-
Essay / Contemplation and Knowledge in the Bhagavad-gita
“Lord of discipline,” Arjuna said to Krishna in the tenth teaching of the Bhagavad-gita, “how can I know you while I meditate on you? This is a paradoxical question. It would seem that the only way to “know” Krishna would be to “meditate” on him. This is even more true for the reader who, while reading, meditates on Krishna and who, while meditating, tries to reconcile himself with his divinity. Reversing the question leads to a more sensible inquiry, at least on the surface: “Krishna,” says my hypothetical convert, “how can a man know you if he does not meditate on you?” Just by asking his strange question, Arjuna suggests that there is indeed a way to find Krishna without meditating on him. And furthermore, meditating on him is, in a way, an obstacle to knowing him. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay If meditation hinders knowledge, then a deeper paradox arises for the Bhagavad-Gita as a whole. It becomes impossible to understand the story of Krishna and Arjuna just by reading it. The work prohibits knowledge of the work. Or, if Arjuna's question is interpreted to mean how can he know Krishna at the same time as he meditates on him, and if perhaps his investment in meditation will later give him the divine knowledge he seeks, then at the very least the reader is deemed incapable of understanding Krishna while he is reading. For both Arjuna and the reader, contemplation (or “meditation”) is both necessary and unethical. It is contemplation that allows us to understand Krishna. But while one contemplates Krishna, one cannot practice his dharma, which is defined in the Bhagavad-Gita as “performing necessary actions.” Therefore, contemplation, a form of inaction, prevents us from implementing the central teaching of Krishna. This chicken-and-egg problem runs through the Bhagavad-Gita and raises the question: what is the value of contemplation? Krishna makes it clear that Arjuna should not withdraw from the fight. But by revealing to Arjuna's eyes the infinite splendors of his divine nature, he rewards the "coward" for his "petty weakness". He rewards Arjuna for simply contemplating his dharma and, in a sense, for not respecting it. To use a modern term, the Gita “problematizes” contemplation a lot. Asking his question about Krishna, Arjuna addresses him as the “Lord of Discipline”. Arjuna learned the meaning of "discipline" (or yoga) in the sixth teaching, in which Krishna said: Know that discipline, Arjuna, is what men call renunciation; the lesson by saying: “You define this discipline / by equanimity. » So when Arjuna asks Krishna, “How can I know you by meditating on you,” he is asking the One who is Himself the Lord of equanimity, the very bond of renunciation, which fills the void that remains when everything has been given up. “Discipline” has a second meaning. Towards the end of the Second Teaching on “Spiritual Discipline”, Krishna says: “Disciplined by understanding, one abandons both good and bad deeds; so arm yourself for discipline. Discipline is skill in actions. bad deeds,” is the same as equanimity discussed above. But the idea of “arming for discipline” introduces the link between discipline and action (an action that is, in this case, fundamentally violent: “arming”). “Discipline is skill,” or accuracy, “in actions.” A comprehensive definition of discipline encompasses both renunciation (or equanimity) andthe action. The apparent contradiction between renunciation and action is easily reconciled: Always perform with detachment Any action you must perform; Performing an action with detachment We achieve the supreme good. Understanding "detachment" here as equanimity, the idea of "discipline" becomes clear: it means both the renunciation of the "fruit" of action and the studied practice of performing a necessary action. If Krishna is the “Lord of Discipline,” this cannot simply mean that he is capable of reaching his own standard. Rather, it means that as a god, he is the entity to whom "discipline" must be devoted, like any other sacrifice one makes. As Barbara Stoller says in her glossary, discipline is “the act of clinging to the divine purpose of Krishna.” Rephrasing Arjuna's question in light of this definition, it reads something like: "Lord of renunciation and pure action, how can I know you when I am engaged in contemplating you, which shows that I neither renounced my attachments nor acted in a pure way? No wonder Krishna never answers the question; formulated in this way, it cannot be answered. Further elaborating on Arjuna's impossible question requires an examination of 'knowledge'. Miller defines "knowledge" in such an ambiguous and general way that the concept retains almost no meaning. She writes that it is “a non-conceptual spiritual knowledge of transcendental reality.” His definition even uses the word "knowledge" to define "knowledge", which leads one to wonder what exactly "non-conceptual spiritual knowledge of transcendental reality" could possibly refer to, apart from itself. In the Fourth Teaching of Miller's translation, Krishna seems to Pose an equally obscure definition, if one chooses to call it a definition, of knowledge: Faithful, intentional, his senses Submissive, he acquires knowledge; By acquiring knowledge, He soon finds perfect peace. Knowledge is the state one arrives at once one has acquired knowledge. Knowledge is initially acquired by being “faithful, intentional” and having “the senses mastered”. Perfect knowledge is implicitly equated with “perfect peace.” To “know” Krishna is therefore, in essence, to have perfect peace. Indeed, knowing Krishna would necessarily mean having perfect knowledge, since Krishna is “the source of everything, / everything proceeds from [him]”. Arjuna's question now reads like this: "Lord of pure action, how can I attain perfect peace while I meditate on you?" » What Arjuna must mean by “meditate” is to wrestle with the questions raised by Krishna. Struggling with such questions means that Arjuna cannot have achieved perfect peace, because he is struggling. The answer is therefore a resounding no. Arjuna cannot achieve perfect peace as long as he struggles with notions such as perfect peace. It may seem like this is where this article started. But unraveling the exact meaning of the words in the question allows us to raise the question of the relationship between action and peace, or action and knowledge. This is very clearly the central question that the author of the Bhagavad-Gita wishes to address. This is the question with which Arjuna is most directly and distinctly confronted. Arjuna is stuck between two armies, in the midst of a spiritual crisis. Krishna slowly reveals to him the nature of God, truth and duty with the express purpose of motivating Arjuna to fight – for the right reasons. Arjuna must come to “know” these reasons – the truth – in order to “act”. But if one “knows,” it has been shown that one is in “perfect peace.” If we are in a..