The Bhagwad Gita on duty and action

[wynn]

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.

Do you know of any biowarfare researchers who actually subscribe to the authority of the BG?

It's not like just anyone takes to the BG as an authority.

We may speculate about what BG applied to all sorts of persons could imply, but the fact is that relatively few people see the BG as an authority.


As an analogy, we may speculate about vegans who work as butchers. And sure, there may be a few vegans who work as butchers, but generally, vegans would not take to such an occupation. Not just anything goes.

 

[wynn]

Thats the defense of all soldiers. What is interesting is that ONLY in Nuremberg it was disregarded.

What does that mean?

And in some other cases as well. The media likes criticze this defense, for example.

In some psychology books, this sort of standard soldier defense is criticized as an example of abdicating responsibility.

As if the soldier (or anyone who was in the line of some duty) should be able to defend themselves and their actions to anyone who asks, on the asker's terms.

 

[wynn]

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.

But in those societies, that is not considered abuse.

There was an incident where an important American politican spoke to Iranian women. She spoke from the position of assuming those women feel oppressed and hindred by their culture, how much they suffer under it and all that. But the women then made it clear to her that this is not the case at all, and that if anything, they found the American culture oppressive and hindering.

The American politican evaluated the Iranian culture from her own American viewpoint and found it oppressive.

There do not seem to be absolute, objective measurements on what constitutes "abuse" and "violence".
This is not to say "anything goes", but measurements on what constitutes "abuse" and "violence" are not self-evident.

 

[swarm]

It's not like just anyone takes to the BG as an authority...at relatively few people see the BG as an authority.

Not much of an authority then.

 

[swarm]

they found the American culture oppressive and hindering.

Up until they actually live here for a while and then they generally find it not oppresive compared to Iran.

 

[Doreen]

But in those societies, that is not considered abuse.

As is the case in India. To me if the family of a woman who is supposed to be burned to death because her husband died - suttee, say a couple of hundred years ago when it was more common - is feeling doubts about having their daughter die horribly. In some gut way they feel it is wrong and their daughter comes to them and say she does not wish to die. The parents can consult the BG and decide that their role is to support current traditions. I don't like the BG because of that.

There was an incident where an important American politican spoke to Iranian women. She spoke from the position of assuming those women feel oppressed and hindred by their culture, how much they suffer under it and all that. But the women then made it clear to her that this is not the case at all, and that if anything, they found the American culture oppressive and hindering.

That is not the situation I am talking about. I am talking about when a person themself is having problems with a tradition.

There do not seem to be absolute, objective measurements on what constitutes "abuse" and "violence".
This is not to say "anything goes", but measurements on what constitutes "abuse" and "violence" are not self-evident.

I don't think they are either. And the BG is essentially saying 'anything goes that has gone before so stop worrying about it and do your duty.' 'Get back out there and kill as well as you can Arjuna, that is your role.'

Hell, it's all maya anyway.

 

[Doreen]

Do you know of any biowarfare researchers who actually subscribe to the authority of the BG?

They subscribe to the same philosophy, sure. They did not get it, most likely from the BG. At least not any I would ever come in contact with, most likely. I dislike that philosophy in general and see the BG as one manifestation of it.

It's not like just anyone takes to the BG as an authority.

I think, actually quite a few do take it and similar texts as authorities. The BG was quite popular in the West from the 60s on and it reinforced many ideas in both hippy and New Age environs. The wider idea of doing your jog well and seeing this as your duty is very, very present.

But it seems like you are saying I should not be concerned with my issue with the BG, but in a thread on the subject of the BG where it seemed like the BG might be used as an authority, it was fitting for me to raise my objections to it as an authority.

We may speculate about what BG applied to all sorts of persons could imply, but the fact is that relatively few people see the BG as an authority.

Same reaction on my part.

As an analogy, we may speculate about vegans who work as butchers. And sure, there may be a few vegans who work as butchers, but generally, vegans would not take to such an occupation. Not just anything goes.

This lost me, but I have a guess I may have addressed the issue elsewhere. Here in a thread where the BG seemed to be being used or about to be used as an authority on duty and action, I interjected my problems with it. Further I see this kind of philosophical position as much more widespread than just in readers of the BG. So focusing on the problems of this kind of philosophical position has a wider relevence.

 

[Doreen]

Thats the defense of all soldiers. What is interesting is that ONLY in Nuremberg it was disregarded.

What does that mean?

It means that some small % of German officers, generally, were not allowed to use a neo-BG defense. Unfortunately most people, even those fairly high up in rank who even decide to, for example use rape as a military weapon, are allowed to use a kind of BG like defense. In most cases they are not even put in a position to do this.

 

[Doreen]

To those defending the BG-
is it possible that this text was influenced by those in power, consciously or otherwise, in such a way that it prevents or tries to a kind of moral questioning of the status quo?
Or that the message is in some other way not perfect or perhaps even problematic? something that was seen as best understanding at one time, but perhaps no longer is?

 

[S.A.M.]

It means that some small % of German officers, generally, were not allowed to use a neo-BG defense. Unfortunately most people, even those fairly high up in rank who even decide to, for example use rape as a military weapon, are allowed to use a kind of BG like defense. In most cases they are not even put in a position to do this.

The entire government social and military structure of every nation is based on the same principle of following laws and orders.

 

[wynn]

They subscribe to the same philosophy, sure. They did not get it, most likely from the BG. At least not any I would ever come in contact with, most likely. I dislike that philosophy in general and see the BG as one manifestation of it.

And to you, the BG is a manfiestation of that "just doing my job" philosophy, and nothing more?

But it seems like you are saying I should not be concerned with my issue with the BG, but in a thread on the subject of the BG where it seemed like the BG might be used as an authority, it was fitting for me to raise my objections to it as an authority.

I do not think that the BG is yet another treatise penned together by some people who had some aspirations for power or something like that.

 

[wynn]

As an analogy, we may speculate about vegans who work as butchers. And sure, there may be a few vegans who work as butchers, but generally, vegans would not take to such an occupation. Not just anything goes.

This lost me, but I have a guess I may have addressed the issue elsewhere.

There are many people who subscribe to some "just doing my job" philosophy.

But not everyone of them subscribes to the authority of the BG.

I do not think they can all be placed together in one group, nor can their philosophies about duty all be equated.

 

[lightgigantic]

To those defending the BG-
is it possible that this text was influenced by those in power, consciously or otherwise, in such a way that it prevents or tries to a kind of moral questioning of the status quo?

One can launch that sort of argument based on it, but one can refute it on the same grounds.

For instance there is an argument similar to what you advocate based on the gita (namely placing issues of sva dharma at the centre instead of sanatana dharma). Without going into too much of the gory details, it was advocated that one's varna is determined by birth (janma) - IOW one is a brahmana, ksatriya, vaisya or sudra simply by being born into a particular family. In the gita however, it is declared that varna is determined by quality (guna) and work (karma) (BG 4.13)

I think its the same in any instance. IOW anything that has the mere touch of any political implication is always surrounded by narratives aimed at separating the wheat from the chaff in terms of its authenticity and proper application.

Or that the message is in some other way not perfect or perhaps even problematic? something that was seen as best understanding at one time, but perhaps no longer is?

depends on your POV

"It was the first of books; it was as if an empire spoke to us, nothing small or unworthy, but large, serene, consistent, the voice of an old intelligence which in another age and climate had pondered and thus disposed of the same questions which exercise us."

Ralph Waldo Emerson