Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Is that something that actually exists ?
The Bhagwad Gita on duty and action
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Only if you believe that nature exists in balance and tipping it over leads to an imbalance that goes around till its righted out. In other words, everything you do has consequences and somewhere along the way it comes back to bite you in the ass.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Not necessarily with defying human moral constructs.
I can steal stuff all my life and never be caught for instance.
Would you agree that without both the notion of karma and reincarnation, the notion of duty which you cite falls a little short?
And just how exactly do you propose to consider my future posts? Meh. I give up, for it is impossible for me to know your intent.
(Lacan provides the best (worst?) punch lines.)
Not if you are going by the original directive:
Do you believe it would not affect you personally in any way, if you did so?
Would you be the same regardless of if you stole stuff or not?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
If I wouldn't have any remorse, no.
Sorry folks,
thought i would ground something
Karma (Sanskrit: कर्म kárma (help·info), kárman- "act, action, performance"[1]; Pali: kamma) is the concept of "action" or "deed" in Indian religions understood as that which causes the entire cycle of cause and effect (i.e., the cycle called saṃsāra) originating in ancient India and treated in Hindu, Jain, Sikh and Buddhist philosophies.[2].
In these systems, the effects of all deeds are viewed as actively shaping past, present, and future experiences. The results or 'fruits' of actions are called karma-phala
Perhaps, call it (karma) the 1st Law of Thermodynamics
that concept of 'what goes up, must come down' philosophically conveyed as KARMA....
perhaps keep in mind, the same thing you and i experience, them folks of a long time ago did; the difference was how they described it. "we' are further along in that evolution of knowledge (the use of words, transcend time and knowledge evolves because of the continual use and further evolution of words)
my opinion
How?
Except that karma is a philosophical concept and not actually true, whereas the laws of thermodynamics are scientific and are not only true but unbreakable.
I already have considered them, clearly. But then I meant 'when they arrive', as this one did. I see this one as an excuse to bring in Lacan.
I thought I would extend the "joke" and simply make clear the fallacious "appeal to authority." Obliviousness to irreverence and indirectness does seem to be a pattern for you: http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2347964&postcount=217
One can see oneself as the cause as the results.
The problem is that the cause of action (ie the modes of nature) is not actually one's self. So therefore one is under the duress of illusion.
IOW the verse states that there is a suitability for prescribed work, but not for desiring the results of it (which inevitably lands one into issues of ascribing eternal values to temporary objects)
I've read a few of your responses to this issue.
Actually prescribed duties incorporate moral obligations much like a meal from a restaurant already incorporates a plate.
For instance, its not uncommon to encounter instances of mounted cavalry refusing to charge on artillery that was reloading (since it was considered against prescribed duties of a ksatriya to kill an unarmed opponent).
Or similarly, if one takes the duty of protecting one's child as a prescribed duty as a parent, the length and breadth of one's role is one of moral obligation.
Of course there is always an argument about what constitutes a detail versus what constitutes a principle of a prescribed duty.
For instance, in the case of parenthood, there's a host of literature available on what it means to protect one's child in today's elaborate social environment.
A far as ksatriya duty is (or perhaps its better to use the word "was", since industrialism practically killed chivalry on the war front) concerned, determining whether a war is just or not is what is done before the battle. (which once again, draws a host of details and principles relating to prescribed duty - bhisma's instructions to the pandavas on the bed of arrows comes to mind)
Once one was committed to a fray, one was obligated
One can always lodge the claim of one set of prescribed duties taking precedence over another.
This doesn't really take away from the role that prescribed duties play in the social medium.
Nor does it establish whether a set of prescribed duties is actually deserving of taking precedence.
For instance arjuna is lodging an appeal to his prescribed duties based on sva dharma (or dharma pertaining to the body). Krishna overturns that by re-instating him in duties pertaining to the soul (sanatana dharma).
IOW beyond one's designation as a solider, mother or even slave or slave holder (or the designation that is determined by birth and curtailed by death), one has the designation of a soul. Since the designation of the soul does not diminish, the duties of sanatana dharma are seen as superior to sva dharma (or in practical terms, sva dharma is dovetailed with sanatana dharma, which is what chapters 3 to 6 explains in 4 ways)
LG,
I can't see where what you say above is supported by the BG.
Arjunas qualms as set aside.
I remember nothing that supports questioning the enterprise of war or any other 'job' in the BG.
In a sense this is all seen as a part of an illusion anyway, so right attitude is the key.
The what of the action is insignificant.
I can't see where what you say above is supported by the BG.
Arjunas qualms as set aside.
I remember nothing that supports questioning the enterprise of war or any other 'job' in the BG.
In a sense this is all seen as a part of an illusion anyway, so right attitude is the key.
The what of the action is insignificant.
the reason is that the BG is a treatise on sanatana dharma as opposed to sva dharma.
IOW its about the soul's surrender to god and not an elaboration on the ins and outs of duties pertinent to particular varnas and ashramas (you don't even find a chapter on it)
What I don't see in the BG is any support for an elaboration on issues of sva dharma (which can easily be encountered within the Mahabharata, the larger work that the gita appears in .... and even then, there are arguments about the practicalities of re-establishing sva dharma principles in the thick of kali-yuga. For instance, I wouldn't expect chivalry to re-enter the battle fronts of the world any time soon ....))
because they are pertinent to sva dharma
Arjuna ends the first chapter and begins the second chapter full of such questions.
By the time the sixth chapter comes around, topics of sva dharma have well and truly left the picture.
Actually it is all seen as temporary.
What is illusion is the attachment to it (or in arjuna's case, the repulsion to it).
Hence the right attitude, for a ksatriya, is not to runaway to the hills for a life of bitter renunciation (as arjuna originally advocated)
Chapters 3-6 are all about the "what" of action (the "what" of action for a soul of course)
IOW the BG is not a treatise on what a solider should do, rather it is a treatise on what everyone should do as narrated through the example of a solider (since everyone's sva dharma designation, from a slave to a slave owner, is wrought with conflict)
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
The results of actions spoken of in the Gita refer to karmic reward...not earthly consequences.
And besides, killing has no inherent value relative to good or evil.
A defensive war might be the right thing to do in certain contexts.
There is BG 18.47: It is better to engage in one's own occupation, even though one may perform it imperfectly, than to accept another's occupation and perform it perfectly. Duties prescribed according to one's nature are never affected by sinful reactions.
That the individual question the morality of the authority figures - based on what values, for what purpose?
Anyone can question anyone and anything infintely, without coming to any conclusion.
The principle of questioning those who present themselves as authorities certainly seems noble.
But to go through with such questioning requires that one has unflinching trust in one's own moral judgment.
This opens up issues of blind faith in one's own abilities, issues of presuming omniscience.
Sure, this is what many soldiers and other people said and still say.
But this doesn't mean that this is the final truth on the matter.
Many soldiers who fought on the side of the Nazis did so because they were forced to do so - in the sense that they had to choose between either siding with the Nazis, or being incarcerated, along with their families. They probably also had the fear that if they would ever say that out loud, even after the war, the faithful Nazis would take revenge against them. These considerations have likely shaped the answers of some soldiers.
And I also don't think that many soldiers who are trialed actually acknowledge the authority of the court they are trialed in. So they will answer differently to such a court than to a court whose authority they actually would acknowledge.
Responsibility and accountability - to whom?