View on B. Gita's concept of duty, killing, going to heaven

[Sherab]

I have not thought through the concept of duty as yet, but my initial reaction is that it is similar to the concept of destiny and therefore a certain lack of choice.

Another reservation I have about the concept of duty is that it can so easily be used to justify the caste system: You are born into this caste to do this duty, so forget about changing what has been destined for you by a higher power and just do your duty. The higher power will therefore reward you for it. In a sense, you are subject to the dictate of a higher entity.

Buddhism keeps it simple and say that your present situation is a result of your past actions. You have a choice of how you react to the present situation, but that reaction carries future consequence through the natural law of karma. So things are quite open in Buddhism. It is also more in accord with the concept that you determine your own destiny.

[Grigoris]

If one´s not able to master the defilements in a battle situation, how much is that art worth then?
The Gita mst use a life and death situation. And the fact, that Arjuna has to go out against "his own people" adds to the emotional complexity of the situation.

So Krshna basically says stay empty and do what needs to be done. As I remember the situation Arjuna is in, there is not an option to avoid that fight.If one individual could avoid all wars, there would be none. As far as I´m concerned there is no difference between the literal and more subtle interpretations, except maybe for the detail that some of them don´t grasp the situation of impeding death and the need to be equianimous toward it. If talking "only mental" stuff there´s always the "escape pod" that you could get away with one transgression, or maybe another one, or ... Arjuna cannot get away with anything. He has to *become empty now*, not phantasize about it.

Best wishes
Gwenn

Does the concept of emptiness even exist in the cult of Krishna? I doubt it. So this interpretation is completely syncretic and probably does not reflect the meaning of the text that the writer intended. Having read a couple of "Hindu" analyses of the text I would say that to try to introduce emptiness into the equation completely lacks a basis.

[Kaccāni]

Does the concept of emptiness even exist in the cult of Krishna? I doubt it. So this interpretation is completely syncretic and probably does not reflect the meaning of the text that the writer intended. Having read a couple of "Hindu" analyses of the text I would say that to try to introduce emptiness into the equation completely lacks a basis.

Hello Sherab,

thanks for the clarification. I merely used that phrase as a convention here since we´re discussing it in the context of a Mahayana site. In a Hindu context you could say stay as Brahma, stay as the absolute, or even become clear of prakriti and recognize purusha. I´ve heard teachers use emptiness in that context, whether they should be called Hindus or Vedantists, who knows.

For practical purposes of being equianimous in facing the situation it doesn´t really change much IMHO. I don´t see why we would need to introduce a notion of ontology in that particular point. What sattvic, rajasic and tapasic concepts are is said in the gita. The ontology of universes appearing and the understanding of karma is also pointed to, so ...

Best wishes
Gwenn

[Grigoris]

thanks for the clarification. I merely used that phrase as a convention here since we´re discussing it in the context of a Mahayana site. In a Hindu context you could say stay as Brahma, stay as the absolute, or even become clear of prakriti and recognize purusha. I´ve heard teachers use emptiness in that context, whether they should be called Hindus or Vedantists, who knows.

When emptiness becomes reified it ceases being emptiness.

[Kaccāni]

Yes, we cannot escape the boundaries of convention when using language. But stressing it every time won´t help either.

[Grigoris]

You misunderstood me: if you call emptiness "the absolute" or "Brahma" then you are reifying it. You have made it something.

In Buddhism emptiness is just emptiness, it is neither absolute nor relative. It is just the way phenomena are. I am not talking about reification through discussion, but a conscious attempt to make it something (which is what normally happens in "Hinduism").

[oushi]

In Buddhism emptiness is just emptiness, it is neither absolute nor relative. It is just the way phenomena are.

Can we conclude, from your words, that absolute and relative phenomena are not empty? In other words, if I reify a phenomena as absolute, will it case to be empty? Will it gain a non-empty nature?

Everything is empty, even Bhagavad-Gita with its reifications.

[Kaccāni]

You misunderstood me: if you call emptiness "the absolute" or "Brahma" then you are reifying it. You have made it something.

Oh, that statement was not meant for you. That was meant for the Hindu.

[Grigoris]

Can we conclude, from your words, that absolute and relative phenomena are not empty?

You can conclude whatever makes you happy.

In other words, if I reify a phenomena as absolute, will it case to be empty? Will it gain a non-empty nature?

Is clinging real? Is the object being clung to real? Is the "clinger" real?

Does it cause suffering?

Do you understand what I am saying?

[oushi]

Do you understand what I am saying?

No.

[Grigoris]

Then you obviously need to find yourself a better teacher than me.

[oushi]

I don't know your teacher, and I did not expect any explanation. Simple answer would be enough, but I received 3 questions instead. Did you think that my answers to those questions will be same as yours, and out of those answers I will be able to find the answer to my question?
Dude...

[Grigoris]

I don't know your teacher, and I did not expect any explanation. Simple answer would be enough, but I received 3 questions instead. Did you think that my answers to those questions will be same as yours, and out of those answers I will be able to find the answer to my question?
Dude...

That is the simplest answer I can give you. You obviously need to find yourself a better teacher than me.

[oushi]

That is the simplest answer I can give you.

No, that's just overcomplicated nonsense. Thanks anyway.

[Grigoris]

No, that's just overcomplicated nonsense. Thanks anyway.

Depends on whether you want to know or to realise.

[oushi]

I wouldn't expect anything but meaningful answer, since I think that attempting to make someone realize sunyata through a post on internet forum, sounds comic.
So, did you try to make me understand, or realize it?

[maybay]

http://elearning.ibc.ac.th/sites/defaul ... utions.pdf