The Bhagwad Gita on duty and action

[Doreen]

Yep.

Well, if you are leaving open that possibilty, you can leave open the possibility that God can be brought to the Hague. And Christians have a semi-precedent in the trial of Jesus.

Exactly.

Some religions don't have priests.

There is no religion where the word does not work metaphorically. And it works well for all the secular examples I mentioned.

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.

I don't quite see how this fits with what you said here...

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.

or before in this last post.

. at least according to them. Ideals don't have that.

The ideals all have charismatic advocates ('priests') and as far as I can tell manage to get people to kill, even in the millions. Shall we talk about Kissinger and Laos and Cambodia? I don't think he once, in his policies, mentioned it was God's will that that peasant villages be bombed.

 

[Doreen]

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.

The Indian psyche is probably a bit more complicated than this. I am quite sure the Indian psyche is various enough to have included those who challenged the system and wanted to replace and end practices.

But, in any case, you are basically supporting my thesis here.

 

[parmalee]

The Indian psyche is probably a bit more complicated than this. I am quite sure the Indian psyche is various enough to have included those who challenged the system and wanted to replace and end practices.

Mohandes Gandhi: never existed.

 

[Enmos]

Well, if you are leaving open that possibilty, you can leave open the possibility that God can be brought to the Hague. And Christians have a semi-precedent in the trial of Jesus.

What ?
I'm an atheist. I base what I say about God on what theists and the bible say about him.

There is no religion where the word does not work metaphorically. And it works well for all the secular examples I mentioned.

Perhaps. What about Buddhism though ?

I don't quite see how this fits with what you said here...

or before in this last post.

I meant God. Sorry, I thought that was obvious.

The ideals all have charismatic advocates ('priests') and as far as I can tell manage to get people to kill, even in the millions. Shall we talk about Kissinger and Laos and Cambodia? I don't think he once, in his policies, mentioned it was God's will that that peasant villages be bombed.

That's what I mean..

 

[Doreen]

What ?
I'm an atheist. I base what I say about God on what theists and the bible say about him.

I found what you said confusing also, but I went with it.

Perhaps. What about Buddhism though ?

Well, the Dalai Lama, for example, would be even more than the authority figure a priest is to a Catholic. Buddhist monks are treated as, well, holy people, in many cultures, and they are definitely used as authorities. The West continues this practice, though often the priests are read rather than directly consulted.

That's what I mean.

So you agree that a secular ideal can lead to millions of deaths. We cannot bring that ideal to the Hague. I really can't see what the difference is.

In fact, we can't even bring Kissinger to the Hague, because the US refuses to agree that their leaders can be called there. A serbian priest who said God wanted Serbs to kills Muslims might very well find himself at the Hague. A neo-con from the US, hardly.......

 

[Doreen]

Mohandes Gandhi: never existed.

I would need more information to understand what your saying.

 

[parmalee]

I would need more information to understand what your saying.

I was being facetious.

 

[Enmos]

I found what you said confusing also, but I went with it.


Well, the Dalai Lama, for example, would be even more than the authority figure a priest is to a Catholic. Buddhist monks are treated as, well, holy people, in many cultures, and they are definitely used as authorities. The West continues this practice, though often the priests are read rather than directly consulted.

So you agree that a secular ideal can lead to millions of deaths. We cannot bring that ideal to the Hague. I really can't see what the difference is.

In fact, we can't even bring Kissinger to the Hague, because the US refuses to agree that their leaders can be called there. A serbian priest who said God wanted Serbs to kills Muslims might very well find himself at the Hague. A neo-con from the US, hardly.......

I don't think people 'join an ideal' because they think its the right one. They just have their own ideals and are lumped together by others.

Anyway, as I said, maybe you're right. I don't see how it even matters much who's right in this particular argument.
So lets just get it out of the way and say that connecting the Gita with religion is not 'where it gets real uncomfortable. It's not a big thing.

 

[Doreen]

I don't think people 'join an ideal' because they think its the right one. They just have their own ideals and are lumped together by others.

There certainly is some of that. I agree.

Anyway, as I said, maybe you're right. I don't see how it even matters much who's right in this particular argument.
So lets just get it out of the way and say that connecting the Gita with religion is not 'where it gets real uncomfortable. It's not a big thing.

Right, secular people can have similar judgments about following orders, staying with tradition, etc.

 

[Doreen]

I was being facetious.

I considered that. But I can usually get the butt of the joke in facetiousness.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

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.

Sounds like a great way to shed responsibility and accountability.

 

[Doreen]

SAM said

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.

But the duty of a biowarfare researcher developer would be to make the weapon, and they have. And the deity in the BG would assuage their concerns about this, just as the deity in the BG assuaged Arjuna's moral concerns. We could plop in the biowarfare guy and have the exact same dialogue.

 

[parmalee]

I considered that. But I can usually get the butt of the joke in facetiousness.

You wrote:

The Indian psyche is probably a bit more complicated than this. I am quite sure the Indian psyche is various enough to have included those who challenged the system and wanted to replace and end practices.

But apparently SAM believes otherwise.

 

[Doreen]

But apparently SAM believes otherwise.

Well, I think some painting oneself into a corner happened. I'll just bet if a non-Indian summed up the Indian psyche so simply SAM would see this as __________ism. There are a few negative words that can be put in there.

 

[parmalee]

Well, I think some painting oneself into a corner happened. I'll just bet if a non-Indian summed up the Indian psyche so simply SAM would see this as __________ism. There are a few negative words that can be put in there.

You read my mind.

 

[lightgigantic]

Enmos

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 ?

OK, lets break this down

BG 2.47You have a right to perform your prescribed duty,

so you're obliged to act according to your prescribed duty

but you are not entitled to the fruits of action.

fruits meaning enjoyment.

IOW it is not recommended that one perform prescribed duty with the view of being the self same beneficiary, at least if one is after a peaceful existence
further details here on why

Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities,

BG 3.27 The spirit soul bewildered by the influence of false ego thinks himself the doer of activities that are in actuality carried out by the three modes of material nature.

I guess a simple short hand of this is to state that the "three modes of nature" (sattva, rajas and tamas) is the substance that generates what we might coin "fate".
IOW action through the three modes is simply the action of fate (and due to false ego, or illusion, we think that we are actually at the helm)

and never be attached to not doing your duty.

kind of like the other end of the scale of simply doing duty for the fruits. IOW being predisposed to issues of praise ("so therefore let me be the enjoyer of prescribed duty") and blame ("so therefore let me not perform my prescribed duty") make for the inferior performance of prescribed duty.

Hence
BG 14.22 The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O son of Päëòu, he who does not hate illumination, attachment and delusion when they are present or long for them when they disappear; who is unwavering and undisturbed through all these reactions of the material qualities, remaining neutral and transcendental, knowing that the modes alone are active; who is situated in the self and regards alike happiness and distress; who looks upon a lump of earth, a stone and a piece of gold with an equal eye; who is equal toward the desirable and the undesirable; who is steady, situated equally well in praise and blame, honor and dishonor; who treats alike both friend and enemy; and who has renounced all material activities—such a person is said to have transcended the modes of nature.

IOW the whole point of the gita is aimed at action that transcends the modes (or action that can break the bonds of fate).

So inferior action is deemed as that which works within the modes.

So its not so much an issue of passing the buck ("hey its my duty and I screwed up but don't blame me because I am not the doer") but a means of being able to perform duty in an equipoised manner ("If I fail, I continue, if I succeed, I continue).

Basically if one acts alternatively to this suggestion, one will be working with in the consciousness that they are the proprietor, which is the crux of all conflict in this world.

In short, we can neither renounce this world, or claim to be the proprietor, so karma yoga aims to show the means of action in a temporal existence, culminating at the point of performing action in the service of god

 

[Doreen]

You read my mind.

I am catching on to you now. I will consider your future posts potentially dry and ironic.

 

[Doreen]

So its not so much an issue of passing the buck ("hey its my duty and I screwed up but don't blame me because I am not the doer") but a means of being able to perform duty in an equipoised manner ("If I fail, I continue, if I succeed, I continue).

The problem is not that it is passing the buck - though it does this by default. The problem is that it does not really matter what the consequences of what one does are. All that matters is right attitude toward one's duty. So any awakening moral qualms or even compassionate reservation about violence gets talked away by the focus in the BG. All that stuff does not matter. They tell you to kill for an unjust war, don't worry about it. Just, unjust, these are just the judgments of a limited mind. So even the slaveholder who has doubts about owning slaves, whether this is moral or not, is gently pushed back into the role by the BG, a role he might have even decided to drop, by the BG's inherent conservatism and focus on attitude. Meditate while owning a slave or meditate while setting them free. It is all the same.

 

[Enmos]

Enmos


OK, lets break this down

so you're obliged to act according to your prescribed duty


fruits meaning enjoyment.

IOW it is not recommended that one perform prescribed duty with the view of being the self same beneficiary, at least if one is after a peaceful existence
further details here on why



BG 3.27 The spirit soul bewildered by the influence of false ego thinks himself the doer of activities that are in actuality carried out by the three modes of material nature.

I guess a simple short hand of this is to state that the "three modes of nature" (sattva, rajas and tamas) is the substance that generates what we might coin "fate".
IOW action through the three modes is simply the action of fate (and due to false ego, or illusion, we think that we are actually at the helm)


kind of like the other end of the scale of simply doing duty for the fruits. IOW being predisposed to issues of praise ("so therefore let me be the enjoyer of prescribed duty") and blame ("so therefore let me not perform my prescribed duty") make for the inferior performance of prescribed duty.

Hence
BG 14.22 The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O son of Päëòu, he who does not hate illumination, attachment and delusion when they are present or long for them when they disappear; who is unwavering and undisturbed through all these reactions of the material qualities, remaining neutral and transcendental, knowing that the modes alone are active; who is situated in the self and regards alike happiness and distress; who looks upon a lump of earth, a stone and a piece of gold with an equal eye; who is equal toward the desirable and the undesirable; who is steady, situated equally well in praise and blame, honor and dishonor; who treats alike both friend and enemy; and who has renounced all material activities—such a person is said to have transcended the modes of nature.

IOW the whole point of the gita is aimed at action that transcends the modes (or action that can break the bonds of fate).

So inferior action is deemed as that which works within the modes.

So its not so much an issue of passing the buck ("hey its my duty and I screwed up but don't blame me because I am not the doer") but a means of being able to perform duty in an equipoised manner ("If I fail, I continue, if I succeed, I continue).

Basically if one acts alternatively to this suggestion, one will be working with in the consciousness that they are the proprietor, which is the crux of all conflict in this world.

In short, we can neither renounce this world, or claim to be the proprietor, so karma yoga aims to show the means of action in a temporal existence, culminating at the point of performing action in the service of god

Thanks LG, I can see where you're coming from.
However, I cannot ever agree to this: "Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities".
It's self-contradictory. If they are MY activities then I am the cause of the results thereof.

 

[S.A.M.]

The Indian psyche is probably a bit more complicated than this. I am quite sure the Indian psyche is various enough to have included those who challenged the system and wanted to replace and end practices.

Maybe as individuals. But like Ashoka and Gandhi, they make excellent icons. Once you put them on a pedestal, they are safely out of reach

But, in any case, you are basically supporting my thesis here.

Quite possibly. Social conformity defines Indian society.

Sounds like a great way to shed responsibility and accountability.

No you cannot shed anything, don't forget karma. Unintended consequences go both ways.