War Motivators- Spiritual Preaching(s)

(Article 1 in the series 'Can Geeta be an ethical guide?') 

Geeta comes as an episode in the Epic Mahabharat. As a narrative it is story of how Lord Krishna motivated Arjuna to fight the war and helped him in overcoming his untimely nervous breakdown. Along with this strand Geeta is in the main guide to spiritual pursuit bestowed by God upon Man. It is revered by Hindus as their book of religion but certainly not law-giving book like Bible or Koran. There is a deep rooted belief amongst Hindus that if you have spirituality you don’t need ethics-proper. I contest this belief and I am trying to demonstrate by referring to Geeta as to how ethics-proper is necessary and not automatically implied by Spirituology.

The appeals which can motivate a person who is not spiritually enlightened are typically invoking his ‘spiritually-harmful urges’. Lord Krishna has used such lowly urges (too) for motivating Arjuna, along with highly philosophical sermon of his. Due to intermingling sequencing of Geeta, denial or denigration of such lowly urges also comes intermittently in same flow. Sequencing of Geeta is very much intermingling in terms of its thematic strands. This alternately appearing occurrence of war-motivational stanzas and spiritual preaching stanzas, goes from start of Geeta to the end of it. (As we shall see later, even in terms of spiritual pursuit, some spiritual preaching(s) are in conflict with other spiritual preaching(s) as well.). It is necessary to point out such anomalies for hopefully being resolved by commentators.

In first chapter of Geeta, description of Arjuna’s nervous breakdown amidst the war and his various pleas for avoiding the war are given. It must be noted that Arjuna’s proposal was not of desertion or fleeing but that of sacrificing his life without resistance rather than earning the immense demerits as per his understanding of non-violence.

“Even if they use weapons and kill me, the one who has dropped weapons and who is not offering any resistance, I think such death would be more meritorious for me”---(1.46)

For Arjuna the propriety of the war itself had become problematic. He was seeing the prospect of being nauseated about the ‘enjoyments’ after victory as soaked in blood.

“Rather than killing the great elderly relatives and my teachers, I would prefer a beggar’s life in this world. My economic and sensory gains after the victory will always appear to me as soaked in blood”---(2.5)

[ In my opinion,The princes of both sides had gambled and made a mess of it. It was a controlled war (Dharm-Yudhda: Nothing to do with crusade. War on secular issues, if fought abiding by rules and maintaining each others’ dignity, is called Dharm-Yudhda) and everybody was supposed to fight an enemy having equal strength and weapon. If this was the case why such large scale bloodshed was needed? Duals between princes using same weapons would have been sufficient to decide the winners. It was not only large scale violence but also a wasteful violence. Of course this is not expressed by Arjuna in Geeta.]

Essentially Arjuna was facing a moral dilemma regarding two basic principles viz. Non-violence as against Justice. Justice demanded the victory of Pandvas over Kauravas. Non-violence demanded sacrificing himself (in turn hopefully to avoid the war). He had not asked as to how one can achieve spiritual accomplishment. His question was clearly an ethical one

“I am asking you because I am perplexed regarding the issue of piety versus impiety. Please tell me Lord categorically; which option would be meritorious (shreya) for me”

----(2.7)

The issue of merits and demerits of Justice and Non-violence is never answered in the Geeta. The whole issue is shifted to the question as to, ‘under what state of mind violence ceases to be sinful’? How to act ‘without involvement’? and there starts a sermon on Spirituology which is surprisingly independent of Ethics, as we shall go on seeing.

1.  The very first motivator used by Lord Krishna is the stigma of impotence.

    “From where did you get this untimely distraction which is neither proper for        Nobles   

     nor begetting the heaven”---(2.2) “Oh Partha don’t let this impotence overwhelm you.

     Leave this ridiculous weakness of heart and stand up.”---(2.3). The wrong association

     between bravery and sexual potency has been haunting males till date. Lord Krishna     

     also uses this association to induce offended rage in Arjuna.

2.  Lord says, “By avoiding this sanctified war, your fame and honor will be maligned and you will be evading a duty according to your birth-based caste”.---(2.33)

Kshatriyas, the warrior-caste no doubt have a duty to fight. However this does not automatically make any and every war ‘sanctified’. Lord did not say, “Fight for sake of Justice and your side is the just side.” Kshatriyaas also have a duty of taking parental care of their subjects as per stipulated duties of Kshatriyaas in Geeta itself   (18.43)  [Dealt with in detail elsewhere---.]

3. Lord also uses a positive ‘motivator’.

“If you are defeated and you die, heavenly pleasures are assured. In case you win, you will enjoy ruling the earth (there is a gain in both cases) therefore you rise and fight.” (2.37) [this allurement for heavenly pleasures has come before too as, “It is fortunate occasion for you, that the door of heaven is incidentally opened; so don’t lose such rare opportunity.” (2.32)]

‘Gain in any case’ is undoubtedly a logically sound (believe in heaven etc for sake of argument). But the very next stanza comes as a jolt to this calculative approach.

“Pleasure or suffering, gain or loss, victory or defeat, whatever pair of opposites it may be, always treat the opposites as equal and if you fight in such spirit of equanimity, no sin will attach to you.”---(2.38)

How can one treat gain/loss as mutually equivalent and yet get motivated because there is assured gain and gain alone? Furthermore as far as about what comes to one’s lot, one may remain in equanimity, but what about whatever one is doing to others? Moral question arises especially about ‘doing to others’ rather than having to take on oneself.  But as it seems, according to God, even if a gain is made in a sinful way, sin will not ‘attach’ to ‘you’ if you take the gain in sprit of equanimity. This is how war-motivation, ethic and spirituality come in conflict at this juncture of Geeta and many others as we shall go on seeing.

4.  Lord also tries to relieve Arjuna from anguish by telling him that his true soul is God Himself. If you shift the burden on God you are relieved.

    “If you bequeath or confer upon all your actions to ‘Me’ who is your real self and become non-desiring and selfless, you can fight without anguish.”---(3.30)

     There is a big problem in this argument. This theory of ‘conferring upon God’ and ‘becoming selfless’ is applicable to all actions. ‘Not fighting’ and ‘sacrificing’ is also an action. Was Arjuna justified in taking that option with same spiritual conditions? Why it is always the case that option other than recommended by Lord is coming out of ego and if the option happens to be agreeable to Lord, it is ego-less? Arjuna did not raise this question due to his mental state and limitations of his era. 

5.  In chapter 15 of Geeta, Lord demonstrated vide a miraculous spectacle of Lord’s ‘cosmos-encompassing-form’, in which the main contenders Karna, Drona, Bheeshma, being killed in a flash-forward scene of the war. He further told Arjuna, “Therefore you rise and get the victory, vanquish the enemies and enjoy the rich kingdom. I have already killed them you merely become my instrument and that’s all.”—(11.33). Now the question arises as to whether becoming some other agent’s mere instrument, amounts to another act or not? If it is not an act, how “You do become” can be an imperative statement? If it is an act, the choice lies before and responsibility comes upon the one, who is consciously becoming an instrument. By the way, is Kingdom a thing to be enjoyed? Or is it taking further responsibility?

6. Solace of immortality of Aatmaa (soul is not correct translation but ‘pure witness’ is) “The ‘resident’/ ‘incumbent’ of a body is immortal and body alone is mortal for all living beings, therefore death is not worth grieving.”---(2.30) In the first place, fear of grief and fear of guilt are two different things. Let us start examining this issue right from fear of death itself. Who perceives the dread that I am going to cease to exist? It is the Ego (Ahanakaar) that continuously identifies with the ‘person’ which is the particular composite of material and spiritual ‘substances’. There is no doubt that the composite is going to be destroyed. It is the ego that craves for permanence. Now the question is whether Ego is mortal or immortal? If Ego and intellect containing the memories are together shifted to the new body of next birth, there could be a solace of immortality. But is Aatmaa inclusive of Ego and Intellect? From experience it is not. We generally don’t remember ‘who’ I was in the erstwhile birth.

    

     Aatmaa the ‘Pure witness’ is that, which is unconditionally conscious and is unaffected by any particular content of consciousness, that may be presented to it. According to Geeta, when Individual’s Aatmaa transmigrates from old-dead-body to newly acquired body of next birth, “As wind takes away the fragrance from a flower, the individual’s Aatmaa, while getting transferred from one body to another, takes along with it the erstwhile sensory faculties and mind, to the new body” (15.8)

     Point to be noted is that it does not take with it the Intellect and Ego of the body which is left. The intellect contains all the memories/abstractions and Ego is binder of identity of the dying person. Both (Intellect and Ego) are not transferable as per above stanza.  Thus we can conclude that Ego is mortal. ‘Pure witness’(Aatmaa) never craves for immortality but in fact is immortal, while Ego does crave for immortality but precisely it is the Ego that is mortal. Thus according to the very metaphysics adopted by Geeta the Solace that Aatmaa is immortal is void.

     

    Fearing death is valid, grieving for dear one’s death is valid and feeling guilty about killing someone is also valid. Killing innocents is outrageous. Nothing of this predicament is absolved by the immortality of the ‘pure witness’ even if we assume that, emotional and sensory faculties are also somehow dragged by the ‘pure witness’. ‘How pure witness can do things like dragging?’, is further metaphysical curiosum/puzzle.

     

    Furthermore Position of Geeta on question of violence is “Violence is demonic and Non-violence is Angelic”—(16.14 and 16.2 read together). Issue before Arjuna (for example) was not that his dear grandfather Bheeshma was going to die but that

     he was compelled to kill him.

7.  Analogy of worn-out clothes: In the course of giving solace of immortality Lord says, “As people throw away worn out clothes and acquire new ones,  the Aatmaa throws worn-out body and acquires a new one”---(2.22). Apart from all issues regarding death mentioned above, argument of worn-out-body is not applicable to youngsters getting killed in a war. (I am referring to the incidence of Arjuna’s young son Abhimanyu getting killed.)  

8. Not fighting is Egoistic and Fighting is preordained: Lord uses a motivator that Arjuna is going to opt for war in any case irrespective of the debate. ‘Prediction about what an actor would’ and ‘deliberations going on within the consciousness of that actor about what he should’ are categorically different things. Yet Lord tries to motivate Arjuna as

“If you, under the spell of your ego, decide not to fight, it is going to be only an imaginary decision. Your individual nature has determined your action-decision and which is to fight”---(18.59)

“Although you are not willing to, you are bound to fight due to your nature”—(18.60)

Now my contention is that what a knowledge (or belief) about one’s predetermined prospect would mean emotionally? First possibility is that “Though it is predetermined still Arjuna is going to feel spontaneous when he will actually do so.” But can one pre-pone such theoretical spontaneity to the perturbed present? No! One can not. Second possibility is that “Arjuna is going to feel irresistibly compelled against his will and not spontaneous.” This possibility too does not relieve Him from the anguish in the present.  

 9. Lord also uses a threatening motivator, “If you keep your mind devoted to me you will overcome all dangers due to my blessings. However if you egoistically disobey me, you shall be destroyed.”—(18.58) Surprisingly this threatening comes in the final part of last chapter (18) in Geeta. Arjuna must have been much enlightened, by the time the great sermon was almost complete. For a totally uninitiated person a threat could have been understandable. A ‘Threatening God’ is not in keeping with the Hindu tradition. This is one example of bad sequencing and intermingling of diplomacy with spirituality, in Geeta.

10. Back to free will: Arjuna’s freedom to choose is again recognized but with acquiring ‘mysterious knowledge’ or a divulged secret. “ I have given you the more and more mysterious knowledge. Keenly consider it fully and then do as you wish”---(18.63)

     If moral decisions are to be taken after being a favorite disciple of Lord and getting full insight in spirituality, what a common man should do?

11. Now the Top-Secret: This burden of freedom is immediately taken back by the lord

          “Now I shall tell you the ultimate secret which will be most beneficial to you. As you      

           are my dear one I am telling this”---(18.64)

          “Forsake all the duties and come to my refuge. I am there to absolve you of all your    

          sins.” ---(18.66)

          Indeed people find it easier to select a benevolent-dictator, than deciding upon morally     

          perplexing issues for themselves. What is ‘the most mysterious’ about it? 

12. However before this ultimate motivator, there comes another motivator wherein    God   

      is already in charge of everybody’s heart and it is better to listen to the inner voice.

     “God dwells in the heart of every living being and from there he moves all of them  by his magic as if they are mounted on a machine.”—(18.61)

     “Go to the refuge of this inner God with all your feelings and you will find abode of permanent peace by his benediction.” ---(18.62)

Now for Arjuna God qua his inner voice is telling him not to fight and God standing in front of him is telling the opposite. Which of these is to be followed? Arjuna’s predicament falls back to the square one.