The Bhagavad Gita: Regarding "Enemies" amongst us and Elsewhere:

[patrice]

Verses 36-46

ARJUNA: O Krishna, what satisfaction could we find in killing Dhritarashtra's sons? We would become sinners by slaying these men, even though they are evil. The sons of Dhritarashtra are related to us: therefore, we should not kill them. How can we gain happiness by kiling members of our own family?

Though they are overpowered by greed and see no evil in destroying families or injuring friends, we see these evils. Why shouldn't we turn away from this sin? When a family declines, ancient traditions are destroyed. With them are lost the spiritual foundations for life, and the family loses its sense of unity. Where there is no sense of unity, the women of the family become corrupt; and with the corruption of its women, society is plunged into chaos. Social chaos is hell for the family and for those who have destroyed the family as well. It disrupts the process of spiritual evolution begun by our ancestors. The timeless spiritual foundations of family and society would be destroyed by these terrible deeds, which violate the unity of life.

It is said that those whose family dharma has been destroyed dwell in hell. This is a great sin! We are prepared to kill our own relations out of greed for the pleasures of a kingdom. Better for me if the sons of Dhritarashtra, weapons in hand, were to attack me in battle and kill me unarmed and unresisting.

SANJAYA: Overwhelmed by sorrow, Arjuna spoke these words. And casting away his bow and his arrows, he sat down in his chariot in the middle of the battlefield.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Gita is a good book to read

to understand the nature of humanity--tammas, rajas, satva--and how to rise above these natures to become One.

Om hari om.

[patrice]

4. I have been thinking about my relationship to the many Military members of my family.

One young man in particular who, in a drunken temper fit against his mother threw away his full-ride college scholarship and joined the Marines. He may have to go to Iraq; I don't know what his status is. I saw him recently and know he's struggling with the same issues as Arjuna is.

I have been thinking also about why/how PTSD has become such a HUGE problem for our Veterans.

[crim son]

2. Wonderful words.

Time to pull out my copy again.

[patrice]

6. It appeals to my need for something a little more "complete" than

Christianity. Something that has more to say about problems like "evil".

[cosmik debris]

3. How Egalitarian!

"Where there is no sense of unity, the women of the family become corrupt; and with the corruption of its women, society is plunged into chaos."

I'm glad to know on whom to blame all society's troubles!

[patrice]

5. debris is apt.

If you wish to discuss this, I will be glad to do so if you can resist the impulse to mis-characterize it.

[cosmik debris]

7. So, what does that quote mean

If not that women are the conduit of chaos?

[Snot Hannity]

9. I think you misinterpreted the quote.

The quote is highlighting the fact that women are the foundation of the society and pillars of the family. So, if the women go corrupt then naturally the society will fall apart. Women bond the family and the society together. That is a respectable status. That is what the quote is saying. It is not trying to blame women for social chaos. It is honoring them for the social order.

[kiahzero]

10. But you can't read it that way

Read that way, it's not evil... therefore, that can't be the correct reading.

:sarcasm:

[Snot Hannity]

11. I hear you.

That is unfortunate. Critical thinking does not have to be cynical thinking.

[trotsky]

19. Natch.

I mean, only if you read it and interpret it liberally have you done a "correct" translation, right?

[patrice]

20. "only" = Another straw man.

Perhaps the reason some people don't realize how utterly transparent such statements are is because they hang around with folks like themselves too much, folks who are easily impressed by faulty logic and over-simplification.

Would you care to offer a "conservative" interpretation?

How about a definition of the word "correct"?

I promise I won't give you the kind of BS you posted above.

[trotsky]

29. The plain fact of the matter is,

people interpret texts according to how they WANT them to be interpreted. You don't have to look at holy books for this - just check out the Constitution. Is there ONE interpretation? Hell no, otherwise we wouldn't need a Supreme Court (or having a court, every decision would be 9-0).

Holy texts are just that much more intense for all parties involved. People WANT their positions to be sanctified and favored by whatever universal force they think is in charge. And conversely, they want opposing positions to be easily dismissed as not worthy of belief.

Even seeing you use the phrase "faulty logic and over-simplification" - you don't think people who have a different interpretation than you would use that exact same phrase to describe you?

[kiahzero]

31. I'm glad to see I'm not the only person who makes that analogy.

:D

My (perhaps overly sarcastic) point was that reading every religious text in the worst possible light doesn't actually demonstrate much about the meaning of that religious text. Malicious readings are good for rhetorical purposes, but not much else, in my mind.

[trotsky]

32. But those folks don't necessarily see their reading as "malicious."

They just think they're reading it correctly. Just like the person who takes a liberal interpretation.

[kiahzero]

33. That's fine.

My objection is to people going out of their way to interpret a text in the worst light possible in the name of denouncing it.

[trotsky]

34. Which also makes it unfair...

when people go out of their way to interpret a text in the BEST light possible in the name of promoting it. Right?

[kiahzero]

35. There's no malice in that.

Furthermore, if someone is promoting something, they likely believe it.

[cyborg_jim]

36. Malice is irrelevant.

Language is naturally ambiguous.

[kiahzero]

37. The ambiguity of language makes malice more relevant.

It means that the malicious reader is taking advantage of that natural ambiguity to serve their ends - which, as specified, would be malicious.

[cyborg_jim]

41. You seem to fail to realise the obvious dichtonomy here.

It also means that YOU are taking advantage of the natural ambiguity to serve YOUR ends.

[trotsky]

46. But he has no malice!

So it's alright!

[cyborg_jim]

47. Yes, that seems to be his conclusion.

Actual meaning be damned!

[Dorian Gray]

52. This argument is all well and good

but from someone who has no bone in this "fight," I have to say that I also believed that Cosmic Debris' interpretation of the text, I believe, was purposefully misleading. I don't think the text was as dismissive of sexuality as he seemed to portray in the statements that started this arguement. And arguing about interpretation of the text is an interesting exercise, but the problem lies in the fact that I don't believe the text is in any way promoting that the "woman" is responsible for all evils in the world. Rather, she is the pillar and the strength and the backbone of the family and society. If we read this in the historical, religious, political, cultural and social context of the time in which it was written, it is rather progressive, actually.

I don't see where one can reach the conclusion that it is anti-woman or promoting inequality.

[cosmik debris]

56. The context of the time

was an extremely segregated caste society in which women were second or third class citizens. To pretend at this late date that women were glorified in that society is BOGUS.

[Snot Hannity]

57. Absolutely untrue.

Caste system has nothing to do with the way women as a whole are treated. You are stroking with a broad brush. If you read the Mahabharata it is filled with strong-willed and brave women. Same with Ramayana. In the ancient Hindu society women were not oppressed as you would like to believe. That is not what most of the ancient scriptures suggest. In fact, there were many women poetesses in the Sangam age and some of them even counseled the kings of their times. Any kind of widespread oppression of women started as a means of protecting them from the invaders such as the Moghuls and the British. Even during that time, royal women such as Rani Lakshmibai and Rani Mangammal served as queens and fought wars against their enemies. In parts of India, such as Kerala, a large part of the population is matriarchal.

Of course there were sections of society where there was oppression, of various kinds of people, same as it is now anywhere in the world, based on caste, color, profession, economic status, religion, whatever. But to say that all women were oppressed is a gross generalization unsupported by the existing evidences, except for the outrageous Manu Shastra which is widely disputed anyway.

A great poet of last century Mahakavi Bharati said, and I roughly translate, "To be born as a woman, one should have been greatly blessed". In Hindu theology the female Shakti reigns supreme over the male Shiva. There is no Shiva without Shakti. Hence the quote from the Gita can be interpreted in only one way within the cultural context as Dorian Gray has explained.

[cosmik debris]

58. You are talking about a chapter of the Gita

Where two GUYS are sitting on a battlefield discussing the horrors of war. In stead of saying that we GUYS should stop all this killing because it is creating social chaos, they say that they should stop all this killing because it is causing the corruption of our women and that is causing social chaos.

There is no doubt in my mind that the men are trying to distance themselves from their own responsibility and place blame on an innocent third party. The women have no part in the war except to take the blame for the paternalistic warriors.

[Snot Hannity]

59. I was responding

primarily to your post #56. Apart from the things I already stated, the hundreds of goddesses and the millions of temples for them that still exist and worshiped prove that women were glorified in ancient Hindu society.

[trotsky]

38. Ah, the ends justify the means.

As long as your ends are liberal ones, right?

[kiahzero]

39. Actions taken in malice are different than those which are not.

You disagree?

[trotsky]

40. If the action *results* in malice, even if unintended,

are they really different?

[kiahzero]

42. Malice, by definition, cannot be unintended.

Malice is a desire or intent, so it can't be "unintended."

[trotsky]

43. Let me explain.

A liberal promotes her holy text as good and noble and just (even if she is taking some liberties with the language). End result: the text is respected and used as justification for helpful social policies.

A guy comes along, and finds some sentences in the text that pretty clearly indicate other actions are required. Since this text commands respect in society, his reading and justification gain an equal footing with the liberal interpretation.

Now as pointed out before, the guy may not feel his actions are malicious - he's just reading the text CORRECTLY. But the special status granted the text by the liberal who initially took liberties with it has enabled the "malicious" person to use it too.

[cosmik debris]

44. You are still dealing with "pick and choose theology"

All holy texts are taken as literal until they disagree with the reader, then they magically become metaphorical.

Anyone who takes the metaphor as literal or the literal as metaphor is automatically considered malicious. It is impossible to disagree without being evil.

The real irony to me is that the motive of the reader takes on more importance than the motive of the writer.

[trotsky]

45. Ah yes, thank you.

I completely forgot.

"It is impossible to disagree without being evil."

That is, perfectly summarized, what we are evidently being told.

[Dorian Gray]

54. Is that what you are really reading from those

of us defending the writings and position of the Bhagavad Gita? That "It is impossible to disagree without being evil." Really? I don't see that at all, and I believe that is a completely unfair assessment.

[trotsky]

55. No, I'm just reading it from one particular individual.

Based on common responses he's given in this and other threads.

[kiahzero]

48. Hardly.

If you really want to go about reading religious texts you come across in order to find the pathological case, in some effort to demonstrate that all religion is "evil," that's your right. Just don't expect reasonable people without your animus to listen to you.

If you really think that the default reading is literalism, then you're just exposing your own ignorance. :shrug:

I'm done here. If you don't want to have a good-faith discussion, then there's really no point in conversing with you. Inevitably, anything I say will be read in the worst light possible to "prove" your point.

[cyborg_jim]

49. Wrong.

I consider religion to be a product of man. I therefore expect to see no more an no less than what we are, or what we were when the text was written.

As such it is just as good, bad, flawed, reasoned, irrational, insightful, distasteful etc... as anything else is today.

If there is an effort to demonstrate anything here it is that deference to religious ideals and/or texts simply due to their religious nature is irrational.

[trotsky]

50. And just as inevitably,

anyone who disagrees with you will be portrayed as trying to suggest all religion is evil.

[Dorian Gray]

53. In all honesty

I don't see how your original reading of the text was "correct." I DO believe that you misinterpreted what it said. Of course, interpretation is subjective, but it does appear to me, as someone who is not Hindu, doesn't practice Eastern Religions at all, that you misread the intent and purpose of the verse. I also contend that your natural bias is going to lead you to such interpretations. That is not a bad thing, per se, but it will lead towards a negative reading of any religious texts.

I am not saying this to fight. I tend to have the opposite bias, and I recognize that. I try to find the good in most religious writings, and I can fairly discuss what is negative. But, in this instance, I truly believe that your interpretation is wrong and founded solely in that bias.

[patrice]

12. It says when the human family turns on itself and kills its own

family members, this can cause the corruption of women and the corruption of women contributes an essential element to the ultimate destruction of the human family.

And that killing for greed is Hell even if you were to win.

[cosmik debris]

14. I've always believed in the equality of men and women

In their responsibility, contribution to society, and susceptibility to corruption. Apparently you disagree. OK.

[patrice]

15. "Apparently"? You don't know squat about me.

Like I said, debris.

If you want to talk about something for real, you should stop playing stupid games. And I promise I won't pull that kind of crap on you.

[cosmik debris]

17. I take your words at face value

If you don't mean what you say, say what you mean.

[cosmik debris]

21. Don't blame Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al,

It is the corruption of Condi Rice that is the real problem here. :rofl:

[kiahzero]

22. ROFL is right. (n/t)

[patrice]

26. ALL of us are the real problem. n/t

[cosmik debris]

28. Then why does your example single out women for blame?

It points out the corruption of women and their inability to fulfill their roles as the proximal cause of societal problems. Where in your example does it say that ALL of us are the real problem?

[kiahzero]

8. That is awfully egalitarian of you

It's good to see that you read Eastern religious texts just as pathologically as you do Western.

[NMMNG]

13. Thank you for sharing

We would become sinners by slaying these men, even though they are evil. The sons of Dhritarashtra are related to us: therefore, we should not kill them. How can we gain happiness by kiling members of our own family?

While I don't believe in the concept of "sin" I am not one who takes pleasure in the death of anybody, even one who is evil, nor do I support the death penalty.

[patrice]

16. I have trouble with that concept too.

Of course, it IS a translation. I would be fascinated to know what the original Sanskrit word/meme was.

I think in terms of error, rather than sin, though I leave open the possibility that there are some, few I think, who KNOW what "right" is and actually are freely capable of choosing it, but CHOOSE wrong instead, unlike those who either don't know right or are so enslaved that their chances of choosing it are seriously crippled. In either case, I do not support capital punishment, because if we are to judge any criminal, we must be closer to real goodness than they are and capital punishment makes us too much like them. Besides which I can't understand why we can't keep capital criminals in prison for life, maybe even constructively employed there.

Like the word "God", "sin" is a word that's loaded, through use, with way too much extraneous BS. I wonder about its Aramaic, or Greek?, origins too.

[patrice]

18. If not "sin", would you like to propose an alternative word/meme?

I am interested in working out the implications of thinking in terms of "error", but perhaps you'd like to propose another way of talking about what Arjuna may be referring to with the word "sin".

I'm also interested in exploring this concept of universal relationship.

[cyborg_jim]

23. Sin is conduct against the will of a god

As such the concept is just as problematic as the god you choose to define it.

If ones choses a god who is merely a poetic concept then sin is merely wrong-doing.

[kiahzero]

24. The etymology of it is about guilt, though.

It's not a necessity for it to mean "conduct against the will of god." It's frequently used that way, but it's also frequently used to just mean particularly bad actions (or inaction).

[patrice]

25. Can we examine the concept of "a god who is merely a poetic concept"?

What makes a poetic concept a poetic concept. I'm asking for a definition here, but I want one that identifies what makes that thing (a poetic concept) what it uniquely is and not something else, i.e. what are a poetic concept's essential characteristics.

Thanks for your honest interest in whatever this thread is about.

[cyborg_jim]

30. It is a poetic concept because the god in question does not actually exist

As such 'sin' is merely synonymous for 'wrong-doing'.

[NMMNG]

27. There really isn't just one word

There are so many acts described as sins that no one word will fit. In the Bible alone eating shellfish, committing adultery, wearing fabrics of two different fibers, planting two different crops in one field and a wide variety of other acts are considered sins. These certainly can't be categorized by one word/concept. One could be (potentially) considered an unhealthy behavior, the other an wrong against another person, the third I can't think of as a problem in any form, and the fourth is poor farming practice.

[Dorian Gray]

51. Thanks for sharing, patrice

I've read part of the Bhagavad Gita in a World Literature course years ago, but it's been ages. It's fascinating reading, and I do think it's important for us to read texts of various cultures and religions. Even if I don't follow the beliefs, there is much knowledge to be gleaned from reading these texts. There is a great compassion shown in this verse, as well. Thanks for sharing.