BB: Were Arjuna of right mind, he would be dead to self and all earthly cares,
his mind clearly fixed on the Absolute.
REPLY:
But according to my understanding of the Gita the idea is that to be of
the right mind is to clearly fixed on your earthly task, on what you
are doing right now, like any craftsman at work in his craft.
That is a very different matter than being "fixed on the
Absolute", which does not seem to me to be recommended anywhere in the
Gita. What could that mean in Hinduism? Of course, the
objection is obvious, given my interpretation, namely, who says what
your task is? Well, Arjuna was a general; and the dramatic
context provides the task there: be a general and do what that
dictates now. But then in real life that is frequently the
way it is. Wriggle around any way you like, at times; there is no
getting around what your task appears to you to be, unless you
are in the business of rejecting all obligations in principle.
Now, Arjuna might well be faulted for never having asked
himself before that moment, when all the troops are
lined up, whether he really thinks he ought to be try to be a general,
instead of raising that question at the last minute. But
then he might have said, well, but is there no legitimate occasion ever
to be a general, the task of whom is precisely to slaughter the enemy
at certain times, no matter who the enemy is? And then we would
have a wholly different kind of moral reflection going on. But do
you think the point the Gita makes is simply wrong, regardless of
context, or isn't it right in saying, in effect, "Hey, the world
contains many unspeakably vile things, never to be justified by any
reasoning based on practical worldly consequences. There is no
solution at the level of this-worldly understanding, and no conclusion
to be drawn about this world except that it is constructed in an
unspeakably vile and unjust way, if you try to assess it in calculative
terms of good and bad produced. But in fact these armies are
drawn up and are going to be slaughtering one another regardless of
what you decide now. But don't confuse yourself with the being
that decided that the world would be like this, if it makes sense to
say that there is any such being."
There is something that simply passes the possibility of a mere
stance of moral self-righteousness about such situations. And
sometimes there is nothing to do but what is wrong, any way you want to
look at it. (He is not, after all, being urged to slaughter needlessly
-- any more than, say, he is being urged to torture people by proxy, as
generals and commanders-in-chief frequently are, Western and Eastern
alike. Would that the products of Western civilization and the
Christian religion could be expected to rise routinely to the level of
a sincere and intelligent devotee of the Gita and just do their job
instead of exploiting its power! ) So the only way out, when you
are in such a situation of moral impossibility is just to do your job,
assuming you know what your job really is."
In my opinion, the next stage of development after Hinduism is Socratic
Platonism -- Plato is acually a Reform Hindu in my opinion -- where you
take as your job the task of, say, trying to get clear on what it means
to be a general. Not that that gets you off the hook of these
morally imponderable situtations, but at least you've got a better
job! And if you ever find yourself in position to be the
executive ruler of a great country you might be able to avoid
disgracing your office and your political and religious tradition when
such questions as, What is the job of a President? and What is
the job of a torturer? arises!
I am reminded just now, by the way, of that passage in the l898
lectures on "vitally important topics" where Peirce says that the
vivisectionist becomes immoral precisely at the moment when he tries to
justify his actions in slicing up the dog on the grounds that it will
have beneficial results.
Joe