In the opening passages of the Bhagavad-Gita, the “hero” (if you will) Arjuna is overcome by grief on the battlefield. Not wanting to kill his kin, he puts down his weapons and, dejected, refuses to fight. But Krishna, his counselor, famously urges him on by saying such things as “your business is with action alone,” that “there is nothing better for a Kshatriya than a righteous battle,” and arguing that if “Killed, you will obtain heaven; victorious, you will enjoy the earth. Therefore arise, O sun of Kunti, resolved to engage in battle!” Krishna’s advice to Arjuna has been the subject of considerable controversy over the years and is, to say the very least, provocative and complex. In addition to the Bhagavad-Gita our class has recently considered the challenging ideas of Aristotle’s Politics and Plato’s Republic, all of which are masterpieces of world literature and crucially important remnants of ancient political theory and belief. For the second Blog post of the term, then, I want you to precisely and directly engage with the politics of one of these major works. Specifically, I’d like you to select a single passage from one of these works, a passage that you deem provocative, interesting, or somehow problematic. Then, you should examine the passage itself and try to place it within the broader context of your chosen work and its historical/political/intellectual context. Finally, you might offer your own two cents’ worth on the passage: what do you think about the topic and viewpoint at hand, and why?
The Art(s) of Ideology
A professor run, student driven community
In chapter three Krishna states, “Nourish the gods with sacrifice, and they will nourish you as well. By nourishing each other, you will realize the highest good.” Arjuna believed that his tasks of murdering his own family was illogical and he refused to do it. Krishna explains how every human being has an imperishable soul and will soon be resurrected after death. He also assists Arjuna’s understanding of the discipline that should be practiced as a warrior. He states that a man who finds self discipline in himself will be able to establish complete control over everything. The vision of the Bhagavad-Gita basically says that if you sacrifice, you will be rewarded. If Arjuna was to fight his relatives and won, he’d be able to breathe in more of Earth’s air. If he were to die in battle, he would go directly to heaven as a sacrifice to the Gods. Reading this passage led me towards the wrong direction of motive until I comprehended the entire work. It was messed up at first, but there’s a tad amount of sense in Krishna’s logics. If you sacrifice, you will recieve good back and there’s no other way around it. So you’re basically stuck with what you have to do. If you do your dharma, you will obtain good karma in exchange.
In Chapter one it states, “fathers, grandfathers; sons, grandsons; my mother’s brothers and the men who taught me in my youth; brothers- and fathers-in-law: kinsmen all! Though they are prepared to slay us, I don not wish to murder them, not even to rule the three worlds—how much less one earthly kingdom?” The problem that is shown in this passage is that he does not want to attack, injure, or even kill the other men on the battlefield because they were or are family to him. He was being humane. I can agree with Arjuna. He is explaining to Krishna why he is unable to take up arms against his blood relatives, mentors, and friends. How many people could be put in this situation and not have any doubts? You have known all these people your whole life and then you were told you were going to go to war and kill them. If you are like “yeah I can’t wait” there is something wrong with you. You are an animal if you can just kill a family member without thinking. At the end of the day he is a warrior and a prince. He does have a duty to uphold, but it doesn’t hurt to be humane.
In chapter two a quote reads “Death is assured to all those born, and birth assured to all the dead; you should not mourn what is merely inevitable consequence”. Krishna is saying to Arjuna that just because that person’s body is dead, it does not mean that their soul is not still living on: the idea of reincarnation. Arjuna is only hurting himself by deciding not to fight, whether it is his kinship or not. Depending on how you want to look at the situation is based upon your beliefs. Killing is considered inhumane. In the Hindu religion the idea of reincarnation and to die not having attachments is a strong belief. Arjuna is putting this into question when he does not want to kill his family because that would be seen as an attachment. I personally side with Arjuna because nobody wants to hold responsibility for having to kill the people that mean the most to you. He’s scared– if he wasn’t I would be a little concerned. In the long run though, Krishna has him see another side, a side that is hard to see when you have your mind set on something, but good things are going to come out of this fight. This passage makes me look into our world and what is happening now between countries: Why do we, as in the United States, seem to get involved into everyone else’s problems? But if we did not step in what kind of danger would that put us into? There are always going to be pros and cons to every situation, but you have to be able to look past all the bad and see what’s in the future.
In the Bhagavad Gita, while Arjuna was grieving over the battle and the thought of him killing his own kin, Krishna says “ Arjuna, you ought not to grieve like this . For to one that is born, death is certain; and to one that dies, birth is certain. Therefore, you should not grieve about things that are unavoidable.” This directly pertains to the Hindu religion of reincarnation and Krishna is just telling Arjuna not to grieve because even if he is killed, he will be victorious and will be reborn. I personally don’t agree with Krishna’s statement because he is telling Arjuna that it will be alright if he is killed because he will be reborn. Krishna isn’t worried of the present as much as he is worried about the future and it almost comes off that he expects to die and it’s only a matter of time until he becomes reborn. Lastly, I believe Krishna isn’t too worried of dieing because of his belief of reincarnation which is problematic because he is only worried about his near future and not the present battle that he will be fighting and risking his life in.
In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna explains a cycle to Arjuna that all men must contribute to in order to live an sinless life. Krishna says, “The good who eat the leavings of a sacrifice are released from all sins. But the unrighteous ones, who prepare food for themselves only, incur sin.” Krishna tells Arjuna that food is created by rain, rain by sacrifices, sacrifices by action, and that action is of the Vedas. Krishna is trying to explain to Arjuna that if he doesn’t fight in this holy battle then he is not contributing to the cycle of life, making him a sinner. If Arjuna lives the life of a sinner than he will be reborn less fortunate in the next life. I believe that in this passage, Krishna is trying to get Arjuna to follow a good and sinless path. He does not want Arjuna to dishonor his ancestors by choosing not to fight because he feels it is wrong. Krishna is just looking out for Arjuna so that he can reach heaven.
In Book Three, Chapter Ten of Aristotle’s Politics, he poses the question of where the power of rule should fall. Aristotle believes that Oligarchy, or the distribution of power between a small group of people, and Democracy, power being spread equally to all people, are both ineffective systems of society. In the passage he expresses his “doubt as to what is to be the supreme power in the state”, and conveys this concern by explaining why he believes certain systems of rule would be ineffective. There is the scenario in which the poor are the rulers, and in that scenario Aristotle believes that the poor would exercise their power by taking from the rich and spreading the wealth to where there is none. He admits that it technically is not immoral, especially if the poor were the ones making the rules, however he (as a rich man himself) does not favor this idea. In the situation that the wealthy rule, the same abuse of power can occur.
Another problem arises when dealing with the number of people in power. If there is a small group of leaders, then there is a small number of people in charge of politics. It is a major point in Aristotle’s writings that being part of a community and being a true citizen is crested only on involvement in politics. He feels that “everybody else, being excluded from power, will be dishonored,” so there doesn’t seem to be a perfect alternative to satisfy Aristotle’s political idealism. There is a recurring idea that qualifying citizenship and being a good person only comes through personal involvement in the workings of the city-state, and therefore exclusion from the running of said city-state is dishonorable. In writing these codes for a “successful” society, Aristotle seems to be limiting his own ideas by the number of conditions he lays out for a “good” leader(s).
“If you turn from righteous warfare, your behavior will be evil, for you will have abandoned both your duty and your honored name” (chapter two, The Bhagavad-Gita). The Bhagavad-Gita is a very difficult work to decipher. Krishna tells Arjuna to go against his kin, so the story must be based on violence, right? But in what light should this be read? Krishna, as his counselor, says the above quote to Arjuna and follows it by explaining how people will speak of his disgrace. He says to Arjuna, “Your concern should be with action, never with an action’s fruits…”(chapter two). Krishna is saying what their faith entails, to worry more about the afterlife and to not fear death or others dying because it will happen to all of them eventually. Act in the moment in order to do your part. It is all about honor and how Arjuna will be reincarnated. This brings me back to before, what in what light or in what aspect should we read the Bhagavad-Gita? It is a religious work, a religion that honors a noble battle. In my opinion, it cannot be judged weather or not it is condoling violence or peace if the ones judging are not followers of the religion themselves.
In chapter two of the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says, “death is assured to all those born, and birth is assured to all the dead; you should not mourn what is merely inevitable consequence.” Krishna says this to Arjuna because Arjuna is afraid to kill those of his kin even though it’s for righteousness. Krishna goes on to tell Arjuna that all of these people will get reincarnated anyway, so it doesn’t quite matter if they die or not. Also, that reincarnation is unavoidable so there is no reason to mourn over the dead. Being a hindu myself, I strongly believe in reincarnation. A soul has to go through multiple cycles of births until he becomes one with God. Therefore, I believe Krishna is right. After all, Krishna is one of the supreme Gods. And if a supreme God is standing right next to Arjuna, giving him advice, I’d suggest Arjuna should do as per Krishna’s wish.
Book Three of Aristotle’s Politics is at once a commanding manifesto focusing on the terms of the Polis, that is, the City State, and what it means to be a citizen, a good citizen, and a good man. My primary focus of this book is Aristotle’s views of what it means to be a citizen, who can be a citizen, and Manual Laborers and Slaves roles within the Polis. According to Aristotle, a citizen is “he who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state”. This is to say, in terms of Aristotle’s thinking, that only wealthy, non-laboring, freemen can be considered citizens of the state.
Aristotle believes that the wealthy are the only ones fit to partake in government, and therefore be citizens, because not only are they the most highly educated, but that because they have, for all of their life, enjoyed privilege, that they will set up their government and create laws that will benefit society as a whole. Aristotle believes that if people who have only known poverty and hardship were to gain a position of power, that they would make laws that will eliminate that particular struggle, and therefore ignore the common good of the polis.
This way of thinking is not surprising for Aristotle. As a highly educated member of society himself, personal tutor to Alexander the Great, and the creator of a library within the Lyceum, Aristotle was someone who identified with the upper crust of society. Therefore, his belief that the upper crust of society is the most fit to rule is not surprising.
Personally, I understand Aristotle’s point of view in regards to this matter. When presented with power, people normally attempt to address issues that they relate to, issues that they believe hold the greatest importance. If someone who has never known wealth their entire life gained a position of power, then they would make the distribution of wealth their primary concern. However, someone who has known privilege has the ability to look past these smaller issues and focus on the bigger problems.
In the Bhagavad-gita you are given countless amounts of justification to war and to murder. In chapter 2, Krsna explains why grieving for war is pointless by stating “Nor should you tremble to perceive your duty as a warrior; for him theee is nothing better than a battle that is righteous”. Arjuna’s sympathy crosses both turfs; for he does not only feel for his fellow soldiers, he also empathizes for the enemy. Unlike most soldiers, were their opponent are foreign and their faces are unrecognizable. Arjuna is about to stand against his brothers, family, and kin; people where his memories are tied too. Making it more difficult for him to complete the task at hand but Krsna shows the beauty in war and dehumanizes it to make it just. War is brutal, chaotic and barbaric but Krsna ties it with heaven; though the two are polar opposites. Krsna explains it as if it’s their obligations to fulfill; something that they desire to complete. Historically the Gita has ben used when dealing with topic of war and this passage is one that supports the fighting and the brutality. In my opinion, I am against this idea of a soldier craves war and being sacrificed in a battle that will or will not go in his favor. No human in his or her right mind would want to part take in an iffy impact. Yes, a soldier wants to protect what they believe but no one wants to fight someone that holds meaning to them, like their family. Conflict between kin can be solved through compromised not through the spilling of blood.
In the Bhagavad Gita, chapter two, there is a a stanza that specifically interests me, especially after our class discussion concerning the work.
“He who is not agitated
In Chapter 1 of the Bhagavad Gita Arjuna states “What joy for us in murdering Dhritarashtra’s sons, O Krishna? for if we killed these murderers, evil like theirs would cling to us!”. This passage is interesting because Arjuna is a very equipped warrior, yet he is nervous about going to war. This is also problematic for Arjuna because he does not see the purpose of going to war with people he knows. The Bhagavad Gita is about war, violence, duty, courage, life, and death. Another main concept of the Bhagavad Gita is that it is essential to fight a just war even though it means lives will be taken. This passage is important because it shows that Arjuna is very apprehensive about going to war even though his Lord is telling him that it is the right thing to do and he should be honored to fight. One of the themes I have noticed in this passage is good vs evil and Arjuna believes that going to battle would make him evil. I believe that Arjuna has every right to question why it is so important that he must kill. He simply states that even though these people are willing to kill us, we don’t have to be murderers like them. Another point that Arjuna is trying to make is that their evil spirits will then cling to him and those who kill them, and to him it does not seem worth it.
In book three, chapter six, Aristotle states, “man is by nature a political animal”. This statement is famous because of its meaning. This means that citizens of a state make up the well being of that state; political state and political goodness. Aristotle strongly believes in virtue. Virtue is the goodness and well being of someone or something. It enables the polis and individuals to believe in goodness. Good can also be described from a political view. Good is to be virtuous; good is an individual who is looking out for the polis. Even with all the goodness and virtue, Aristotle says that men still make the mistake of misfortune. But Aristotle says they are “seeming to find in life a natural sweetness and happiness”, which still shows goodness.
In this passage the idea of slavery is mentioned. Aristotle tries to justify the means for slavery. He says it is all for the greater good. Slavery doesn’t always have to be bad. Aristotle continues to say that the master could be helping the worker or the one being enslaved. Always looking out for the greater good in people.
In my opinion, I think being optimistic and having virtue to look out for the greater good is a good thing. I do not agree with the idea of slavery at all. To be honest, I never think of slavery as a good thing. Because of what Aristotle said about slavery and how it might not have been all that bad, my opinions have changed. I wouldn’t mind if slavery was used to support the well being of people, and for the greater good.
In book three, chapter six, Aristotle states, “man is by nature a political animal”. This statement is famous because of its meaning. This means that citizens of a state make up the well being of that state; political state and political goodness. Aristotle strongly believes in virtue. Virtue is the goodness and well being of someone or something. It enables the polis and individuals to believe in goodness. Good can also be described from a political view. Good is to be virtuous; good is an individual who is looking out for the polis. Even with all the goodness and virtue, Aristotle says that men sIn book three, chapter six, Aristotle states, “man is by nature a political animal”. This statement is famous because of its meaning. This means that citizens of a state make up the well being of that state; political state and political goodness. Aristotle strongly believes in virtue. Virtue is the goodness and well being of someone or something. It enables the polis and individuals to believe in goodness. Good can also be described from a political view. Good is to be virtuous; good is an individual who is looking out for the polis. Even with all the goodness and virtue, Aristotle says that men still make the mistake of misfortune. But Aristotle says they are “seeming to find in life a natural sweetness and happiness”, which still shows goodness.
In this passage the idea of slavery is mentioned. Aristotle tries to justify the means for slavery. He says it is all for the greater good. Slavery doesn’t always have to be bad. Aristotle continues to say that the master could be helping the worker or the one being enslaved. Always looking out for the greater good in people.
In my opinion, I think being optimistic and having virtue to look out for the greater good is a good thing. I do not agree with the idea of slavery at all. To be honest, I never think of slavery as a good thing. Because of what Aristotle said about slavery and how it might not have been all that bad, my opinions have changed. I wouldn’t mind if slavery was used to support the well being of people, and for the greater good.till make the mistake of misfortune. But Aristotle says they are “seeming to find in life a natural sweetness and happiness”, which still shows goodness.
In this passage the idea of slavery is mentioned. Aristotle tries to justify the means for slavery. He says it is all for the greater good. Slavery doesn’t always have to be bad. Aristotle continues to say that the master could be helping the worker or the one being enslaved. Always looking out for the greater good in people.
In my opinion, I think being optimistic and having virtue to look out for the greater good is a good thing. I do not agree with the idea of slavery at all. To be honest, I never think of slavery as a good thing. Because of what Aristotle said about slavery and how it might not have been all that bad, my opinions have changed. I wouldn’t mind if slavery was used to support the well being of people, and for the greater good.
In chapter 3 of The Bhagavad Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna “This world is bound by action, save for action which is sacrifice; therefore, O Son of Kunti, act without attachment to your deeds.” To act with attachment would involve having an emotional connection with whatever action is being done. Krishna made it clear that Arjuna should clear his mind of these emotional connections as they will ultimately lead to failure. This seems like wise advise given Krishna’s other points such as the fact that one does not simply kill another; their body may die, but their spirit continues on for eternity. However, does it really justify killing others or acting without judgement? I see this as questionable ideology, perhaps because I tend to think more “logically”. I believe that one must retain their senses in order to decide what is right, but then again I could be thinking this due to the senses that Krishna tells Arjuna to remove. It is understandable, given what Krishna says and Arjuna’s duty as a warrior, but I still question these kinds of ethics in the modern world.
In the Bhagavad Gita, chapter two, there is a a stanza that specifically interests me, especially after our class discussion concerning the work itself.
“He who is not agitated
by suffering or by desires,
freed from anger, fear and passions,
is called a sage of steady mind.”
This passage implies that an individual who is not concerned with or worried about these things will be clear minded and at peace with the world and themselves. In the passage, Krishna is essentially saying that someone who is not bothered by these terrible things and feelings is an individual with content and wisdom. The passage fits the message of the entire reading as it relates to the concept of Arjuna being fearful of going into war and mourning over the deaths that hadn’t even been lost yet. I find this idea to be perfectly fitting for the War vs. Peace discussion that was brought up after our discussion of the reading as a whole. To me, there is no real battle between war and peace. I think often times many think one should not exist and the other should be the only thing the world experiences, however, war and peace are tied together. One cannot exist without the other. When I think about it, I realize that the world would not know what a peaceful state was should war have not existed. Almost like how one would not know true happiness without real sorrow. When Krishna tells Arjuna to act and fight he is not entirely supporting war and violence and wishing peace to be interrupted, he is asking him to fight for the common good and restore the peace. A righteous fight is something that is not frowned upon. Krishna speaks of a wise man being able to look forward into the future and see the good in the situation as a whole, he tells Arjuna to not be fearful of going into war and killing his family and friends. He says that he would only be killing their bodies not their souls, that they would live on. I believe that sometimes war has to be fought to keep the peace or restore it. The most interesting thing about this entire work, as it relates to power, is that the one who is not disturbed by the negative everyday things and focuses on the positive big picture is the wise one who will succeed; one who is not fearful will be one who takes chances and ends up moving forward. Sometimes power is gained by taking opportunities and a wise man who is not distracted by the wars surrounding him is one who sees them first.
In the Bhagavad Gita Arjuna speaks to Krishna questioning the act in which he’s suppose to carry out. He states “How, O destroyer of Madhu, shall i in battle encounter with arrows Bishma and Drona- both, O destroyer of enemies, entitled to reverence? it is better to live even on alms in this world than to kill my teachers, men of great glory. But killing them, though they are avaricious of worldly goods, i should only enjoy blood-tainted enjoyments. Nor do we know which of two is better for us- whether that we should vanquish them, or that they should vanquish us.” In this text Arjuna is questioning himself and determining right from wrong of the battle he’s suppose to carry out, asked by Krishna. He was asked to slay his own teachers, those of who not only taught him everything he knows but also the destroyers of enemies. He feels as though they deserve nothing but deep respect and Arjuna even states that he rather live as a poor person living on nothing but offerings from others than to slay his own teachers. Although Arjuna makes these two seem all high and mighty they’re flawed. Both Bhishma and Drona show an extreme greed for wealth and material gain but even so Arjuna points out that by killing them he’ll only be able to enjoy enjoyments that he knows are tainted by their blood. This consequentially leads him to question, kill or be killed?
Personally, I take the Bhagavad Gita in from a religious perspective. Krishna is believed to be Arjuna’s God from a religious standpoint and religiously men follow the higher good regardless of what it is because what the higher good believes is the right thing to do then men must follow because its their duty as a follower. If i was Arjuna I would be just as confused because he’s being asked to slay people he has known his whole life who has done nothing but good. You might also question though, if Bhishma and Drona are suppose to be good, why have they been consumed in humanly ways such as greed? could the Bhagavad Gita be expressing another way of sin, which is why Krishna, the God wants them gone?
“For with the family destroyed, its eternal laws must perish, lawlessness overwhelms the whole family… Such intermingling sends to hell the family and its destroyers; their ancestors fall then, deprived of rice and water offerings.” In chapter one of the Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna discusess war with Krishna. He states the above amongst his thoughts against war. When I was reading, I couldn’t help but to realize the relevance of this idea in today’s world. The lasting effects of war are devastating. Even when a war is over, it is never really over. Because Arjuna discusses the downfall of the family, I was reminded of Hiroshima and the atom bomb. Even those who survived the initial bombing faced radiation poisoning that would affect generations to come. Many chose not to have children, so they wouldn’t have to suffer. Today, all over the world, people’s lives have been torn apart, entire countries have been ravaged. The victims of war are forced to stop their lives, and face frightningly uncertain futures. They must abandon their homes, a process that can separate families permanently. The effects of war are as destructive as the physical fighting. War does not go away.
In book 2, Section 359b and 359c of Plato’s Republic, Socrates states ” …if we grant to each, the just and the unjust, licence and power to do whatever he pleases, and then accompany them in imagination and see whither his desire will conduct each. We should then catch the just man in the very act of resorting to the same conduct as the unjust man because of the self-advantage which every creature by its nature pursues as a good, while by the convention of law it is forcibly diverted to paying honor to ‘equality.” This piece of text further emphasizes Micheal Focault’s idea on the ethics of power and how it is never distributed evenly. Socrates states how it is human nature to attempt to become something more than others. How an even dispersion of power between two parties, (no matter how different) could never exist due to both parties attempting to achieve a state of higher being. That both parties would act in the same manner, overlooking their differences, simply because they were in a situation in which power was the ultimate goal. Thus proving that naturally, whether it be the Warden or the Prisoner, if both were to be placed in front of the same opportunity of obtaining power, either could rise successful.
In the very beginning of the Bhagavad Gita you see Arjuna’s fear and despair about going into war. He says “I am unstrung: my limbs collapse beneath me, my mouth is dry, there is trembling in my body, and my hair rises, bristling; ‘Gandiva, my immortal bow, drops from my hand and my skin burns, I cannot stand upon my feet, my mind rambles in confusion- ‘ All inauspicious are the signs that I see, O Handsome-Haired one! I foresee no good resulting from slaughtering my kin in war!” This passage shows how much Arjuna is struggling with the idea of having to go into battle against his family, teachers and companions, he doesn’t want to be responsible for killing people that are like family to him. Anyone in his situation I believe would feel the same way, at least I would hope. Going into battle against your family would be the hardest thing you would ever have to do. Arjuna’s feelings in my opinion make him normal and compassionate. During this despair he goes to Krishna to try to get an answer on what he should do. Krishna tries to explain to him that only the body of the person is dying but the person will live on to be reincarnated. I don’t know if I believe in people being reincarnated, it is not something I have ever thought about, but because of their culture I can understand why it makes sense to them. Killing someone in battle would just be taking away that body but the person will live on in another form. On the other hand I completely understand why Arjuna is having these feelings, you are going to battle with people out of your family and no matter if you believe they will be reincarnated in that battle you are ending that life that they are living.