Positive: a warrior's duty Krishna then moves on to a more positive argument for urging Arjuna to charge in to battle with

his usual enthusiasm. He changes the ground of the argument radi cally, and makes an appeal to Arjuna's high status in the Indian caste structure in which he is a Kshattriya, of the warrior class. Having regard to your own duty, you should not falter; there exists no greater g ood for a Kshattriya than a battle enjoined by duty. Happy are the Kshattriyas f or whom such a war comes of its own accord as an open door to heaven. So for a warrior caste member to fight in a war is just doing his duty, and that is the highest to which a warrior can aspire. The unspoken message is that it d oes not matter who one is fighting - Krishna does not mention that fighting agai nst brothers and uncles is any different from fighting against total strangers. It is all one. So if his son or his father was on the other side he should go in to the battle with the same enthusiasm as if he was fighting strange men from f oreign lands. Duty is all. This is the argument that was judged unacceptable at the Nuremburg war crimes tr ials in 1945-6, which established modern international law: I was just doing my duty; I have no moral responsibility for the effects of my actions. But this arg ument here is given the authority of one of the chief gods. So what modern Europ eans have judged to be evil, this god of the Hindus judged to be the ultimate go od. Truly, the ways of gods and men are very different. He does not state whether there is a corresponding duty for the warriors on the other side, so they are all fated to fight their family members out of a rigid d uty obligation. But it does seem to be implied, that if he had been charioteer f or someone on the other side, with similar doubts, he would have used the same a rguments. The oddity is that, late in the Gita, Krishna says that all humans are parts of himself, so this coming battle is one between what seem to be separate parts of Krishna himself, although their separateness as individual humans is j ust an illusion anyway as they are really all just little bits of the god. The other part of it is that dying in battle, doing his duty, is a sure way into heaven. This is something that people are making a big fuss of in Islam, the id ea that to die fighting for one's faith guarantees a place in heaven. But here i t is in the Hindu religion, too, as it is in all religions that accept war and w arrior castes as part of their way of life. The Gita devotes much space to an ac count of unavoidable reincarnation, an endless cycle of birth death and rebirth, but apparently there is a way out - go into battle and get killed, then you are off to heaven and won't come back into another body on earth. Much of the book is about the contemplative life and the struggle to achieve spi ritual enlightenment as a way to escape the cycle of birth and death, but the fi rst-mentioned way of escape is this opportunity for the warrior doing his duty. Years of struggle to earn heaven by creeping towards spiritual perfection, or a quick slash with a sword or thwack with a well-aimed arrow. The result is the sa me. Warriors who avoid their duty Krishna continues with this argument, describing the consequences if Arjuna fail s to do his warrior duty. But if you do not this lawful battle, then you will fa il your duty and glory and will incur sin. So not only is it proper for Arjuna to fight against his cousins and teachers, i t is sinful not to do so.

Besides, men will ever recount your ill-fame and for one who has been honoured, ill-fame is worse than death. This is a strange argument. It appeals to the code of honour of the warrior cast e, concerned about fame and reputation above all, as is true of all warrior cast es in all cultures. But then he goes on to describe ill-fame as worse than death . He has just finished stating that death is irrelevant, not worthy of notice, a nd here he says it is a very bad thing, but there are worse things. This seems c ontradictory The great warriors will think you have abstained from battle though fear and the y by whom you were highly esteemed will make light of you. Many unseemly words will be uttered by your enemies, slandering your strength. C ould anything be sadder than that? Is Krishna here just offering an argument Arjuna the thick-skulled lump of brawn would understand, or is he serious? Does a god ever stoop to unworthy argument? It is hard to know what the writer of the Gita had in mind. In chapter 6 (and other places), Krishna says That serene one absorbed in the Atman masters his will, he knows no disquiet in heat or in cold, in pain or pleasure, in honour, dishonour Or on chapter 12 His attitude is the same towards friend and foe. He is indifferent to honour and insult, heat and cold, pleasure and pain. He is free from attachment. He values praise and blame equally. So it seems that honour and dishonour should not be taken to heart and a wise ma will be indifferent to both, but here Krishna speaks to the warrior in Arjuna w ho values honour and avoids dishonour above all other things. The god can offer one value and its opposite and still feel comfortable with both. After all this urging Arjuna to fight, late in the Gita, the writer describes hi s ideal enlightened man, with among other qualities, these: A man should not hate any living creature. Let him be friendly and compassionate to all?He must be forgiving? they are devoted to the welfare of all creatures So, death does not matter, bodies are irrelevant, but the good man is devoted to the welfare of all creatures, which must mean nurturing and showing kindness to their bodies, causing no harm or pain. Heaven: eternity or waiting room for reincarnation? Either slain you shall go to heaven, or victorious you shall enjoy the earth; th erefore arise?resolved on battle. Here Krishna seems to be switching to an entirely different system of values. Go ing to heaven on one hand, enjoying the earth on the other, seem to be about equ ally attractive, as Krishna presents them. It seems based on the idea expressed earlier by Arjuna, that the ancestors are all in heaven. None seem to return to earth for another incarnation. But most of the Gita and its ethic is based on th e foundation of reincarnation, and makes no sense without it. There seem to be t wo incompatible ideas of the afterlife threading through this poem. And there is the attitude to enjoying the delights of the earth. Krishna seems t

o be tempting Arjuna to believe that if he goes into battle and is victorious, t he reward will be enjoying the earth and his power as a member of the winning ro yal family. Yet most of the Gita is aimed to develop contempt for the pleasures of the earth and concentration on the rewards of the contemplative life, so why Krishna is here appealing to Arjuna's desire to enjoy the earth is a mystery. An d Arjuna has just said that he couldn't enjoy the earth if he carries with him t his knowledge that his victory involved killing his family and carrying blood-gu ilt. Much of this chapter is devoted to teaching Arjuna to discipline his body and no t seek passing physical pleasures. When the mind runs after the roving senses, i t carries away the understanding, even as a wind carries away a ship on the wate rs. People in all cultures struggle with this issue, expressing contempt for anybody who blows with every wind, and is now excited by this sensation, then soon afte r by a different one. The contrast is with someone who is not distracted by ever y tempting sensation, but is steadfast and purposeful. Krishna's argument takes this argument to the extreme of Stoic disregard for sensual delights. He whose senses are all withdrawn from their objects, his intelligence is firmly set?He unto whom all desires enter as waters into the sea, which, though ever b eing filled is ever motionless, attains to peace and not he who hugs his desires . He who abandons all desires and acts free from longing, without any sense of m ineness or egotism, he attains to peace. But this is not just a matter of being steadfast and not easily swayed by tempti ng sensual pleasures. Arjuna asks Krishna: What is the description of the man wh o has this firmly-founded wisdom, whose being is steadfast in spirit? Krishna's answer is in the form of paean for the Stoic philosophy: When a man pu ts away all desires of his mind, and when his spirit is content in itself, then is he called stable in intelligence. He whose mind is untroubled in the midst of sorrows and is free from eager desire amid pleasures, he from whom passion, fea r and rage have passed away, he is called a sage of settled intelligence. He who is without affection on any side, who does not rejoice or loathe as he obtains good or evil, his intelligence is firmly set in wisdom. He who draws away the se nses from the objects of sense on every side as a tortoise draws in his limbs, h is intelligence is firmly set in wisdom Krishna seems to be describing here and elsewhere someone who does not respond t o joys or sorrows, pain or pleasure. Take this literally and you have a zombie, a person incapable of responding to the normal stimuli of life, who has no value s other than withdrawal, and no way of deciding what to do at any moment, as non e of the possibilities are at all attractive or interesting. In chapter 3, Krishna continues along the same theme He who restrains his organs of action but continues in his mind to brood over th e objects of sense, whose nature is deluded is said to be a hypocrite This makes good sense - mere abstention from sensual pleasure if it is still str ongly desired is no solution to life's problems, as it isn't for the alcoholic w ho manages to control himself and not touch a drop, but who thinks about it all day and feels deprived of his main satisfaction. Change and stability The Atman is described as Changeless to distinguish it from the passing experien ces of the sensual world and its short-lived sensations. Throughout the Gita, as

in many other religious scriptures, Krishna is presented as Changeless, as oppo sed to the evanescent fleeting existence of all physical things on earth. A comm on contrast: stability v change, with stability seen as desirable and noble, whi le a constant flux of change is seen as a sign of worthlessness, with humans urg ed to aspire to something better, beyond all this fleeting flux.