Homework Master 1: Setting the Scene 1) Explain the two parts of the title of the work we will be studying during the final two courses of the YSI Foundation Series.  Include the Sanskrit roots and any English cognates, along with a reference to two Tibetan translations. The first part of the title is of course Bhagavad.  In its original form this is the word bhagavat—the t is required by the rules of combination to become d before a g.  Bhagavat itself consists of two parts, bhaga and vat. The suffix vat added at the end of any item means to possess that item: thus bhagavat means to possess bhaga.  The word bhaga comes from the Sanskrit root √bhanj (bhan~j), which means to break.  The English word break is itself related, as are the words bank (meaning two edges of land split or “broken” by a river into two), and bang (originally from a word for a smashing hammer). Bhaga by itself thus means “something split.”  In an everyday sense it came to be a word for a share of something; in a spiritual sense, it came to mean ones share of goodness: the degree of ones good qualities.  It even came in twilight language to mean a woman’s vagina, in the sense of a split. Bhagavat, or Bhagavan as we often see it, then came to mean one who possesses a generous share of spiritual qualities: a highly evolved, spiritual being.  In Buddhism, it came to be a common word used for a Buddha, and we even see the feminine form, Bhagavati, used to describe the Goddess of Wisdom, as the Heart Sutra.  In the Bhagavad Gita, the Bhagavan is Lord Krishna himself, the divine being who speaks the work. The ancient Tibetan translators rendered this important word in two important ways: one a literal translation, and one a “meaning” translation.  The literal translation is kelsang {SKAL BZANG,}.  This is a common personal name in Tibetan which means having a good (sang) share (kel) of virtue: someone blessed with high spiritual qualities. The “meaning” translation is Chomden De {BCOM LDAN ‘DAS,}, which means the one who possesses the victory, the one gone beyond.  We do also by the way see bhaga translated as kyene {SKYE GNAS,}, place of birth, referring again to the woman’s sexual organ or womb. The word gita (gi#ta) means song, oftentimes a spiritual song, and comes from the root √ga (ga#), meaning to sing.  This may be related to the English word joy.  The name of the book then is The Song of the Blessed One, meaning the “Song of Krishna.”] 1) The Bhagavad Gita is of course spoken almost entirely by Lord Krishna; recount a story or two from his early life that give some insight into the events of the Gita, and to his name as well.  Then give the name of the person who by tradition is said to have written the Gita; the reason for his name; his other two personal names; and his dates. Give finally a general idea of the size of the work. Two stories of Lord Krishna’s earlier life reveal his nature and help explain the events of the Gita.  We first of all see Lord Krishna as a particularly mischievous child growing up in a small village, with his mother Yashoda tearing her hair out trying to keep him out of trouble.  We see him as a toddler stealing all the butter out of a neighbor’s pot, and sneaking into a nearby home to wake up his playmate, Radha, with a pinch (“I’ve arrived; why would you want to sleep?”).   Radha’s mother complains to Yashoda, who decides to tie the “Indigo Child” up with the biggest rope in the house.  But the rope turns out to be 2 inches short.  She goes and gets another rope and adds it to the first, but in the end it’s still 2 inches short.  She keeps tying on other ropes and then all the villagers come and add their ropes, but it’s still the same short. Yashoda begins to cry out of frustration, and so as not to hurt her Lord Krishna finally allows himself to be tied.  Herein we see some of his qualities: a sense of play based in a radically different view of the world; a desire to teach others through skilful means; compassion for those who can’t yet quite “get” his message; and (as we see in his play with Radha and the other gopis, or girls who tend the cows, when he is around nine or ten), a special ability to attract others.    This ability to attract is at the root of traditional explanations of Lord Krishna’s name: many Indian sages have explained it as deriving from the root √kirsh (kr%s%), meaning to draw in, or attract.  He is thus said by tradition to be the “Great Attractor,” in the sense that sooner or later all beings will come to him.   Another explanation is that the name is related to a different-spelled root √kirsh (kr%s*), which means to become lean.  This is also used for the new or dark moon, as it has shrunk into dark with its waning, and is a reference to the dark-blue color of Krishna’s body. A second story says that the sage Narada (himself a renowned trickster), who is said to have authored the Rig Veda, had become one of Lord Krishna’s friends.  The Lord asks Narada to fetch him a cup of water at a nearby river, and then casts a “veil” or spell over him.  Narada goes into a long daydream that seems as real as life to him: he meets a girl at the river; they marry and have children; start a nice family in a nice home; and later lose it all in a flood. Narada is about to commit suicide when Lord Krishna taps him on the shoulder: “Hey, where’s that cup of water?”  The story is that Narada had earlier implied that he was the greatest of all the wise, and that Krishna had determined to teach him a lesson in humility.  Here again we see Lord Krishna’s refusal to take the world seriously, and his desire to instruct others with his divine play—his compassion. The Bhagavad Gita is actually only a section in a larger work, the Mahabharata—which could be called the “Great (Maha) Chronicles of Early India (Bharata).”  This epic was written down by Veda Vyasa, who is also known as Krishna Dvaipayana (literally, the “Dark-Skinned One who Comes from an Island [on the Ganges]”), or Badarayana.   Although Veda Vyasa is by far his most common name, it is in fact only a description of his most famous accomplishment: “veda” refers to the extremely ancient ritual texts of India, and “vyasa” is said to mean “editor.”  The point is that Veda Vyasa is said to have been the one who took the oral tradition of the Vedas (Veda meaning Book of Knowledge) and first wrote it down, then divided it into the four famous Vedas: the Rig Veda (the “Veda of Expression”); the Yajur Veda (“Veda of Offering,” or Sacrifice); the Sama Veda (the “Veda of Sweet Words”); and the Atharva Veda (“Veda of the Sacred Fire”). Veda Vyasa has been dated everywhere from 5,000 BC to 100 AD; certainly, the Vedas are themselves perhaps 5,000 years old.  The Bhagavad Gita consists of 18 chapters (that is, chapters 25-42 of the large original work, the Mahabharata), and is generally counted as having 700 verses.] 2) Describe the place that the Bhagavad Gita takes in the overall structure of Hindu sacred literature, being sure to list the six major categories of “orthodox” Hindu scripture, and at least one example in each category. “Orthodox” Hindu literature is described as that which accepts the authority of the Vedas.  This literature can be divided into the following six categories: (1) Shruti, meaning “that which was heard.”  These include the four different Vedas, which were revealed to mankind by high spiritual practitioners who received them through divine revelation: they “heard” them.  They also include the Upanishads, or treatments of the subject matter of the Vedas devoted to knowledge, especially the perception of ultimate reality.  The Upanishads are sometimes referred to as the “End of the Vedas,” or Vedanta.  They were passed on by word of mouth sitting (shad) down (ni) near (upa) the feet of a Guru. (2) Smirti, meaning “that which is remembered.”  This category covers the law codes of Vedic culture, including injunctions (that which should be done); prohibitions (that which should be avoided); and proclamations (of highest truth).  These texts were written by the ancient sages, or rishis, and are sometimes referred to as the “Dharma Shastras,” or commentaries on the order of things.  Perhaps the most famous example here is the Manu Smirti, a difficult work on the laws of human interaction said to have been written by the first human, Manu. (3) Itihasa, or historical accounts.  One example here is the Valmiki Ramayana, which describes through story what it is to be an ideal being—in this case, Lord Rama.  Another example is the Yoga Vasishtha, also written by Valmiki, which relates the story of Vasishtha, the guru of Lord Rama, and thereby elucidates Vedanta.  And then a final example is the Mahabharata itself, with the Bhagavad Gita contained within it.  The Bhagavad Gita then is considered part of Smirti (the work of a sage) and not Shruti (divine revelation); but within the work itself is referred to as “Gitopanishad,” or “Gita Upanishad.”  It has taken on the status of divine revelation and is often considered an actual Upanishad—in fact, the “essence of the Upanishads.”  The Mahabharata itself is sometimes then referred to as the “Fifth Veda.” (4) Puranas, or devotional Itihasas, which deal with bhakti—devotion.  Veda Vyasa is again credited with writing the 18 major and 18 minor Puranas.  It is said that during a discussion with the sage Narada he revealed that, despite writing the Gita, he still felt unsettled.  Narada told him this was because—even though he had described devotion indirectly in the Gita—he had not written a specific work about it.  This lead to the writing of the Bhagavata Purana (not to be confused with the Bhagavad Gita), which does treat devotion explicitly.  Still it is said that none of the 18 major Puranas can touch the Gita. (5) Agamas are spiritual treatises and manuals of worship which do not derive their authority directly from the Vedas, but which are not opposed to the Vedas.  Agamas classically treat the four subjects of jnana (wisdom); yoga (in the sense of meditation); kriya (in this case, esoteric ritual); and charya (open rituals).  Hindu forms of Tantra, and systems such as the worship of Shiva by the Kashmir Shaivite school, would be included here. (6) Darshanas, or philosophical systems of India based upon the Vedas.  Examples here would be the classical treatments of yoga (such as Master Patanjali’s Yoga Sutra), Sankhya philosophy, and formal logic.] 3) The cast of characters in the Gita is long and difficult to remember, but a basic understanding of the relationship between certain of the main characters is essential to understanding the story.  Describe, in just a sentence or two, the following names— a) Arjuna One of the five sons of Pandu, head warrior of the Pandava side in the war, one of the mightiest archers in the world.  His crisis on the battlefield is the subject of the Gita. b) Yudishthira Another of the five sons of Pandu, who loses a gambling match with the chiefs of the Kauravas, and must agree to a 12-year exile with all of his brothers.  The battle of the Gita is precipitated when the Pandavas complete their time of exile, and the Kauravas refuse to reinstate them their rightful place. c) Dhirtarashtra Elderly king of the Kauravas, who is blind from birth.  He tries to compromise with the Pandavas to prevent the war but is blocked from doing so by his greedy son Duryodhana.  The entire body of the Bhagavad Gita is a report made to him of events on the battlefield, by his attendant Sanjaya—who has been granted clairvoyancy so that he can relay events to his King. d) Pandavas The side in the war headed by the sons of Pandu; they are cousins to the Kauravas and have been threatened by them constantly prior to the final confrontation.  These are the “good guys.” e) Kauravas The bad guys, decendants of Kuru (who is in fact the ancestor of both sides, although by tradition the word “Kaurava” or “descendent of Kuru” is only applied to those who sided against the Pandavas). g) Duryodhana Eldest son of the elderly king Dhirtarashtra, evil leader of the Kaurava side in the battle.  Plotted to kill all the Pandavas, cousins of which he was jealous and vied for power.  Refused to listen to his father, Dhirtarashtra, who suggested a peaceful compromise to avoid the war. h) Drona Master warrior, battle-guru of Arjuna, but fighting on the Kaurava side; said to be the greatest archer in the world.  Has trained the best warriors of each side as young men. i) Bhishma Greatest of the Kaurava warriors, granduncle of Duryodhana.  Arjuna’s counterpart as the mightiest warrior on his side.  Not to be confused with Bhima, who is another of the sons of Pandu, although only by virtue of his mother (Pandu’s wife Kunti) having coupled with the wind god, Vayu. 1) The Gita is the story of a famed battle that took place in ancient India.  What are the two names of the battlefield, and how are they significant?  Who exactly was involved in the war; how many warriors; and how long did this battle take place?  How did the combatants of the battle described in the Gita relate to Lord Krishna?  What is his role in the war, how was it decided, and what does this tell us about one of the main protagonists of the work? The very first line of the Gita identifies the place of the battle as Kurukshetra and Dharmakshetra.  The Sanskrit word kshetra means “field,” in this case a “field of battle.”  This is of course first of all the place where two great clans, each descended from Kuru, will battle: thus Kurukshetra, or “Field of Battle for the Kurus.” But it is also a Dharmakshetra: a Dharma Battlefield.  This relates to an old tradition which says that the battle in question was not simply a war between two Indian clans, but actually a conflict between primordial forces of good and evil—represented by the Devas (Gods, or representatives of the Force of Good) and the Asuras (Demigods, or in this case actually Demons, as representatives of the Force of Evil). The chief “bad guy” on the Kaurava side, Duryodhana, is for example considered to have been the human embodiment of one of these demons, acting out ancient desires to disrupt the smooth running of the universe.  Thus the battle is really a question of whether goodness itself will prevail in the order of the world; and whether this translates directly into a victory for the Pandavas is a question we will be examining soon. It is said that four million warriors took place in the battle, and that it lasted for 18 days. Lord Krishna in the years leading up to the battle is no longer the mischievous toddler but a mighty king—a human king—who lives not far away from the lands of both clans.  He is cordial with both families and both approach him to act be their ally in the world. The way this occurs is that Duryodhana and Arjuna pay him a visit at the same time.  Lord Krishna happens to be asleep when they enter his chambers, and when he wakes he happens to set his eyes first upon Arjuna.  Both battle-leaders plea for Lord Krishna’s assistance in the war, but the Lord declares that he will not be taking part directly in the fighting himself. He does though make an offer that one of the leaders may use his vast army during the battle, while he will agree to act personally as the chariot-driver for the other leader.  Lord Krishna says that—since his eyes fell first on Arjuna—then Arjuna may have first choice. Arjuna doesn’t hesitate.  Even though he has grown up as a childhood friend of Lord Krishna, he has a deep instinct that he is much more than he seems.  He quickly and respectfully requests that King Krishna serve as his driver.  The arrogant Duryodhana considers Arjuna a fool for his choice, and gladly accepts Krishna’s mighty armies. Tradition says that Arjuna’s selection revealed that he was a true jnana yogi: a spiritual practitioner of extremely high spiritual realizations. *6) At the opening of the second chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, we are given a teaching which reveals the true essence of the work.  Describe. Despite the fact that Arjuna is already highly realized, something strange happens to him as the battle is about to begin.  He asks his chariot driver, Krishna, to drive the chariot down between the lines of the two armies, so that he can see clearly who it is that he will be fighting against. Once arrived between the lines, Arjuna is struck by the fact that many of his close friends, and even blood relatives—cousins—are there among the people whom he will be forced to kill.  Even worse, his beloved teacher of the art of war, Drona, is also there.  That is, Arjuna will be put in the position of committing the most evil act of all: harming one of his own Gurus. At this point, according to tradition, Lord Krishna again orchestrates one of his little Dharma lessons and illusions, as he has been doing since he was a toddler.  He casts a web of confusion over Arjuna, who suddenly has a literal nervous breakdown, unable to decide whether he should even be fighting this war or not. Arjuna remarks to Lord Krishna that the purpose of war is to gain some advantage for those that a person loves—but that in this case, this must be done by killing the very people he loves.  In a tremendous act of courage, Arjuna throws down his weapons and determines that he will refuse to fight, even if the warriors of the opposing army should kill him.  Arjuna is paralyzed by doubt then, standing on his chariot in the midst of a massive war about to begin. What happens next is perhaps the most important message of the Gita.  Arjuna turns to King Krishna and says simply, “Tell me now, decisively, what it is better for me to do.  I am your disciple.  I throw myself into your hands.” That is, the crisis has brought Arjuna to the point of truly taking refuge in a spiritual guide: he suddenly perceives King Krishna (his childhood companion, someone who is simply a close and human friend) in his true identity, as Lord Krishna, the emanation of Ishvara himself—of the ultimate and divine force of the universe.  And he recognizes that there are decisions which can only be made with the help of higher guidance: he surrenders to his Guru, or Lama. Without a lot of fanfare then the most important lesson of the Gita—something quite natural for any spiritual seeker of India—is already made, at the very outset, before Krishna really says anything.  If we can only recognize our Heart Lama, and surrender to them, then already our spiritual success is assured. 4) What is the first piece of advice that Lord Krishna grants Arjuna concerning those that he is reluctant to kill?  How would you rate the logic of this statement on its surface level?  And how about on a different level? Lord Krishna tells Arjuna that “The wise grieve neither for the living nor the dead.”  He continues by saying, “There has never been a time when I, and you, and these enemies of yours were not; nor will there ever be such a time in the future.”  And finally he points out that, in the end, we are all doomed to perish.  This Lord Krishna uses as a reason for saying that Arjuna should go ahead and fight. Certainly Lord Krishna’s statements here are perfectly true; we would say, in a logical analysis, that the reason presented for the asserion is in fact true.  That is, the mind and the person are without beginning and without end—although they undergo the perception of inhabiting different bodies, they cannot in actuality be destroyed.  It is indisputable that we are impermanent, and under normal circumstances doomed to die. The fact is though that the reason that Lord Krishna gives to prove his assertion, though itself a true statement, does not prove his assertion.  That is, the fact that people we strive against must eventually die in this present body, and that their minds and persona do continue on indefinitely, does not prove that it is right to kill them now, and that Arjuna should “feel no grief for the living or the dead.” In actuality it’s the exact same as if Lord Krishna had said, “It’s alright to kill the Kauravas, because the sky is blue.”  The sky surely is blue, but this does not prove that killing is right. We can though take Lord Krishna’s statements on a much deeper level.  Here and throughout the rest of the Gita, he is struggling to get Arjuna to realize that the enemies he thinks he sees are not really there at all.  They, and Lord Krishna himself (as the Lord is later to say), are “born of maya,” of illusion.  There is no enemy outside of Arjuna that is not a product of his own perceptions, forced upon him by his past deeds. And so there is no such enemy to kill, or not to kill.  In this light, Lord Krishna’s statements can lead to some sense, as we’ll soon see. 1) Lord Krishna then urges Arjuna to go ahead and fight, because he is a member of the Kshatriya caste, the caste of the Warriors, and there is nothing higher than for a member of this caste to fight in a “righteous” war.  Krishna calls fighting this way “an open door to heaven,” and tells Arjuna that he will “incur a great sin” if he refuses to fight.  What vitally important spiritual concept is broached by these statements? In these words, Lord Krishna is explicitly sanctioning the killing of human beings; whereas earlier Arjuna has expressed the position that it is in fact better to be killed than to kill.  Who is right?  Neither. We’d think that Lord Krishna would immediately tell Arjuna he is completely right, and praise his refusal to engage in killing.  If he had done this, then the matter would have ended there.  And Arjuna would still be seeing things the wrong way. That is—as the Lord has already begun to show us—the people on the other side, the ones that Arjuna is trying to decide either to save or to murder—are not at all what they seem.  If Arjuna at this point decides not to fight, he will still be thinking that the people on the other side exist “out there,” on their own, and are not coming from him.  If Lord Krishna lets the matter go at that, then Arjuna will learn nothing. And so Lord Krishna instead gives an impossible answer: an Indian spiritual teacher in an extremely ancient ethical culture based on non-violence is telling his disciple to go ahead and kill.  It’s not that he really wants Arjuna to kill anyone, it’s that he wants to force Arjuna to examine the question of exactly who he would be killing.   He wants to force Arjuna into a moral quandary, one that involves what we call “interpretation” of a Teacher.  That is, if a spiritual teacher tells us to do something that in our best judgement we feel is wrong, then we are faced with trying to figure out what they really mean us to do.  And by doing so we will certainly learn something, not the least because we will have to feel pretty sure of ourselves if we are going to go against what they have stated that they want. There are a number of classical principles at work here.  One is that we know they can’t literally be meaning what they are saying in their words.  A common example in the monastery is that our Teacher will tell us as we go to wash the dishes, “Please break one of those cups!”  We know of course that they wouldn’t want us to break a cup, and so they must be trying to tell us something else.  There must therefore exist some contradiction between what we know they would normally want, and what they’re saying. Here, the contradiction is that a highly evolved spiritual being in the Indian tradition of non-violence is telling a disciple to kill. A second principle here is necessity: there must be some reason why the Teacher feels it’s necessary to tell us to do something when they don’t really want us to.  This is very important here in the example of Lord Krishna and Arjuna.  By answering Arjuna’s doubts with an injunction to kill, Krishna seeks to throw his student into further struggle—not just to decide whether to kill or not, but to investigate what a person is, and whether the person we normally think we see could even be killed or not—whether they could even exist or not. The third principle refers to what the Teacher really had in mind when they asked us to do something that we know we shouldn’t.  In this case, it’s Lord Krishna’s hope that Arjuna will figure out that the enemies he perceives don’t even exist: an enemy who could do us wrong, but who is not coming directly from ourselves.  Lord Krishna, with his lila or divine play of illusion, wants us to see the illusion we’ve been living under. If we are perceiving everyone and everything around us in a completely mistaken way, Lord Krishna is telling us, then how valid is any action we ever do?  The entire point of the Gita, the entire point of Arjuna’s paralysis, is that we come to question the very act of acting. Coffeeshop assignment:  Please meet with one other member of the class (preferably someone you didn’t know before the course started) to talk a bit about this class, before the next one. Meditation assignment:  15 minutes per day, on the three principles involved in interpreting something we have been told by a Teacher that we are questioning in our own mind. Meditation times and dates (homework without this section completed will not be accepted):