War and the Bhagavad Gita

You miss my point I think.
In the past, and up to now, war has been the norm. It is accepted that some people, for pay, and because of illusory notions of 'my country' 'my religion' 'my race' will on behalf of others, whom they designate 'leaders', go out and kill and destry to promote the perceived interests of their 'tribe'.
If this propensity could be removed from people, it would be the end of war for good.
As I said before, Hitler alone had no power. It is only because he was able to exploit the above mentioned propensity in others that he was able to start a war. If the German people had been programmed differently and just said no to militarism, there would not have been a war.
As it is, I imagine that German boys were brought up on tales of 'war heroes' etc. and a culture that glorifies war, just as many are today all over the world.

Once you have war, then you have no choice but to defend yourself. I am not saying 'turn the other cheek'.

Human agression on the 'tribal' level (of which all wars are simply an extension) goes back to groups of primates squabbling over territory and food. Perhaps one day, we as a spieces will evolve beyond all that. I hope so.
But if we have war as a norm in our culture, and use images taken from war to create a dramatic scripture, and say 'yes, he was right to fight' we are simply re-inforcing the current unsatisfactory situation.

Consider the following 2 satements:

'If even god says it's ok to fight and kill sometimes, then it's ok to fight and kill sometimes'

'If god says that fighting and killing are always wrong, then it's wrong ever to fight and kill'

 

Billblake, you still have not given a clear answer to the question I posed to you.

 

I believe my answer is there in my previous post.


But to spell it out I said that in a world where warfare is the norm, and accepted by the majority of people, who are willing to be exploited by leaders, if you are attacked, you have to defend yourself.

What I am trying to communicate here is not how we live under the current conditions, but how we might change those conditions once and for all.

I am also suggesting that scriptures with a basis where war is accepted as the norm, can perhaps only hinder our advance to that happier state.

It could be seen as legitimating the concept of war as an inevitable fact of existence here, whereas in actuality, it is nothing of the sort.
Such a philosophy obviously plays into the hands of those who wish for ploitical ends to engage in war, as they can use it to legitimate their actions.

The USA entered WWII for purely politcal reasons - they didn't want to see the Russians dominate europe after the war - It was the Soviet Union that defeated the Nazis mainly, and had the USA not come in, they would undoubtedly have overun all western europe after the war. This the US could not brook, as it would have left a huge and dominant communist powerblock - far more powerful than the warsaw pact bloc as it actually turned out, because the industrial power of Germany, Briatian and France would have been at their disposal.

If Britain had been lucky enough to have responsible leaders during the 1930's, Hitler could have easily been quashed early on. But only Churchill took a stand, and paid the price through dismissal from high office, and public ridicule. Once again, it all came about throgh the actions, or lack of actions, of leaders who were not fit to lead because of their own personal weakness and stupidity.

 

That's my question - I too would like an answer.

 

God loves everyone but as time, he kills everyone of us. Divine Love transcends these material bodies, love is between souls , not this material world. When unfortunate events force you to fight, you fight... but that does not mean you are somehow hating your enemy. Once your enemy stops attacking you , you stop attacking him, its not personal... and it has to do with one's dharma.

You talk about God being this universe BBB, then if that is so , who is impaled by a spear? and who is doing the impaling of the "other"? There is no other, there is only God. There is no spear, that too belongs to God. There is no victim nor is there a guilty party, it is simply a play of maya ultimately.

 

Jedi - I think your answer pertains to what I call the average man. The average man is not filled with love. What love is there, is wholly conditional, even misplaced very often.


I mean one who truly at this moment feels love flowing through their whole being, with no limitation, no fixed object. One let's say, who has become identified with love - has become love even - because that's the thing the really great ones speak of -To me it seems inconcieveable that in such a state one could willingly injure any creature.

Death is inevitable yes, but that doesn't mean we have to deal it out. We cannot deal out life. We could co-operate as humans - we could learn to overcome the vicious drives that make us potential killers.
If we don't stop war, there is a chance we could see enormous devastation in the future. Another world war, as Bob Marley said, is something 'we just can't take'.
It would make WWII look like a tea party.

 

For a self realized man, who loves all, he loves everyone but he does not hold any attachments to their bodies. For such a man, we really can't say what he will do, only he knows.

 

Maybe you're another empath Nicole - I seem to pick up on stuff...mainly it's feelings though, in both people and animals. But sometimes I've come across stuff on the forums which has tied in with my own thoughts at the time.

meant to put that in my previous reply.

 

at the risk of getting shot down here - so far as my own experience goes, I feel that love is something which when experienced even in a fragmentary way on this cosmic level, seems to flow through everything, including other people and animals, and further, that it doesn't discriminate the body from the other parts of the being. It knows, but not as the mind knows.
That love is a love that seeks to nurture and to heal - never to harm.

 

The reason the Gita is couched in this all-too familiar scenrio of the battlefiled is not the rejection of a utoipa. It is a recognition of the fact that we live in a world where there are wars, where people do fight. It is a situation familar to all, relveant to this day. Other teachings in upanishads etc are set in a remote himalayan ashram, nobody can identify with that situation. But the gita is placed in a situation that is familar to us in our life, that many among us have faced, and therefore immediately touchers our lives more intimately.

Further, the rules of engagement were extremely strict in those days: Warriors only founght warriors, in fact they only fought wariors with the same weapons and rank within the army. No civilians, no collateral. The wr was at a particular place, and a particular time, so nobody would stray into the conflict.
Before the fighitng, soldiers of both sides are given the option to change sides if they believe the other is right (this was taken up by a few in Mahabharata) and to back away from battle if they didnt believe in it - nobody was forced to fight for someone else's belief.
Further, Kirhsna says (as Mohommad does also) that in battle you must remain totally detached, not act out of any iota of selfishness. Every effort has been made to avert the war, but they were hunting down the pandavas, killin gthem (even after the war Ashwatthama killed all the children of the pandavas). To fight such terrorists is not wrong.
Of course to kill all Iraqis and Muslims is wrong, but to go after Binladen and his people and the perpetrators of violence, is not wrong at all, provided it is not driven by selfish desires, like oil, and provided no innocents are harmed.

 

And sometimes to heal an infected part has to be removed. It is not out of malice that a man undergoes surgery, it is out oflove fo rhis boy and its wellbeing. The violent, the terrorists, who feed and create festering hatred in society are like cancers on the body of humanity and are best cut out and thrown away, if more benign treatments should fail.

 

I presume this statement of yours , is the answer to my question ( as you have mentioned in your last post that you have answered my question in your previous post). Even though this answer of yours is not a clear answer and is deliberately vague, I still accept it as your willingness to declare war against the Nazis.( considering the hypothetical situation I have stated). And this is also inspite of the fact that you believe all war to be unjust and that war is not justified by any system of philosophy. So ,in spite of the fact that you are a staunch believer in the ideal of non-violence, you too were willing to let go of your ideals in the face of blunt reality. You were ready to go to war in order to destroy the potential greater violence that would have occurred if the Nazis had their way. This is my point.

So considering this fact , I think you should not criticize Krishna for urging Arjuna to go to war. Krishna was a man of immense idealism and immense practicality. While he cherished non-violence , he also understood the great unrighteousness and injustice that would have occurred if Duryodhana and the Kauravas were allowed to have their way.

 

For the record I wish to state that there is a religion called Jainism in India, which believes strictly in non-violence, even in the face of aggression. Perhaps, according to your logic, if every person becomes Jain, or at least assimilate the Jain ideal of strict non-violence , war will cease in this world.

However let me state that even the Jains were subject to atrocities and violence by the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb , for their refusal to accept the Islamic religion. And only Shivaji, the famous Maratha king and warrior, and who was influenced by Krishna, protested against Aurangzebs atrocities on the Jains, and successfully prevented it.
Here again , Shivaji, was a tolerant king who revered all faiths, and this could be understand by the fact that he employed muslims in high command in his army and navy , and among his bodyguards, and supported the building of mosques in his territory and revered the sufi saints.

The point is , I believe that the ideals of Mahavira(the creator of the Jain religion) and the ideals of Krishna should go hand in hand, at least until the whole world has strictly embraced the ideal of non-violence.

 

It's clear enough you don't get my point.
In a world where war is an accepted norm. self defence is at times neccesary.
If we could change conditions here so that war was no longer something to which people were prepared to resort, the thing woulodn't arise.
Simple.
So - how to arriove at that situation?
Perhaps scriptures which are seemingly accepting of war as thye norm should go.
As a matter of principle.

 

And what do the terrorists of today look to for inspiration in their evil acts? Scriptures like the Koran, and Islam with it's militaristic basis.
My concern as I've said is that perhaps acts of violence could be justified by someone with a certain interpretation of the Gita.
They might think it is ok to kill if they're doing it as they imagine on behalf of god.Thet might use the gita to support that view.

Thing with cancers is that prevention is better than cure.

 

Not impressed by the Jains.

But I think that it's obviously no use adopting a strict non violent attitude in the current climate. Unilateral non-violence is not the thing.
War has to be eliminated globally - n ot just ijn one country or group.
I'm saying that as long as we glorify or even accept war, it will never end.
This position is, as I've pointed out, an idealistic one.

Clearly, if even people who imagine themselves to be 'spiritual' are ready to kill and fight, there is no hope. Perhaps that is a kind of spirituality which is no longer relevant to the needs of humankind. Almost definitely that is so.

 

So how will we get to the point where there is no more war? By accepting it as a norm as you rightly say is currently the case? I think not. And the total rejection of war and violence would seem to be the only solution. Otherwise, as I say, world war 3 when it comes won't leave much behind.

Like the medieval knights of europe with their code of chivalry, they are most polite before cutting each others guts out.
Merely a screen for unacceptable savagery.

 

I don't think the Bhagavad Gita incites a person to be violent. If it were so , Gandhi, Thoreau, Emerson, and schweitzer and others would have been violent people themselves. But this is not the case. The Gita only tells you to do your duties faithfully , and to stand up against injustice. And the urging of Arjuna by Krishna to go to war, is not the only point discussed by Krishna. It only occupies a minor portion of the Gita. The majority of the other chapters are devoted to philosophy and wisdom and the practice of Jnana Yoga, Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga and Raja Yoga.
And coming from the statements of the great men I have quoted before in a previous post, they benefited a lot spiritually and intellectually and emotionally by their reading of the Gita. This is the same with many others. I clearly don't think the Gita should be banned just because Krishna urges Arjuna to fight in the name of righteousness. Fighting is not the only message of Gita, as I have clearly mentioned above .

And I have already stated the reasons for Krishna's urging of Arjuna to go to war with logical statements , which has not been refuted. You yourself have acknowledged that war is necessary at times, which I stress is my point.

 

And why are you not impressed by the Jains. You have clearly mentioned in one of your posts that new forms of spirituality which outlaws war completely is necessary.

 

'New' being the operative word. Jainism is too extreme in many ways.


New would mean not a reconstructed or reformed version of old religions which have failed in thousands of years to bring peace on earth. although most of them talk about it.
But words are cheap - to quote one religious founder 'by their fruits shall ye know them'. Too often the fruits of religion have been hate, intolerance and war.