Thursday 20 November 2014

Session 5 The Bhagavad Gita

On Tuesday we looked at another ‘hour-of-death’ scene: the sacred dialogue that takes place on the battlefield between Lord Krishna and the warrior Arjuna.  Arjuna is distressed at the prospect of killing in battle his opponents – his kinsmen and friends.  Krishna tells him, “Thou grievest for those who need no grief. The wise grieve not for the living nor the dead”  Why is this?  Krishna teaches the essential immortality of all things: “Verily, never was I not. Nor thou, nor all of these, nor ever shall we cease to be.”  He reveals the true nature of the Divine, of the Macrocosm and of humankind.  What follows from this is that how one acts is of significance.  One is to act from within, from one’s integrity, without being attached to the fruits of one’s actions. You might like to listen again too this extract from Mark Tully's BBC Radio 4 programme on the Hindu ideas of refraining from action, and of karma: Something Understood (6 mins).
The speaker suggests that the doctrine of karma - that we are bound by our actions within a chain of cause and effect - strengthens rather than weakens us: our very next action always counts.
Next time (2 December) we'll have another hour-of-death dialogue, as Lady Philosophy appears to Boethius in his prison cell.
I hope you find these posts and the comments helpful.  In the spirit of the course, please treat each other's comments with respect:  every viewpoint, if heeded carefully, has the potential to expand the consciousness.

3 comments:

  1. I found this week’s discussion of action intriguing. Action takes place within a context, the person brings forth their (often inevitable) action from a foundation of experience, knowledge of his or her own skills and observation of the players and the conditions. Well-judged action results in a betterment of the situation, action in haste or ignorance may result in harm.

    In haste, a knee-jerk and habitual re-action might take place. I feel it is therefore very important to try to use all one’s faculties to decide between action and non-action; to think, feel, use the intuition (whatever that may be) and to reflect (‘reflection-in-action’ – Schon). In my view, not all inaction is ‘passivity’ – a word which has a somewhat pejorative tone.

    In the modern world, I think there may be a tendency to over-emphasise the importance of action, when a balance of action and holding back from action might be desirable. It seems that human beings really feel impelled to ‘do something!’ when faced by any situation. Stoic-style reflection at the end of the day might illuminate the true results of our in/actions!

    This year’s Stoic Week is just about to start! http://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/stoicismtoday/stoic-week-2014/

    ReplyDelete
  2. My thoughts about the word ‘passive’.

    A friend reminded me that we are all ‘passive’ to societal laws, cultural norms, religious dogmas etc. We are passive when we submit to others or to outside influences, either through our own choice consciously or unconsciously through lack of awareness.

    The reason there is a pejorative significance is probably because it implies a lack of responsibility for one’s own authority. A person has to be in an unconscious ‘passive’ state in order to be indoctrinated, and would be expected to not question or critically examine the doctrine they have learnt.

    This is distinct from a ‘receptive’ state that one engages in actively in order to really listen, to learn and absorb knowledge, or during meditation. This is the active in/breathing space previously referred to.

    One might remain in a persistently unconscious state of passivity until one becomes aware of and connects with the self-motivating and self-activating aspects of one’s soul.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, there is a meaningful distinction to be made between 'passive' and 'receptive'. There is also, incidentally, action in the form of passive resistance.

      Delete