The Bhagwad Gita on duty and action

[S.A.M.]

From another thread,

I'm Indian.


"karmanye vadhika raste
ma phaleshu kadachana
ma karma phala hetu bhurba
te sangostav karmani"- Bahagwad Gita 2:47

Thats my philosophy

translation:
You have a right to perform your prescribed duty, but you are not entitled to the fruits of action.
Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities, and never be attached to not doing your duty.

Its all Qadr, or karma or destiny.

Couldn't that be dangerous ?

The essence of the Gita is that if you are doing your prescribed duty, then the results of your action are not your primary consideration. In the context I was using, suppose there is a biologist who is researching cancer and instead discovers a biological weapon which is then used to kill many people. His duty was to conduct research not determine its consequences, as long as he was honest in his motivations.

In the context of the Gita, revealed by Krishna to Arjuna on the battlefield between the Pandavas and Kauravas, he is fighting with his brothers to win back his rights. Its his duty to do so

Does that make sense?

Perhaps lightgigantic could give more details.

 

[spidergoat]

It seems to me this means just to do good things, and not think about the reward, which is basically humble and proper.

 

[lightgigantic]

I have to shoot off soon, so I can't offer much at the moment.

First off, its not clear why Enmos considers it dangerous.

Every occupation is surrounded by issues of prescribed duty (and which enable us to coin them as "bad" or "good" or something in between)

For instance if we accept that one duty of a parent is to protect her child, we have the means to determine how they stand in that regard. If a person doesn't have a child, we don't have the means to apply that occupation to them.

So if you draw up the duty of person (whether they be a scientist or a general), you have the means to determine their scope for action.

So as far as arjuna is concerned, his nature was to fight (as a ksatriya). So Krishna's argument is that even if he refrains from this fight, the circumstances of his nature will direct him to conflict in the future.

The only question that remains is for what reason (or result) the fighting should be done or not done. Arjuna offers the argument that he doesn't see any fruit for himself in the action, and krishna counters that that is a miserly outlook.

However, as one commentator on this verse notes

The concept of duty—dispassionate, proper actions whose performance is its own reward—is becoming increasingly foreign to modern society.

 

[S.A.M.]

The concept of duty—dispassionate, proper actions whose performance is its own reward—is becoming increasingly foreign to modern society.

Amen

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

I think there's a difference in prescribed duty and perceived duty. Although one could perceive a prescribed duty, it is not the same.

 

[GeoffP]

I don't care. You're still not getting my theory, so sod off.

 

[Enmos]

From another thread,





The essence of the Gita is that if you are doing your prescribed duty, then the results of your action are not your primary consideration. In the context I was using, suppose there is a biologist who is researching cancer and instead discovers a biological weapon which is then used to kill many people. His duty was to conduct research not determine its consequences, as long as he was honest in his motivations.

In the context of the Gita, revealed by Krishna to Arjuna on the battlefield between the Pandavas and Kauravas, he is fighting with his brothers to win back his rights. Its his duty to do so

Does that make sense?

Perhaps lightgigantic could give more details.

In an objective sense it does make sense, although I can't imagine you would be alright with a soldier that killed innocent civilians by order of his superior and uses the Gita as his excuse. In my opinion there is always moral responsibility, no matter what you do or under who's order you do it.

 

[Enmos]

First off, its not clear why Enmos considers it dangerous.

Ok, I thought it was obvious.
So if I consider something my duty, I cannot be held responsible for the results of my actions carrying out my perceived duty ?

 

[Doreen]

I have to shoot off soon, so I can't offer much at the moment.

First off, its not clear why Enmos considers it dangerous.

I don't know about Enmos' reasoning, but the problem is that 'duty' is often determined by authority figures, who in turn can be, and often are, moral monsters. The Gita is letting people off the hook, as can be seen by the carnage the main character participates in, since they do not have to question the morality of those determining their duty.

The Nazi defense that they were following orders.

Once you open the door and demand that the individual question the morality of the authority figures you set in motion processes that were not at all the intentions of the writers of that work.

 

[Doreen]

Ok, I thought it was obvious.
So if I consider something my duty, I cannot be held responsible for the results of my actions carrying out my perceived duty ?

Ah, I see our concerns are similar. It is even worse than the way you word it here. Here it sounds like the person simply comes up with their own notion of duty. In fact the idea is generally to follow some authority figure's idea of duty. And we all know what these authority figures can be like. The Gita has functioned as a very conservative document. Which is a crap shoot. If it conserves oppression, murder, injustice, classism, sexism...then it is fucked up.

 

[Enmos]

The Nazi defense that they were following orders.

Yes, great example. That's what I meant.

 

[Enmos]

Ah, I see our concerns are similar. It is even worse than the way you word it here. Here it sounds like the person simply comes up with their own notion of duty. In fact the idea is generally to follow some authority figure's idea of duty. And we all know what these authority figures can be like. The Gita has functioned as a very conservative document. Which is a crap shoot. If it conserves oppression, murder, injustice, classism, sexism...then it is fucked up.

Who's ideas are the duties that follow from religion ? That's where it gets real uncomfortable.

 

[Doreen]

Amen

So the Israeli soldier doing his or her duty making sure no one interferes with the bulldozer destroying Palestinian homes would be morally OK? Given that he or she is doing his or her duty?

And before you come back that they have duty to some other principle or authority, give the BG another read. There is no, I repeat no, room for individuals questioning systemic abuse in the BG. It is a conservative document. And one that posits a rather callous 'deity'.

 

[Doreen]

Who's ideas are the duties that follow from religion ? That's where it gets real uncomfortable.

So it is better if they come from capitalism, communism, the urge to land grab, racism, etc.?

I see secular authorities just as capable of creating notions of duty that are immoral.

 

[Enmos]

So it is better if they come from capitalism, communism, the urge to land grab, racism, etc.?

I see secular authorities just as capable of creating notions of duty that are immoral.

The point I was making is that there is no clear authority in religion that can be held responsible.
What are we going to do ? Drag God to The Hague ?

 

[Doreen]

The point I was making is that there is no clear authority in religion that can be held responsible.
What are we going to do ? Drag God to The Hague ?

This is a good point. But ideals fall into the same category....growth, GNP, 'the people', 'democracy', 'the war on drugs', 'free markets', the oppression of the producing class, containment, preventing the dominoes
are ideas that have been used to kill millions.

These ideas have their priests and most of these never see a courtroom.

The ones in the US get to marry tall skinny much younger women and carry on like they are part of every administration - I'm thinking of Kissinger - or have libraries built for them, get paid the rest of their lives, and get treated like heroes - fill in the blank of whatever President you consider heinous.

We can't seem to get, for example, Neo Con ideals of economy, to the Hague
either.

 

[Enmos]

This is a good point. But ideals fall into the same category....growth, GNP, 'the people', 'democracy', 'the war on drugs', 'free markets', the oppression of the producing class, containment, preventing the dominoes
are ideas that have been used to kill millions.

These ideas have their priests and most of these never see a courtroom.

The ones in the US get to marry tall skinny much younger women and carry on like they are part of every administration - I'm thinking of Kissinger - or have libraries built for them, get paid the rest of their lives, and get treated like heroes - fill in the blank of whatever President you consider heinous.

We can't seem to get, for example, Neo Con ideals of economy, to the Hague
either.

I think it's different. These ideals cannot exist on their own, they have to be supported by the head of the state etc.
Religion, on the other hand, doesn't really need priests etc. The word of God (bible) is enough for people to figure out their duties in life. What I mean is, when you blame the priests they will point at the sky.
And no one will take, and will be forced to take, responsibility for what ideals some nutjob gets from the bible. And the nutjobs are protected by the Gita.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

These ideas have their priests and most of these never see a courtroom.

God should be court-martialed for dereliction of duty.

 

[S.A.M.]

So the Israeli soldier doing his or her duty making sure no one interferes with the bulldozer destroying Palestinian homes would be morally OK? Given that he or she is doing his or her duty?

If he believes his duty is to bulldoze a Palestinian home and that this is his prescribed duty then yes. Does he?

For example, were German soldiers who exterminated the Jews doing it because they wanted to kill them or because they were following orders? I thought the retroactively applied Nuremberg laws were not correct. Did you?

And before you come back that they have duty to some other principle or authority, give the BG another read. There is no, I repeat no, room for individuals questioning systemic abuse in the BG. It is a conservative document. And one that posits a rather callous 'deity'.

Duty is callous. It has no room for sentiment.

 

[parmalee]

For example, were German soldiers who exterminated the Jews doing it because they wanted to kill them or because they were following orders? I thought the retroactively applied Nuremberg laws were not correct. Did you?

Ah, the banality of evil.