Turquiose: I'm going to follow up on this, because 1) it's part of a pattern I see on FFL, 2) it ties in with other posts I've made here, and similar reactions to them, and 3) I'm a little surprised that it's actually YOU doing the reacting this time, s3raphita.
I like thinking about religion and spirituality in "out of the box" ways, ways that approach the old stories from new perspectives, and that challenge us to step out of the conditioned boxes we've been taught to think within and approach these stories from wholly new perspectives. Thus I really *liked* Valerie Tarico's article. I think she brought up a valid and interesting point about religion, and not just Western or Christian religion -- that women have *zero* rights within those religions, at least when it comes to "doing what they're told to do," by either gods, or people claiming to represent those gods. I *like* "out of the box" stuff like this. In fact, I recently made another post in which I touched on a (to me) similar subject: Turquoise: Exactly. At its heart, the Gita is the story of Doing What You're Told By Your Superiors, no matter what your own sense of discrimination, honor, and right and wrong tell you. I'd love to hear those who diss the Koran while praising the Gita explain to me how the latter is any less of a call for Jihad (holy war) than the former. In both books you've got the spiritual figure (Muhammed in the former, Krishna in the latter) telling the faithful that it's their DUTY to go out and kill thousands of people, *just because he says so*. Not only is this the way that they achieve dharma (holy action, right action), it's the way that they attain liberation in the afterlife. The only real difference I can see is that Muhammed promises the dweebs who do what he tells them to do a bunch of virgins in the afterlife and Krishna promises them moksha. And historically, followers of both books have used them to justify their religious wars. My suggestion is that Maharishi (and most commentators on the B-G) have never seen this aspect of it because they grew up conditioned to do whatever a supposedly religious figure told them to do. Devotion to the spiritual figure is seen as a given, something they can't conceive of as being questionable or having negative consequences. Having accepted this as not only normal but "the highest dharma," they can't take that critical step back and see that what the religious figure is telling them to do is go out and kill as many of their fellow human beings (in the Gita's case, their own relatives) as possible, just because he says so. In a very real sense, Krishna in the Gita is the counterpart of Buck at FFL. "We should send drones to kill these people I have designated as heretics. And we should do this because I say so. So there." ----- Turquoise, I am all for exploring outside the box. Though, of course, simple being outside the box, by it self, does not make something useful and valid. Perhaps nine of ten, or 99 out of 100 things outside the box are dross and dead-ends. But finding that one thing can I would hope, make the effort worthwhile. The demarcations of what is inside the box and outside may vary. At large scale, Xeno had some wonderful replies to a set of Dev. posts. recently. One theme being the universality of (at least) many religions and paths towards unfolding that what is inside the "inner" box is the same as that which is outside (the inner) box. On a more focussed scale, some may be living within a quite small box and venturing outside is indeed may feel to be an escape from Plato's Cave. I realize that like Russian dolls, others may be living inside a larger box, already containing my little box and what to me are astonishing insights are child's play to them. And if not abusing the analogy, we may be living in different boxes pertaining to different spheres of our lives. For example, someone well grounded in physics is living in a far vaster box than me in that domain, though (well for the sake of argument) I may be living in a larger box in at least a few domains within which their box is comparatively smaller. And it appears sometimes, what appears to be a large box is simply filled with hot air, smoke and mirrors. That is, a concise simple view may actually be a huge box -- having cut through all the jungle clutter. Thus, my suggesting that you have viewed the Gita in simple terms is neither a dismissal or compliment of your ideas. Each view needs to stand on its own merits. Some thoughts: 1) Per the story, prior to the battlefield, Krishna was Arjuna's friend. Upon being asked, Krishna became Arjuna's servant, his charioteer -- a lowly position. Only at Arjuna's request, did Krishna take on a role of guidance and counsel. Not until quite late in the Gita did Krisha reveal his universal form -- again at Arjuna's request. That form was so overwhelming, Arjuna begged Krishna to return to his form as friend. Arjuna asked many questions. Having gained insight from Krishna's replies, Arjuna placed more weight on Krishna's value as an advisor. By the end, Arjuna had all his questions answered, felt from his own view, that Krishna was the real deal (for him, Arjuna) and had no qualms about taking the totality of Krishna's advice . 2) From your posts, I know you appreciate the role of metaphors. Many view the battlefield in the Gita as metaphor -- which does not validate -- but perhaps is worthy of consideration. (a quick cut and past from Wiki) Eknath Easwaran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eknath_Easwaran writes that the Gita 's subject is "the war within, the struggle for self-mastery that every human being must wage if he or she is to emerge from life victorious",[53] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita#cite_note-84 and that "The language of battle is often found in the scriptures, for it conveys the strenuous, long, drawn-out campaign we must wage to free ourselves from the tyranny of the ego, the cause of all our suffering and sorrow."[54] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita#cite_note-85 Swami Nikhilananda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Nikhilananda, takes Arjuna as an allegory of Ātman, Krishna as an allegory of Brahman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman, Arjuna's chariot as the body, and Dhritarashtra as the ignorance filled mind.[note 7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita#cite_note-86 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi, in his commentary on the Gita,[55] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita#cite_note-87 interprets the battle as "an allegory in which the battlefield is the soul and Arjuna, man's higher impulses struggling against evil".[56] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita#cite_note-88 Swami Vivekananda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Vivekananda also emphasised that the first discourse in the Gita related to the war could be taken allegorically.[57] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita#cite_note-89 Vivekananda further remarked, Show message history 3) The Gita is and has been seen quite distinctly by India and the world through the ages. It is not a one-view- fits-all type of book. I found the following book review useful in understanding that better. War and Peace in the Bhagavad Gita by Wendy Doniger http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/dec/04/war-and-peace-bhagavad-gita/ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/dec/04/war-and-peace-bhagavad-gita/ War and Peace in the Bhagavad Gita by Wendy ... http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/dec/04/war-and-peace-bhagavad-gita/ How did Indian tradition transform the Bhagavad Gita into a bible for pacifism, when it began life as an epic argument persuading a warrior to engage in a battl... View on www.nybooks.com http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/dec/04/war-and-peace-bhagavad-gita/ Preview by Yahoo
