War and the Bhagavad Gita

Some have criticized the Bhagavad Gita on the grounds that it actively encourages war.
There are different arguments either way, and I thought that maybe it would be interesting to explore this question here....

The main grounds on which Arjuna is advised to continue and fight are that he is a memeber of the warrior caste, and has worked for many years in order to become an invincible warrior. Also that his fighting or not fighting will not change the fact that the battle will take place.

The fact that he is urged to act in a non-attached way in the spirit of karma yoga doesn't enter into this IMO.

Anyway, I think the argument that it is Arjuna's duty to fight is based on what may well be faulty premises. It's based more or less on the idea of a society of fixed classes, where one's life occupation is spellled out in advance according to birth. I know that the hereditary side is said to be a deviation from what was originally intended, but de facto Arjuna is a kshatria because he is the son of Pandu, so it is hereditary in this case.
It's as though we said one man is born to be baker, another a banker -

I find it hard to believe in such pre-determined roles for human beings, esp. in a system where there is no mobility between classes. I don't think our inner identity is to do with our actual function within human society.

On the contrary, I think we need to be flexible - able to perform different funtions as we have to, to respond to the needs of an ever changing situation. The very fact that we can do so is indicative of the falsity of the idea that we are born to be warriors or anything else.
Not only our actions, but also our beliefs and values need a certain flexibility too. Ther really is no true 'dogma'.

Hence, Arjuna could choose to simply change paths - or more crudely, change jobs - He could say something like 'sod this for a game of soldiers', and the simple fact - perhaps too simple - is that if every warrior on this planet did that, there would be no more war, because nobody would be willing to fight.
Hence the battle would be called off.
People say 'in 1939 Hitler invaded Poland' - that is not true. It was the German army - Hitler alone would hardly have been much of a threat. It happened because people are prepared to be brainwashed by leaders, be they national socialist or religious, and to go out and kill their fellow beings thinking it 'right' to do so.

I'm not saying that the Gita in general doesn't contain useful teachings - it is the overall form in which it is cast which could perhaps be seen as a problem. Can anyone tell me how there is any safeguard against it being used to justify and even to promote war?

 

Hare Krishna!


Dear Bill,

Neither Krishna nor Arjuna encourages war. The Gita does not teach anybody to take up arms to solve problems. The Mahabharata very clearly tells us that neither Sri Krishna nor any of the Pandavas wanted war. Still it took place. Why it had to take place is the basis of the Gita. The Gita tells us why. I would only request you to read the Gita again and again with a free mind. I am sure you can't miss it. The answer of your question is in the Gita itself. I don't find it surprising that all my questions are always answered by the Gita. You are not biased you will surely get your answer, please read it again.

Love,

Kumar.

 

Dear Kumar,

Within the context of the overall story, which isn't really a happy one, I suppose the war is inevitable.
And within the context of the type of so called civilization that has existed on earth for the last few thousand years up to now perhaps it is justifiable.

However - I think that we could create a global culture where war would be unknown, and people would not be ready to kill on the basis of this or that belief or identifaction with extended 'tribal' values.
Perhaps new forms of spirituality will have to emerge before that can become a reality, and we can begin to live on the planet as befits supposedly conscious beings.

 

Wow...how creepy is this...I was just thinking about this actual topic today...granted for about 5 minutes or so...but still...weird...

Umm... I don't know... I think its all symbolic more than actual encouraging physical war...you know? That's the thing about stories... mostly they are meant to teach us a lesson...and sometimes the lesson is past the surface of the story...

 

We miss the point of gita if we think it is trying to promote war for simple land gain.

In Mahabharata, Yudhistara even writes a letter to Duryodhana saying that he will give up all his kingdom if only Duryodhana comes to him , hugs him like a brother and requests that he wants to rule Yudhistara's kingdom, but Duryodana replies to this saying Yudhistara is a coward, he was not fit to rule ever and he should give up acting like his equal and he should return to exile.

Duryodhana wanted war, he would not stop until he destroyed all of the pandavas. Pandavas did not want to fight, Arjuna expresses the fact that he does not want to fight many times, even on the battlefield he is not ready to fight. He has a mental breakdown, he does not understand what to do ---not out of fear of death, but out of his attachments to people who are about to kill him. He views Duryodhana as a brat more than his enemy, he is still his cousin.
But Krishna tells him, he needs to fight because the war will happen even if he does not want to, he is a ruler, his job is to protect people , so what protection can he offer if he can't even protect himself? He needs to face his problems, not cry that his cousin brothers are trying to kill him.
When Arjuna asks why all of this happened, in that how such misfortunate events occur in the world, Krishna simply replies, it is the play of Vishnu maya. All Misfortunate and fortunate events happen according to divine will, one who is established in dharma acts accordingly. We are simply the players who change their roles every 100 years... atleast until we realize this fact that we are simply players.
So do you harbor any hate toward Osama Bin Laden? Not really, will you stop do something to stop him , Ofcourse!.

 

We are heading on that road BBB,- everyone will be situated in the mode of goodness in the future. This will happen with out our doing anything...Kali Yuga will be followed by Satya Yuga according to the natural course of time.

But just as the Satya Yuga follows kali Yuga, Satya Yuga will degrade into Treta, Dwapara and Kali Yugas again. The only way out of this cycle is self realization.

 

The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil,
but because of the people who don't do anything about it - Albert Einstein


Hi Billblake . Please understand the context of the situation under which the Mahabharata war was waged.
Even though Yudhisthira, the Pandava prince , was the rightful heir of the throne, on account of opposition from Duryodhana(the kaurava prince), he was ready to settle for just five villages (and give up the kingdom) so that he and his brothers could execute their kshatriya or administrative duties and at the same time avoid war . However even this paltry request of Yudhisthira was rebuffed by Duryodhana. Yudhistira also sent Krishna as his ambassador to negotiate with the Kauravas this request of his . But here again Krishna too was rebuffed. It should be understood that Krishna and the Pandavas had exhausted all options in the field of diplomacy and negotiations in order to avoid war . It was after this that they opted for war.

The war against the Kauravas led by Duryodhana is also a righteous war as Duryodhana and the Kauravas were an unrighteous and unscrupulous lot. Though war has its evils, its evils are lesser compared to the evil and unrighteousness and injustice that would have been naturally created by Duryodhana's rule , if he had been allowed to rule the whole kingdom.

In this context, I would like to narrate an incident in the Buddhas life,who was the apostle of non-violence and compassion for all beings.
A kingdom was on the verge of being attacked by an aggressive neighbouring kingdom . The commander-in-chief of the kingdom (that was about to be attacked) approached the Buddha and asked the Buddhas permission to be initiated as a monk. He also stated that his kingdom was on the verge of being attacked, and he loathed to shed the blood of the enemy soldiers, even in the name of self-defence.
The Buddha advised him that his duty was to defend his kingdom against aggression. The Buddha said that by renouncing his duties as a soldier he might be able to avoid the killing of enemy soldiers , but then the greater sin of the bloodshed and slaughter of his fellow innocent soldiers and civilians that is inevitable in a foreign invasion would then be on the commander-in-chiefs head, considering the fact that he had done nothing in his capacity to prevent it.

During World War 2 , during the initial stages an aggressive Hitler was invading and usurping the countries of Europe . If the Allied countries had meekly allowed Hitler to get away with his invasions and refused to wage war against him on the pretext that war is an evil and should be avoided, the whole of Europe and Africa would have been under the heel of the diabolical Nazis , who would then have perpetrated horrors greater than the Holocaust.
Surely the evils of the war (which eventually destroyed Nazism and fascism) is much lesser than the evils and unrighteousness which would have occurred if the Nazis and fascists had succeeded in conquering Europe and Africa completely. I believe that even the Holocaust (the tragic extermination of 6 million Jews) could have been prevented if the Allies had been more assertive, organised and coordinated in the first place and instead of meekly overlooking the initial conquests of Hitler, had waged war with him immediately.

When the U.S. army liberated Afghanistan from the clutches of the Taliban, it brought great relief to the Afghan people, especially the women, who were oppressed by the Talibans rigid medieval laws. In this case again , the evils of war is lesser compared to the greater evil that would have occurred if the Taliban had kept on ruling Afghanistan.

I agree with you that war is an evil , but I believe it is a necessary evil at times. And as long as there are tyrants and evil ideologies , war is necessary and inevitable.

However I do hope and pray that an era will emerge where tyrants and evil ideologies will dissappear completely and consequently war will be eradicated permanently.

 

Dear Nicole -

I agree that it is symbolic - I'm sure that was the original intention, and as I said, I'm by no means dismissing the Gita as a book of spiritual knowledge etc.

That said, I wonder to what extent the Gita is generally understood? Different commentators say very different, almost polar opposite things. Prabhupada for example says it is 'history' and the battle is a real battle. Krishnaprem says it is entirely symbolic.

Perhaps in the past, when wars were only small scale affairs things were different. Today, a big war could result in the destruction of thousands of years of progress, and leave millions dead. In Kurukshetra type wars of the old days, it was only soldiers who were involved, unlike now, when civilians, women and children often end up as casualties.

It raises the question in my mind though: can violence ever be right as a way of resolving things? I know that sometimes, eg. WWII, there seems to be no alternative - but - perhaps if people were brought up in a religion and culture which utterly rejected war and violence, things could change. I don't see any easy answers to this.

In a way the mad mullahs who encourage suicide bombers in our time are like a shadow of Krishna and Arjuna. There is even the verse about Arjuna going to the heavenly lokas if he is kiled in this 'righteous war'. I wonder ultimately if there can be a righteous war - overall the balance in my own mind is swinging these days towards saying there can't be - all war is bad. The killing of one single innocent child should be seen as a global catastrophe, and a clear indicator that humankind needs to change it's act pretty radically. If we stopped making weapons and training soldiers things would be much better.

I know that is idealistic, even unrealistic - but perhaps that is what we have to aim for as a spieces if we want to survive.

In effect, what I wonder is if we'd be better off with models of a pacifict nature, rather than drawn from the annals of war - be the intent symbolic or literal. That perhaps is a question for the religionists of tomorrow.

 

No - It was the famous Wermacht - the German Army who invaded eastern Europe. By himself Hitler would have been one rather pathetic little man with a silly moustache. It is precisely because humans are ready to fight 'for a cause' that the war happened. That is my point. If every soldier in the world refused to fight, there would be no more wars. It really might be that simple.

But the Taliban are militaristic because they believe in a certain interpretation of Islam - they believe they are soldiers of Allah -
That is what I'm trying to get at here. The idea that war is ok was put into them as children by the religion and culture. If they'd never been exposed to such ideas, if they believed Islam is a 'religion of peace' and that killing is always wrong, abhorent to the spiritual powers of the universe, things would never have got to the stage they did in Afganistan.
BTW - The British army are currently engaged in the worst fighting since WWII in Helamd Province as I write. So actually, to imagine that US or alliance forces have defeated the Taliban and are in control is a fantasy. Even Herion production rose by 60% last year.....once again, war seems to have failed as a solution.

 

Let's hope something along those lines is on the cards. But I can't accept that it will just happen without us doing a great deal and being ready to change things on a very radical level.

 

There was mobility between the castes. It should be understood that 70% of the Rishis who created the Vedas belonged to the lower castes. In the original form of the caste system, caste was determined by ones talents , inclinations, and karmas. Veda Vyasa and Valmiki who wrote the epics Ramayana and Mahabharatha were of shudra origin.
In later times , when the caste system became rigid, even then there was a certain amount of mobility between the castes. This could be understood from the fact that Karna, a hero of the mahabharatha, was a charioteers son. Yet because of his exploits in the martial arts and heroism , he was acknowledged as a kshatriya by other kshatriyas.

Similarly Parashurama, who was a Brahmin, became a Kshatriya and Kshatriyas like Vishwamitra and Buddha , too became Brahmins because of their spiritual nature. (Here the term Brahmana should not be confused with priesthood, but with a spiritual nature and enlightenment.)

Arjuna was definetely a kshatriya or a warrior, considering his life-long enthusiasm and zeal for the martial arts and his military exploits.
At the time of the Mahabharatha war, he did become reluctant to fight, but this was because of confusion and bewilderment and uncertainlty as to what his duty was, considering the fact that he had to fight his own relatives. What Krishna did was to remove his confusions, and state to him clearly what his duty was. And it should be understood that Krishna , after his counsel, gives Arjuna freedom of choice to do as he wish.



<<<<He could say something like 'sod this for a game of soldiers', and the simple fact - perhaps too simple - is that if every warrior on this planet did that, there would be no more war, because nobody would be willing to fight.
Hence the battle would be called off>>>>

No problem with that . But first let the enemy warriors renounce war and grant the Pandavas their rightful share of the kingdom, or even their paltry request for five villages. And if that had happened the Pandavas and Krishna would only be happy to renounce war themselves.


And this is true not only with the Kauravas but all soldiers and warriors who uphold aggressive tyrants and evil ideologies . Let them renounce war completely. Then I am sure their opponents will follow them in their renunciation of war.

 

Come off it. The Rishis lived long berore the caste system was in place. Virtually nothing is known about tham other than somewhat spurious received legends etc.

Yes, I said in my post that the claim is that the caste system has fallen into abuse - I also said that in the case of Arjuna, he is a warrior by virtue of being son of king Pandu. As are his 5 brothers. It's very similar to medieval europe. Feudalism.

Well - it was the weakness and even idiocy of the Pandavas in the dice game that led ultimately to the war. With leaders who are ready to gamble their own people away, and even their own shared wife, what hope could there be?

Only when people reject authoritarian models in both religion and society in general, and become self-regulating could we hope to see a mass refusal to engage in warfare. My feeling is that killing is so repulsive an act that no person who was even sensitive, let alone spititually enlightened would be ready to engage in such actions.

I've already acknowledged that my idea here is idealistic - things would have to shift enourmously before that can happen, and unfortunately, I feel that religion as we know it is more often a force that seeks continuation of the staus quo, rather than radical change.

 

Krishna ,unlike the mullahs , never advocated the killing of innocent civilians , women or children just because they adhered to a different religion or belief. He only urged Arjuna to fight his opponents in the field of battle.

And it is a righteous battle , considering the reasons I have mentioned in my previous posts.


"In the morning I bathe my intellect in the stupendous and cosmogonal philosophy of the Bhagavad-Gita, in comparison with which our modern world and its literature seems puny and trivial." ~ Henry David Thoreau




"The Bhagavad-Gita calls on humanity to dedicate body, mind and soul to pure duty and not to become mental voluptuaries at the mercy of random desires and undisciplined impulses."

"When doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare me in the face, and I see not one ray of hope on the horizon, I turn to Bhagavad-Gita and find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming sorrow. Those who meditate on the Gita will derive fresh joy and new meanings from it every day."
~ Mahatma Gandhi



"I owed a magnificent day to the Bhagavad-Gita. 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."

"The Bhagavad-Gita is an empire of thought and in its philosophical teachings Krishna has all the attributes of the full-fledged montheistic deity and at the same time the attributes of the Upanisadic absolute."
~ Ralph Waldo Emerson


"The Bhagavad-Gita has a profound influence on the spirit of mankind by its devotion to God which is manifested by actions." ~ Dr. Albert Schweizer


"The Bhagavad-Gita is the most systematic statement of spiritual evolution of endowing value to mankind. It is one of the most clear and comprehensive summaries of perennial philosophy ever revealed; hence its enduring value is subject not only to India but to all of humanity."
~ Aldous Huxley


Gandhi, Emerson , Thoreau, Schweitzer and Huxley who were inspired by Krishna are
definetely far removed from the violent suicide bombers of our time.

 

True, but 70% of the Rishis belonged to the lower economic groups.


<<<Virtually nothing is known about tham other than somewhat spurious received legends etc.>>>>

Your information is incorrect . Many of the rishis origins are known. You can read more about them in Sri Sri Ravi Shankars "Heritage of the Dalits".



<<<<Well - it was the weakness and even idiocy of the Pandavas in the dice game that led ultimately to the war. With leaders who are ready to gamble their own people away, and even their own shared wife, what hope could there be?>>>>

It should be understood that Yudhishthira ,in the beginning itself was reluctant to play the game of dice and suggested various other activities other than this game .He was however invited by Dhritarashtra himself, who was the ruling monarch , and it was on Dhritarashtra's persistence that Yudhishtira decided to play.
Krishna himself criticized this game of dice, when he came to know about it later on , and said that if he was present there , he would not have allowed the game to continue.
It should also be understood that Shakuni , Duryodhana's uncle and who was an adept in the black arts, who played the game for Duryodhana. And he used his knowledge of black magic to ensure an unrighteous victory for Duryodhana.
Yudhishtira , seeing his losses, and goaded on by the kauravas, played on in the hope that perhaps he could recover what he had lost. And thats why he gambled his own relatives. And this was a bit foolish , no doubt. But it could be ascribed to the fact that he must have lost his nerve and discrimination seeing his massive losses and also to the goading of the kauravas to pledge his relatives as well.

However his leadership and righteousness cannot be disputed. He was well-educated and generous and pure, and had a kind heart. Also under his reign and rule, the Indraprastha kingdom rose to high levels of prosperity and righteousness.
This was the same thing with the Hastinapura kingdom, of which he was made king after the Mahabharatha war. This kingdom too rose to unprecedented levels of prosperity and righteousness.
And his kindness and gentleness can be understood by the reverence with which he treated the parents of the Kauravas, after the Mahabharatha war.

 

I wonder if such a thing as a 'righteous battle' really exists. It's like saying a humane slaughterhouse is 'righteous'.

I will be honest and tell you that I am not interested in what others have said in past times regarding the Gita - I prefer to think for myself. Perhaps the world is changing, and what looked ok in past epochs now appears flawed and faulty. That would be because we don't inhabit a universe where everything is fixed as many religious people seem to think.


Still, I already qualified my comments by saying that I accept that the Gita does contain spiritual teachings which may be useful.

 

And may I know how you can say for certain that the traditions of the Rishis are probably wholly inaccurate. Even Aurobindo's Aurobindo Mission is based on the study of the Vedas.

However this doesn't mean that the enlightened masters of India had a blind devotion to the Vedas.

Krishna in the Gita , criticizes some of the 'flowery' words of the Vedas. Similarly Buddha, Mahavira and Guru Nanak too rejected the Vedas . The study of the Vedas or the traditions of the Rishis are not needed for attaining enlightenment. Ramana Maharshi did not engage in any serious study of the Vedas before attaining enlightenment . Similarly with Mata Amritanandamayi, a female enlightened master from south India who attained enlightenment without any study of the Vedas.

I know of a young man myself , who has attained enlightenment or complete cessation of mind, who goes by the name of Devamrutha, and who has acknowledged only the influence of Ramana Maharshi and Zen , and nothing else.

Swami Vivekananda , the famous disciple of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, has also stated that only those Vedas that agree with reason should be accepted and the rest should be rejected.

Vivekananda has stated that the main import of the Vedas , is not to just stick with it, but to go beyond it.

The essential thing is not the Vedas or the Gita or the Upanishads or the Dhammapada. They are just means to the goal. The essential thing is moksha or nirvana or enlightenment. Be a rishi or a Krishna or a Buddha or a Ramana Maharshi yourself.

 

Lets take a hypothetical situation. Suppose World War 2 is taking place and you find yourself as the president of the United States. The German war machine is rapidly gobbling up Europe and Africa. Prime Minister Winston Churchill of Britain has come to the U.S. in order to appeal for American help, which can turn the tide of the war against the Germans and halt the German invasions and stop their atrocities. You also have the hindsight that your prompt declaration of war against Nazi Germany could prevent the Holocaust and brutal murder of 6 million Jews. So what would you choose? Would you choose to declare war or would you wish to remain aloof from it(solely on the basis of your theory and belief that war is wrong and cannot be made right on the basis of any system of philosophy) and watch Nazi Germany invade Europe and perpetrate the Holocaust and more such horrors ?

Thank you. Eagerly awaiting your reply.
Niranjan.

 

ghandi (who btw was a mahatma) said the gita battle is allegorical

 

I would rather be myself, and avoid pretentious sounding titles.
But I agree - that's why I say it is not good to accept traditions in a non-critical manner. The process of becomig a 'rishi' myself might well involve a total rejection of everything that has been said or written in the past on the subject of spirituality. I'm not saying that is necessarily so, but it might be the case.
The mythic basis of this or that religion too might have to go too - if based on one's 'enlightenment' or at least one's best intelligence, it appeared to be flawed and lacking in any objective evidence to support it.
Not much would be left of a lot of things that go by the name of religion.


Problem with lumping Sri Aurobindo in with vedantic teachers, is that he said they had no understanding of the Rig Veda - His claim, true or false, was that he had recovered the original meaning which had been lost for millenia - since before the upanishadic period in fact. He rejected both traditional Indian and western scholarly interpretations.
I am not saying he was right or wrong - he makes a convincing case in some ways.

Others have arrived at very different conclusions, for which an equally reasonable case can be made. One idea is that the Rig Veda itself was probably composed somewhere in northern Asia, close to the arctic circle. There is internal evidence in the texts which supports this view. If so, then it was taken to India by the Aryans when they invaded.



That however is off to one side of the topic here.

My concern is this: can we accept a book which is telling a particular person to engage in war as a sound basis for our lives? Might it not be that in accepting it, we also accept the 'inevitability of war' as an ongoing feature of human life on earth?
Might we not think that this belongs to a previous epoch, before war threatened total destruction to all, but that in or times, it is a dangerous thing for people to imagine that god wants them to fight? Because unfortunately, that is how it could be taken, particularly if the thing was in the hands of people who might seek to use it to promote some political goal, just as the evil immams use the Koran.

Can you be filled with love, and yet still be prepared to impale a total stranger on a spear? It seems that there is some huge contradiction at work here.....