Thats true. I don't remember a single trip I took in Saudi Arabia where the driver [who was considerably poorer than us] did not give us all [one or five] a meal.
The Bhagwad Gita on duty and action
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Thats true. I don't remember a single trip I took in Saudi Arabia where the driver [who was considerably poorer than us] did not give us all [one or five] a meal.
What do you mean?
Just a little Nietzschean joke.
"Good; very good even: since the old God is abolished I am prepared to rule the world--"
Heh.
Thats an interesting perspective because inspite of all the dharmasastras, the Kshatriyas were eventually defeated by the Brahmins, who were not soldiers but thinkers.
Unfortunately, the Brahmins did screw up in their turn as well when power went to their head and so on and so forth.
Thats an interesting perspective because inspite of all the dharmasastras, the Kshatriyas were eventually defeated by the Brahmins, who were not soldiers but thinkers.
Unfortunately, the Brahmins did screw up in their turn as well when power went to their head and so on and so forth.
Nietzsche was much influenced by Vedic literature qua Schopenhauer (I believe).
The endomorphs, the mesomorphs, and the ectomorphs.
War's are always renounced when they're over. They are renounced by almost everyone who has lost a relative or witnessed the killing of innocents. This is not a revelation. It speaks of the renouncer's knowledge of war and the futility of it. In the end somebody wins, somebody gets a statue, erect a monument or two, heroes get recognition in some form or another. Honoring the soldier perpetuates war and is no different than text from the Gita. The end of a war is the beginning of another.
Not when you're a career soldier. A king who will not go to war. Especially a Ksahtriya whose duty is to fight, is a revelation. He spent the rest of his life preaching and practicising nonviolence.
It was over for the King. Time to renounce. What did I say that was counter?
Because he did not stop being a king, his empire extended from Afghanistan to Bangladesh, Nepal to Tamil Nadu. He reinvented the role of king and devoted himself to peace and social welfare. He ruled the empire for 40 years [he renounced violence in the eighth year of his rule] and was and still is called Ashoka the Great.
And?
Plenty of soldiers reach a point where they can't kill any more, Kings included. The only difference is that the King stays King and the soldier gets court-martialed (still considered a soldier with a duty).
In those days the king fought at the head of the soldiers, he didn't avoid drafts and send other people to die for his ideas. Ashoka was horrified not because he killed soldiers but because he killed civilians. So I don't see the comparison. The soldiers who get tired of killing are a good example. Do they hold themselves responsible for the results of their action or do they see it as a necessary evil in their duty? How do they reconcile dropping bombs on weddings and schools with their honor?
Given the war in the BG, where many of the soldiers were likely poor people forced in a variety of ways into service, the nice distinction between civilians and soldiers is not easy to maintain.
are you, an atheist, saying that God can exist on his own?
From your perspective we have people referring to principles or entities that cannot be questioned or put on trial.
There are texts for all the secular religions. You also need to back up the notion that religions do not need priests.
And when you point at the neo-cons or any other powerful group they will point at an ideal.
There is nothing in the BG that suggests soldiers have a duty to evaluate the policies of their superiors. You are projecting recent values on a document that does not support them. the BG is still very much about knowing your place in the hierarchy and doing your job as dictated to you as well as you can.
See above.
A nice reuse of the word, but not a direct response to how I was using it.
The BG does not support individuals questioning the morality of superiors, the morality class distinctions and oppressive relations. In the end it dismisses concerns about consequences and sees consideration of these as a potential dereliction of duty.
It is a conservative document. Which means if the system is good, it can have good consequences, but if it is bad, it can have terrible ones.
Slaveowners have often been well within their legal rights - to avoid the complications of the Nuremburg issue you raise, which I do not find convincing at all, in any case. There are societies with long traditions of abuse, for example aimed at women, and mmebers can site precendent and text support or oral history support for the abuses. The BG leaves no room for dissent. The BG would say to the mother concerned about performing a cliterodectomy on her daughter that she has a duty within her culture and not to be concerned with the consequences. To do her duty with compassion and skill and then it is fine.
Bullshit.
(I am not connecting the practice of cliterodectomy to the BG historically. Just using extreme examples to show the problem with the lack of morality in the BG. It is counter reform, counter revolutionary, conservative and supportive of whatever power structure the reader has above him or her.)
Of course. Thats because individualism, anarchy and the idea that relations can be oppressive are not really a part of the Indian psyche. Its partly why the culture does not treat any foreign influx as a threat [why should we feel threatened by obviously inferior systems?] but also partly why it was possible for us to live happily under colonisation by the Persians [who did not attempt to reframe our culture or history] but not under the British [who indologised us, if that is the correct word]
Its also partly why we have the last 10,000 years of our culture still surviving in some form or another [including bird chants from the earliest immigrants to the continent from Africa]. Change is muted and assimilated. It adds to, not replaces. If we looked long enough we'd probably find a tribe practising cliterodectomy somewhere.
As compared to?
Relatively. I would not be happy for us to be invading and occupying other countries though just so we could spread that joy around.
Well, let us ignore individualism. However, anarchy I'm wont to interpret as resistance to oppressive relations. What you're saying seems comparable to: Well, her husband beats her every day, but that's what she grew up with and that's what she's used to.
Neither am I, but this is not relevant: I'm not talking about bullshit notions of "freedom" and "democracy" here (I'll assume that's what you were implying).
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Yep.
Exactly.
Some religions don't have priests.
Perhaps you're right. But still, the fundamental difference is that religious people (or maybe I should have said 'theists') do have a leader, someone that says what their duties are.. at least according to them. Ideals don't have that.