consciousness be the root of all delusion, according to Krishna? What might this mean to a culture (Western/American) that believes individuality and personality is the most important thing you own?

Q3: Elsewhere in Chapter 13, Krishna says that “when a man sees that the God in himself is the same God in all that is, he hurts not himself by hurting others; then he goes indeed to the highest Path” (64). Isn’t this a contradiction? If Arjuna kills warriors on the other side—warriors that are also him—isn’t he hurting himself by hurting others? Is there another way to read this?

Q4: According to Chapter 14, what is the significance of the “three constituents of nature,” Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas? How do we know if our work falls under their shadow, and how can we escape it?

For Monday: The Bhagavad Gita, Chapters 7-11

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: In Chapter 11, Arjuna begs to see Krishna’s divine form, as it truly exists; once Krishna gives him the ability to do so, he sees a bewildering number of forms and visions. In one of them, he sees Krishna as a “vast form, reaching the sky, burning with many colors, with wide open mouths, with vast flaming eyes,” who eats the greatest heroes and crushes their heads “into powder” (55). Why does Krishna, who claims to be “whatever is beautiful and good”(51) also appear as a monster and a killer? And how might this remind you of something else we read earlier this semester?

Q2: Krishna is very critical of those who merely follow the laws (Vedas) or who worship expecting an eternal paradise at the end. Strangely, he seems more tolerant of people of others faiths, or even of people with little faith at all, but who exhibit a “pure heart.” Why would someone ignorant of the laws often have a better chance at salvation than those who know and study them religiously, according to the text?

Q3: These chapters talk a little more explicitly about the concept of Karma, and how it shapes the lives and fates of men and women. What is Karma and how does it work, according to the text? Also, based on Karma, why is Arjuna’s refusal to fight rather pointless?

Q4: In many religions, the world is seen as a constant struggle between the forces of light and darkness, good and evil. While this does play a role in The Bhagavad Gita, why is the idea of good vs. evil not entirely correct, according to Krishna? Why is this, too, a mark of delusion which leads men to suffering? (you might also consider how the text relates to the Tao concept of yin/yang).

For Friday: The Bhagavad Gita, Chs. 3-6

There are no questions this time, since we only scratched the surface during Wednesday's class. So we'll recap some of what we discussed as well as uncover a few more details from Chs.3-4, as well as a few ideas from 5 and 6 if time allows. When you arrive in class, we'll have an in-class response based on a passage/idea from Chs.3-4. 

I also hope to return your papers to you on Friday. Besides your paper grade, I'll also include a sticky note with how many absences/missed responses you have since we're nearing Mid-Term. 

See you on Friday! 

For Wednesday: The Bhagavad Gita, Parts 1-4

NOTE: The Bhagavad Gita is actually a small part of a much larger work, and thus occurs in the middle of the action. To give you some context, I’m quoting from our Introduction which gives a very succinct overview: 

“The Bhagavad Gita takes place at a critical point deep within the Mahabharata. Two vast armies stand mustered almost ready to close in battle. The assembled warriors come from the length and breadth of the known world. The dispute they hope to resolve is one of kingdom and honor between rival sets of cousins, the Pandavas, sons of Pandu, and the Kaurvas, sons of Dhritarashtra, Pandu’s blind elder brother…Arjuna, the most distinguished warrior in the Pandava army, surveys his adversaries and expresses to Krishna, his charioteer and great friend, his resolve not to fight. The opposing forces contain many with whom the Pandavas have no quarrel: moreover, these include highly esteemed teachers and elders. Arjuna’s scruples center on the imagined personal consequences of fighting: his guilt for the decimation of his people. Krishna speaks with him—the Bhagavad Gita is their dialogue—until he is once more resolved to fight.”

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Despite all the strange and exotic names used in this book, what makes Krishna’s dilemma a completely universal (and relatable) one? Quote a specific passage from the opening pages that might be asked today, and is a legitimate response to the horrors and complications of war.

Q2: What does Krishna mean when he says, “And do thy duty, even if it be humble, rather than another’s, even if it be great. To die in one’s duty is life: to live in another’s is death” (20)? Does this statement justify murder and bloodshed? Isn’t he suggesting that since Arjuna was born a prince he has to fight and kill like a prince? Do you find this a convenient statement, or does it have another meaning?

Q3: In a passage that sounds like the Tao te ching, Krishna says, “The unreal never is: the Real never is not” (11). How might this connect to an important idea in the Tao te ching and does it mean the same thing here?  Isn’t this a complicated way to say “real things are real, unreal things are unreal”? Or is it trickier than that?

Q4: One of the central teachings of Hinduism and Buddhism is right action—or as Krishna says, “Set thy heart upon work, but never on its reward” (13). Why is this important? If the job gets done, and the work is good, does it matter in what spirit the work is done? Can anyone really tell if a building is constructed by someone who doesn’t want money?

For Wednesday: Finish the Tao te ching

No questions for Wednesday--we'll have an in-class writing response based on some aspect of the remaining poems. Here are some ideas you might want to consider...

* "It is on disaster that good fortune perches"

* "it is because the sage never attempts to be great that he succeeds in becoming great"

* "to rule a state by cleverness will be to the determent of the state"

* "the virtue of non-contention"

* "I dare not play the host but the guest"

* "My words are very easy to understand and very easy to put into practice, yet no one in the world can understand them or put them into practice"

* "A man is supple and weak when living, but hard and stiff when dead"

* "Straightforward words seem paradoxical"

For Monday: Tao te Ching, Book 2: Poems 38-60 (pp.45-67)

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Many of these poems seem to suggest that it is better not to know than to know; better not to go than to go; better not to do than to do. Is this a philosophy of being lazy and ignorant? If so, why should we read a book at all? What IS the meaning of these seeming paradoxes (look at Poem 47 (XLVII) in particular.

Q2: We discussed the idea that these poems might have been intended for a ruler to guide his people, and several poems in this selection also use the language of an emperor to his empire. Why might this also be an effective metaphor for someone who wields no power and is just a normal man or woman in society? Why might it be important to think of yourself as the ruler of a vast kingdom?

Q3: One of the most famous statements in the Tao te ching occurs in poem 56 (LVI): "One who knows does not speak, one who speaks does not know." How does this echo an actual statement (or statements) in The Teachings of Ptahhotep or The Satire of the Trades? Why do you think both cultures place such importance on the art of speaking (or being silent)?

Q4: "The Way" cannot be explained or shown, but hinted at through a series of metaphors. Which metaphor in these poems did you feel was most effective at helping you 'see' some aspect of this teaching? Briefly discuss how the metaphor works in its poem.