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?
CT Roan
ReplyDeleteNon Western Lit
10:00a - 10:50a MWF
Q3. There are definitely similarities between the two passages. While it carries the same idea of giving meaning to something taking away its meaning there is also a difference in subtly. In the Bhagavad Gita the line “The unreal never is: the Real never is not” (11) speaks more to possibilities available in a person's life. Things that you consider limited (careers, relationships, success) are only made limited if you view them that way. The idea limited to me is more of an idea of "oh that's an every person accomplishment that I'm meant to do one day." In the same breath you can reach for limitations you've set for unreal opportunities (a nice car, a big house, being President) by viewing them in the same light as the things you consider "real."
Q4. This is a grey area response. In one hand you've got the idea of finding fulfillment in the work of something in place of the end means. A modern example is attending college. While the end game of receiving your degree and getting a high paying job is important it's ultimately what you learn along the path and the things you accomplish that make up the genuine feeling of the accomplishment. In the same breath it's more of a feeling of power and fulfillment to others to reach the top of the mountain and achieve that goal. They don't care as much the filler that it takes to make up the degree as they do having that degree on their resume.
Yes, limits are always about perception and bias: yet what is never real will always be unreal. Just because you believe in something doesn't make it real or meaningful to anyone else. And belieiving in such things could hurt others--just as not fighting in the battle could create 'evil' for many others, even while following his 'good.'
DeleteShaynee Reynen
ReplyDeleteQ2: To me what Krishna means is do the work or what is expected of you no matter if you get recognized for the doing or not. For example, say you get assigned a group for a group project and none of the other class mates help you do the assignment and you do it all by yourself, whether the teacher knew only you did it or not that could be used as an example as doing something whether you are to get recognized for it or not. The quote, "To die in ones duty is life: to live in another is death" I think is saying is to just walk around and go through the motions in life is life but to live in another aspect of someone is harder. I think it could possibly be referring to murder as to saying trying to live with the guilt of killing someone in the truth with people knowing is hard but hiding it is like having life but not being alive.
Q3: I personally think that the two quotes are similar and maybe it's just the way they are stated but to me they're a little bit more into depth and trickier than switching it from the first thing to the second. I think the quote "the unreal never is: the real never is not" means something as to things that are almost impossible to believe are harder to believe and understand than the things that are here right in front of our eyes. For example, I'm a Christian and the unreal could be God because I haven't seen him and most people don't believe in religion because they think it is "unreal" since it is not right in front of their eyes, so they only believe the things they can see.
Great responses...that is a tricky quote in Q2, and you're right to say that you can't go through the motions in life. You have to work with convinction but without expectation of reward. Also, you can't lust for what other people have; if you are meant to be a teacher, then be a great teacher no matter what; if you're meant to be an accountant, be a great accountant. Don't desire to be something more, since that will consume you with doubt, grief, and anger; better by far to live well through a single role rather than desire a thousand others.
DeleteQ2: Do what is expected of you, that is your job. Your duty s to carry out your job without hesitation. I feel like this does kind of justify Murder and bloodshed. He is flat out saying, it does not matter how you feel about the task at hand, just get it done.
ReplyDeleteQ3: So basically, it is saying if it is real it is. if it is not real then it is not. I realize that sounds like I am restating the quote just in different words but to me it is like schrodinger's cat. If it is dead, then it is... But if it is not dead, then it is not.
Yes, in a sense, he is saying that what you see isn't necessarily what is there to be seen. Also, he would say that it's only murder if you WANT to kill, and you desire their death. However, if your role is to fight and you do so without passion or anger, it is simply work--and that is good. We all have to do things we don't want to do, and we worry about the morality of, but it's always better to do it well and with dignity than to half-ass it and say "well, it's not worth doing anyway."
Delete2. I don't really think this statement is justifying murder but I do think that Krishna is telling Arjuna to go out and do what he was born to do, no matter what that might be. I think this statement means it is better to act or do according to ones nature than to try and do someone else's job when you weren't really made it do that.
ReplyDelete4. I think this quote is saying to put your heart into whatever work you are going to be doing. It's sometimes wrong to think of work in terms of reward. Working to get a reward goes to show that your heart is not really in the work but in the reward. This applies to physical work, spiritual work, mental work, etc. When working or doing your spiritual practice, your mind should not be thinking about what you will gain but instead on the work itself. Putting aside the thought of being rewarded doesn't mean that you are above getting paid but it means that all of your concentration is going into the job your doing instead of what is to come afterwards.
Yes, great responses...it's always better to do something fully and honestly, even if you have doubts about it, than sabotoging your role because you want something else, or woulr rather not do it. Doing good work is always a work of 'good.' It will always take you further down the path of liberation, far more than if you desire to do "good" and in so doing, you do nothing at all.
DeleteJaley Brown
ReplyDeleteQ1: "Though they are overpowered by greed and see no evil in destroying families or injuring friends, we see these evils." I feel like this is very real in today's society. A lot of people are overpowered by greed. Greed leads to hurting people and sometimes eventually hurting people close to you.
Q3: It is pretty much saying "seeing is believing." Just because you believe something is real doesn't mean it is real. You have to face reality and realize that it isn't real. In "The Bhagavad Gita" their duty is real and is very important to them, and their duty will always be real so they need to focus on that.
Yes, this work is obsessed with the dangers of the senses. Many Hindu and Buddhist thinkers talk of Maya, the illusion of life, which is born in the senses and clouds the mind. Greed is the chief one; if we live our lives through others' eyes, we can never see our path and we drift further and further from the truth. Far better to live a humble life honestly than desire something else and make yourself and others miserable trying to achieve it.
DeleteEthan Hays
ReplyDeleteQ1: "We would become sinners by slaying these men, even though they are evil." I think that is a very modern viewpoint to have. We can't focus on what other people are doing. It is not our place to kill them just because they are evil. If we kill them, then we are just as bad. If you kill a killer, then there are still the same number of killers in the world.
Q4: I completely agree that it shouldn't matter how the work gets done as long as it actually gets done, but I think the "right action" that these teachings talk about is that we should focus on ourselves and not the work. We should focus on how doing the work makes us feel better because of the sense of accomplishment, not because of any superficial rewards.
Yes, it's true that Arjuna has a very modern/Western viewpoint: killing makes us all killers. But Krishna suggests that there is another way to look at it...for him, if you fight not out of desire, or revenge, or anger, but simply because it is your duty to do so, it is not evil and it is not murder. For him, murder is intent, since (he argues) you don't have the power to kill...but you DO have the power to do evil. So if you have to kill but do so without passion and simply to fulfill your obligation, that is a work of 'good.'
DeleteJosh Willis
ReplyDelete09/20
MWF 1000
Q1: Krishan is torn because he regrets the necessity of kill the enemy, particularly since many people he cares about are aligned on the other side. Section 2, passage 5 "Shall I kill my own masters who, though greedy of my kingdom, are yet my sacred masters? i would rather eat in this life the food of a beggar than eat the royal food tasting of their blood.". This dilemma is all too common, a friend can go down a dark path while you cant save them, you can have abusive toxic parents, your spouse could have affairs the possibilities are endless and typically we all experience a few different varieties. It is a tragic aspect of life to make difficult choices concerning those you love, but like Krishna concludes, all you can do is move forward and try to make good choices.
Q4: The intent behind an action is extremely important. When one is acting out of self interest it affects the quality of your actions, and frames how you will perceive your actions in the future. For example, if an attorney is only interested in winning cases, and not trying them fairly, all sorts of things can and do go wrong. He could wind up getting an innocent person imprisoned, or he could avoid cases that seem difficult to win, as examples. Beyond that style of possible indulgent behavior, there is perhaps a case for there being no practical difference. However, there is also a seldom considered spirituality to doing things for good reasons. When a task is approached with altruism in mind, it has effects greater than the quality of completed work. It affects the people who see your work, it affect who you inspire with your work, and it inspires them to be inspiring in return. As such, can you really tell if a building was constructed with self interest? Most likely yes, as they will try to take shortcuts in construction, but possibly not.
Yes, great responses; Krishna says that as long as you do your work, your role, and do it without hope of reward, you move forward. So even if you did what you knew you had to do, and it inadvertently hurt others, you will still have done 'good.' He would also argue that by not doing your duty/role you will hurt others even more in a misguided attempt to trust your senses to guide you to goodness. I like your idea, too, that someone with self-interest might take shortcuts. Very true--because they want the pay off, not the experience of building, or learning, or seeking. IF you want a reward you get impatient and you're always dreaming, desiring the "end."
DeleteVictoria Aguilar
ReplyDeleteQ2. I think it doesn't justify murder and bloodshed. The prince is to do what is expected of him. Yes, being a prince puts pressure on you and you have to do your duties without a second thought, but he is human. If you don't do your duties, then you will lose the "battle", but not the "war".
Q3. I think there's more meaning behind it. It's like telling someone who is hallucinating that things aren't real just because you can't see it. The truth is viewed in several different perspectives, how do we know it's our only truth?
Good responses--I like the idea of hallucinating; in a way, this works is saying that everything you see and know is an illusion. You can't rely on your senses to tell you right and wrong. And that's what Arjuna is doing by not fighting. He is saying "this looks wrong!" And Krishna tells him, "looks wrong...but only because you can't see."
DeleteQ2: I think that Krishna is meaning that Arjuna needs to do what he is destined to do without getting caught up in the emotions of doing so. I don't think it is a justification for bloodshed and murder. I think it is deeper than that.
ReplyDeleteQ3: I think that this means things are not what they seem, this is much more to it. We don't get the full picture of life and death we only get what is our senses allow us to perceive. And most likely we may have a biased opinion or perceived ideal, maybe a carved blocked. I think this poem is saying to look past that and what you know.
Amber McCall
Good responses...this is definitely a doctrine that advises not to cling to the names of things, or what you think/assume they are. But it also states that there is a duty (a way) which you must know and follow. So this can sound like "know your place!", or it can be translated as, "find your place."
DeleteHayden Blakemore
ReplyDelete3. It is saying that what is real, will always be real, and the unreal will always be that, unreal. Tao te ching goes into something similar in poem 56, talking about "one who knows does not speak; one who speaks does not know." I believe this is taken as 'those who do not talk, know more than those who talk all the time', similar to that of 'the real is real, and the unreal is unreal'.
4. It is important to A) keep with your religion and B) showing how faithful and trustworthy of a person you can be, even if it does not reward you at all. If a house is built by 2 people, with the same blueprints, you can tell the one that was doing it for the money because they will do it to the 'T' of the blueprints, where the one that wants to make it the best will continuously ask questions about changes and make suggestions on what to change to make it better than before, and put their everything into it.