Bhagavad Gita. Why is that so hard to say?

The Gita is a power struggle between two sides of a family: Dhritarashtra, the Kauravas, and their cousins, the Pandavas. The Pandavas are the sons of Dhritarashtra. Sanjaya, the counselor of the Blind King Dhritarashtra, tells the story. This is a small portion of a more significant epic poem from the Mahabharata Hindu scripture from around the first century BCE.

Arjuna is the leader of the Pandavas. He is advised by the God Krsna, who took human form as Arjuna’s Charioteer and adviser (Krsna is also Arjuna’s cousin) Demi-God. After seeing his family and friends on the battlefield, Arjuna has a moral dilemma. He is hesitant to fight; he feels that killing relatives and friends is not worth a kingdom and would be sinful.

Question: Why does Krsna want Arjune to do this? He is a God. Why does he rely on “a mortal human” to do his dirty work?

Krsna argues that the soul is eternal and cannot be destroyed or killed by human weapons and that all things (body) die.

Hmmm… no importance on human life. One could argue that the belief that the soul is just reincarnated lessens the meaning and value of life. Krsna is kind of a narcissistic dick!!!

Arjuna’s compassion is looked at as a weakness. Krsna is not very stoic!

Wherever there is a human being, there exists the opportunity for an act of kindness.
—Seneca

Arjuna trembles out of a material fear of the loss of life. Or is it more of a respect for life?

Arjuna must choose between material life (friends/ family) or transcendental life. Is there a choice if they are already dead? He attempts to justify killing them by asking Krsna what is gained. Interestingly, the “sins” or “aggressors” have similarities to the 10 commandments. HA! Kidnaps a wife. Stop that coveting!!!

Arjuna believes that killing the older family generation will affect the younger members and not allow them to be taught proper spiritual values. The elders are responsible for purifying younger members of the family, and this will lead them to lack spiritual salvation. This is similar to the thought of stoics. Providing for and loving family are virtues.

Thou must live for another if thou wishest to live for thyself.
—Seneca

emphasizes the importance of living for others.

Krsna calls him a fool for lamenting about any stage of the body. The body is determined to die, making it unimportant, and the soul is the only thing to be concerned with. Killing the body liberates the soul.

Question:

What is the purpose of the body? Why must the soul be liberated to just be reincarnated into another? If it is just a vessel for the soul, what is life’s true meaning? I like the stoic philosophy more on this.

At this moment, the man who measures the souls of all men by his own is shaking his fist in my face.
—Seneca

The individuality of the soul/person exists in the past and future, so there is no need for lamination. Kind of taking the opposite of philosophy.

No one can lose either the past or the future - how could anyone be deprived of what he does not possess? … It is only the present moment of which either stands to be deprived and if this is all he has, he cannot lose what he does not have.
—Marcus Aurelius

The Battle of Kurukshetra – The Will of the Supreme #

From this subtle state of unmanifestation comes manifestation, just as from ether, the air is generated: from the air, fire is generated; from fire, water is generated; from water, the earth becomes manifested.

What nonsense.

Questions:

The symbolic meaning? Air manifestation, fire manifestation, and Watter manifestation.

Air (breath) in healing and holding it and thinking of one’s desires or needs in an attempt to manifest them into reality? Or to help create clarity? Or to center oneself?

Is fire the tool to visualize and bring about the desired outcome? Burning written intentions or affirmations symbolize the transformation of desires into reality through the power of the flames.

Water-generated water refers to the process of using intention and energy to transform water’s molecular structure and properties.

Therefore, in either case, whether one believes in the existence of the soul or one does not believe in the existence of the soul, there is no cause for lamentation for the loss of the body.

Krsna wants Arjuna to remove empathy, remorse, and disregard for others. Krsna is moving to a narcissistic psychopath.

Since every entity is an individual soul, each is changing his body every moment.

—reincarnation. Yet the same spirit/soul is there and does not change. Why change to another body where there is no growth? Is that not the purpose of life to better oneself?

Fourth stage of life—difficulties arise from having to sever family relationships. Is this an adaptation of stoic philosophy? “True courage is tested only in the times of misfortune.”

People in general are not very intelligent, and due to their ignorance, they are most attached to the fruitive activities (motivated by the desire for material gain and sense gratification).

Detachment from the actual outcome—There is an interesting link between stoic philosophy and this statement. It is similar to acting motivated by “justice” and not acting motivated by the preserved outcome. The Stoic philosophy is not to take action over things we do not control. However, there is some contradiction in looking at the justice of the stoic virtues. One needs to take action with the outside world. Krsna’s argument has more teeth.

Krsna tells Arjuna to act in yoga (concentrate the mind on Krsna). Because he is telling Arjuna to fight, Arjuna has no consequences for his actions or the death of his family and friends.

Hypocrisy, arrogance, pride, anger, harsh way of speaking, and ignorance endow one born to a demonic destiny.

Parallels with Stoic Philosophy of Virtue #

To achieve eudaimonia: a well-lived life.

Krsna wants Arjuna to surrender to him; in doing so, he becomes liberated from the fruit of his actions. So, in other words, you do not have to take responsibility for your actions; Krsna has made them for you.

Krsna states that “My birth and activities are divine.” However, He explicitly states that he was never born, signifying his eternal and unchanging nature as the supreme consciousness beyond the cycle of birth and death. Which is it?

Questions:

What is the morality of Arjuna’s choice? Is there one? Following the theistic view that Krsna (God) says everyone is already destined to die, so their bodies do not matter, and he is just releasing their souls? Why does Krsna require Arjuna to do this? He is God. Why would Krsna require such a sacrifice from Arjuna? Is the sacrifice not the souls being released? Or is it Arjuna’s morality or values?

All these activities should be performed without any expectation of results. They should be performed as a matter of duty, O son of Prtha. That is my final opinion.

Similarities with today’s religious extremists. In that, they have no personal reasonability for their actions. “God” has told me that I need to do this “act,” so it is okay. The responsibility is no longer mine. It is “God’s”.

Arjuna needs to surrender to Krsna in doing so, he becomes liberated from the fruit of his actions.

And…

Religious groups, you are an infidel, and God commands that I kill you. I am only his instrument of your destruction. Finally, does Krsna remove Arjuna’s choice of action or nonaction by divulging his true self? He sees the “truth” now; does he have a choice?

My Final Thoughts #

The Bhagavad Gita and various philosophical traditions, particularly Stoicism, reveal some fascinating parallels and contrasts in their approaches to moral duty, personal responsibility, and the nature of existence. While both emphasize detachment from outcomes, they arrive at distinctly different conclusions. Seneca’s teachings demonstrate that Stoic philosophy stresses living for others and treating family relationships as virtuous pursuits, viewing kindness and compassion as strengths. In contrast, Krishna’s counsel to Arjuna offers a more complex perspective where detachment extends beyond outcomes to include emotional bonds, arguing that the soul’s eternal nature renders physical death inconsequential. This creates an intriguing tension with Arjuna’s moral hesitation, which reflects the Stoic virtues of family duty and compassion.

My interpretation regarding how this divine command structure may parallel modern religious extremism, where personal responsibility is relinquished in favor of the divine mandate. The Gita’s treatment of duty (dharma), in contrast to the Stoic concept of duty, presents a nuanced distinction. While both traditions emphasize acting without regard for outcomes, the Stoic version upholds personal moral responsibility, whereas Krishna’s guidance appears to absolve it through divine sanction.