| |
|
Arjuna questions
Krishna again: what is it that drives one to act unwisely, even if unwillingly?
Krishna now tries to subtly unpick the issue of desire: desires are part
of the forces of Nature, even in the wise; to renounce desire is a desire
in itself yet somehow desire is at the root of the problem, at the root
of suffering. He starts off by saying that the problem is greedy
desire, a desire that somehow has found a place in the senses, blinding
the soul and reason. Krishna instructs Arjuna to set the senses in harmony,
and to defeat sinful desire, and gives this clue as to how to do it: greater
than the senses is the mind, greater than the mind is reason, and greater
than reason is He the Spirit in man and in all. Does this make any sense?
Krishna is appealing to an ultimate principle to harmonise the senses,
by which perhaps he means to bring the desires that relate to each individual
sense into harmony with life as a whole. Centuries of argument and dispute;
many volumes on the subject; a range of opinions; you will find every
shade of view on this from the extreme ascetic who deadens the senses,
withdraws from objects of desire (objects of desire in Indian religions
are summarised traditionally as 'women and gold'; nothing is said of what
women desire!), to the Tantric yogi who practices ritual sex.
Krishna finishes this section by saying to Arjuna:
43 Know
Him therefore who is above reason; and let his peace give thee peace.
Be a warrior and kill desire, the powerful enemy of the soul. (page
60)
This first part of this emphasises again that Arjuna should find the part
of himself above and beyond himself. This is the same baffling advice
from a thousand mystics, using a thousand metaphors! Sometimes one 'gets'
it and later it is lost again; in the searching it retreats further away,
and then suddenly it is with one again. One might sit at the feet of the
mystic for weeks and find it nowhere; go and work in the kitchens for
a day, and it is with one. It is the same with the Gita or any
other work of that nature: one can read it for months and not 'get it';
later one can pick it up, read a paragraph at random, and be transformed.
The second part of this statement, 'kill desire' is what leads many to
treat the Gita as metaphorical: the battle for Arjuna is between
good and evil. Krishna knows the subtlety of it all so he continues on
another tack: he returns to reincarnation.
In chapter four Krishna tells Arjuna that he revealed the sacred wisdom
to the most ancient of ancestors (he actually talks about the sun, symbolically
father of all beings). Jesus also claims to precede his Jewish ancestors:
'In very truth I tell you, before Abraham was born, I am' [10]. Krishna says that the teachings were passed
on from father to son in ancient times, but are lost in the revolutions
of time and he is revealing it again to Arjuna because he loves him and
is his friend. This is one of the appealing parts of the Gita:
Arjuna is put in the role of a disciple of Krishna, and it seems at times
a rather recalcitrant one, but Krishna talks of him as a friend: this
friendship (and it is a very special type of friendship) is almost unknown
in the world today. Much damage has been done to this special friendship,
and in the West particularly the concept is tainted with scepticism stories
of Gurus, Masters, Acolytes, all of whom are seen as part of a warped
power-structure that ends in tragedies such as Jonestown and Waco. But,
to return to the Gita: Arjuna questions him on this; how could
he have revealed it to the ancients when his birth is more recent? Again
Arjuna forgets reincarnation, one of the central religious principles
of his culture, again showing that no aspects of ultimate reality can
be taught as dry knowledge; one has to know it. Krishna reminds
Arjuna then that both of them have been born many times, though only Krishna
remembers his previous lives.
We now have another clue as to Krishna's nature: is it a special one,
or is he born and reborn like everyone else? Is Krishna radically and
fundamentally a different type of being to Arjuna or is it just that he
is more aware of his previous existences? More identified with the whole
than the part? Krishna now spells out that he is the Source of All, and
that he comes into being (as a man) when righteousness is weak, for the
fulfilment of righteousness. On the surface of it Krishna is saying that
he is God, that he is different to Arjuna. Looking ahead to one of Nietzsche's
memorable phrases, he says: "if there were gods how could I endure
not to be one. Therefore there are no gods" and he is right
to say this! For the theistic mystic the journey is more a case of: "if
there is God, I want to be Him", though usually put more modestly:
"if there is God, then I seek union with Him". However, to claim
memories of past lives is not to claim godhood, as countless individuals
both in the East and West have such memories, or can gain access to them
with little difficulty. (Approximately one-third of the population are
susceptible to hypnotism; approximately one-third of the population claim
religious experiences of some sort; I would guess that probably one-third
of the population could gain access to memories of past lives, if motivated.)
Krishna's contention that he returns when 'righteousness is weak' is also
debatable: despite the story about Chaitanya there is no general consensus
amongst Hindus that Krishna returns periodically (either as an incarnation
of Vishnu, or as 'himself'), or that his life was entirely devoted to
restoring 'righteousness' in the first place. It was mentioned before
that his later conduct in the war seems far from righteous, and it is
also worth pointing out that there is nothing essentially new in his teachings:
what we are looking at in the Gita is more of a unique encounter
than a unique teaching. We will return to these issues later.
Krishna continues to urge Arjuna's devotion to wisdom (through devotion
to the ultimate in Krishna). He who has penetrated the mystery of Krishna's
birth comes to wisdom and is born no more. He returns to the theme of
disinterested work, and other ways of consecrating one's actions, including
the discipline of Pranayama (breath control). One of these paths is devotion
to him, Krishna. This is hard to imagine in some ways: you ask your friend
Krishna who is your brother-in-law and friend of many years to drive your
chariot to the battle-line; he insists that you should fight, and then
reveals that he is God, and that your salvation can come through devotion
to him. This is not an ordinary moment in someone's life!
In this chapter we also have the first introduction in the Gita
to the theme of silence, which we shall return to later:
17 Know
therefore what is work, and also know what is wrong work. And know also
of a work that is silence: mysterious is the path of work.
18 The
man who in his work finds silence, and who sees that silence is work,
this man in truth sees the Light and in all his works finds peace. (page
62)
Krishna finishes chapter four by again urging Arjuna to conquer his doubts
with the sword of wisdom and to arise (and fight), giving more ammunition
to those wanting to treat the Gita metaphorically.
In chapter five Arjuna stubbornly continues to ask Krishna questions (thankfully,
or the Gita would have been cut very short!) He asks again which
is the better, the path of renunciation or holy work, saying that Krishna
praises both. Does he praise renunciation? This really is the crux of
the Gita. I don't think that Krishna is praising renunciation,
in the sense of walking away from friends, loves, occupations, ordinary
pleasures; we may remember that Chaitanya's devotee also seemed to make
the distinction between Chaitanya as a renunciate and Chaitanya as Krishna
(a non-renunciate). That Arjuna understands renunciation as Krishna's
message is just the problem that we all have in getting at Krishna's meaning,
and Krishna's problem in explaining it. It doesn't get much clearer in
the following section: in some sense I think Krishna is talking about
something else, something indefinable. One renounces in some ways but
one doesn't in other ways; one surrenders the attachment to ones works,
but doesn't surrender one's work; but the goal is renunciation, on the
other hand it isn't. The following passage indicates how Krishna suggests
that one relates to the varied activities that make up work:
8/9
'I am not doing any work', thinks the man who is in harmony, who
sees the truth. For in seeing or hearing, smelling or touching, in eating
or walking, or sleeping, or breathing, in talking or grasping or relaxing,
and even in opening or closing his eyes, he remembers: 'It is the servants
of my soul that are working.' (page 66)
In a later passage he indicates a crucial component of the disinterestedness
at the core of the mystic's world-view: love. This may be hard to understand
if one's experiences of love are the sort that leads to possessiveness,
but it is also love that is at the heart of the mystic expansion, mystic
union, and mystic embraciveness:
18 With
the same evenness of love they behold a Brahmin who is learned and holy,
or a cow, or an elephant, or a dog, or even the man who eats a dog.
(page 67)
A little cultural background is required here: a man who eats a dog is
doubly beyond the pale, or outcast, because Hindus regard all forms of
meat-eating as unholy, and a dog especially so (as it would be in the
West). The inclusion of the man who eats a dog is a recognition of the
Tantric or left-handed path to enlightenment; even today, the adepts of
certain Tantric sects are required to live in unclean places (such as
burial grounds) and eat otherwise forbidden food. The important part of
this passage, is not however the inclusion of what Hindus regard as unclean,
but the evenness of love characteristic of those who orient themselves
to the infinite and immortal.
In chapter six of the Gita Krishna recommends for the first time
the practice of meditation. Like many other terms general to mysticism,
and also terms specific to Indian thought like Atman and Brahman, the
term meditation carries many meanings and implications. Just as there
is no intention here to become too worried about the precise meaning of
either the technical terms like Atman and Brahman, or of words in general
currency like spirit and soul, there is no intention to pin down the word
meditation. However, because of the external aspects of meditation,
we can see clearly that this is what Krishna is recommending.
10 Day
after day, let the Yogi practice the harmony of soul: in a secret place,
in deep solitude, master of his mind, hoping for nothing, desiring nothing.
11 Let
him find a place that is pure and a seat that is restful, neither too
high nor too low, with sacred grass and a skin and a cloth thereon.
12
On that seat let him rest and practice Yoga for the purification of
the soul: with the life of his body and mind in peace; his soul in silence
before the One.
13 With
upright body, head, and neck, which rest still and move not; with inner
gaze which is not restless, but rests still between the eye-brows;
14 With
soul in peace, and all fear gone, and strong in the vow of holiness,
let him rest with mind in harmony, his soul on me, his God supreme.
15
The Yogi who, lord of his mind, every prays in this harmony of soul,
attains the peace of Nirvana, the peace supreme that is in me. (page
70)
This passage is typical of the density of the Gita; so many issues
arise in just a few verses. Krishna is repeating an inventory of Indian
wisdom in his teachings to Arjuna, most of which would have already been
familiar to the great warrior. However, to hear these teaching from childhood,
as we have all heard the teachings of our own traditions from childhood,
is rarely useful, more often merely deadening it takes a Krishna to bring
life to them. In this section we have to subtract out the specifically
Hindu, so we can leave aside the issue as to what a Yogi is (we can take
him to be an aspirant), and also the traditional accoutrements, the sacred
grass and skin. We can also leave for now the reference to the One, and
to God, as different translators choose different terms, and leave out
holiness which others translate as celibacy (brahmacharya). This is at
its simplest a description of a specific meditation, with two key elements;
firstly that the aspirant is to meditate 'on' or perhaps 'through' the
person of Krishna, and that the goal is nirvana (or beyond nirvana
in other translations). The recommendation to meditate tells us little
about Krishna's being however (as we have no indication that he practices
any form of meditation), which reminds us that a mystic's pedagogy is
often not the same as his reality.
Krishna has mentioned inner peace, and now expands on another critical
teaching in mysticism: let the mind be in silence. Once the mind
is in silence ultimate reality is there, inexpressible, overwhelming,
ordinary. The Zen teachers have emphasised this to the exclusion of all
else, and call it no-mind: Krishna has talked about devotion, now he comes
to awareness as the second path to no-mind. The Hindu religion is as steeped
in 'silence of the mind' as it is in devotion and reincarnation, so Arjuna
is quick to put to him the age-old question: my mind is restless, what
should I do? This is typical of even contemporary Indian society: whereas
stock religious questions in a Christian context may revolve around moral
and theological issues, a stock religious question in India (often asked
with little passion and the answer received with even less) is: how do
I still the mind? The West has no tradition of silence of the mind, an
issue that deserves a more detailed analysis than space allows for here.
We note however that C.G.Jung made two interesting points in connection
with this aspect Indian philosophy; firstly how Indians seemed to 'observe'
their thoughts rather than think them [11],
and secondly he commented that the concept of nirvana was for him
one of amputation [12]. We can only ask why one of the greatest Western thinkers
of the 20th century could be so unsophisticated about the role of thought,
and briefly suggest that perhaps thought has been proved so 'successful'
in the West that to challenge its privileging is as absurd as to challenge
'health'. This theme will be taken up later. Let us first see a fragment
of the debate on silence between Krishna and Arjuna:
ARJUNA
33 Thou
hast told me of a Yoga of constant oneness, O Krishna, of a communion
which is ever one. But, Krishna, the mind is inconstant: in its restlessness
I cannot find rest.
34 The
mind is restless, Krishna, impetuous, self-willed, hard to train: to
master the mind seems as difficult as to master the mighty winds.
KRISHNA
35 The
mind is indeed restless, Arjuna: it is indeed hard to train. But by
constant practice and by freedom from passions the mind in truth can
be trained.
36 When
the mind is not in harmony, this divine communion is hard to attain;
but the man whose mind is in harmony attains it, if he knows and if
he strives. (page 72)
Krishna in essence merely responds: try with all your heart. And if I
fail in this lifetime? You will be born again, but into better circumstances,
perhaps even into the family of holy persons. This is a common theme in
Buddhism: to carry out good works in order to earn the good karma of a
propitious birth. In the Tibetan Book of the Dead all efforts are
made to instruct the dying person to avoid incarnation, but the last prayer
where all this has failed is for birth to couples of purity an idea supported
by an examination of the parents of many mystics in whom we find a pattern
of spirituality or devoutness.
In chapter 7 Krishna speaks of how Arjuna is to have the full vision of
him; how Krishna should be his refuge supreme. Krishna starts to explain
his nature to Arjuna in more detail as the Source of All. It becomes harder
now to maintain that Krishna is against desire, and in favour of renunciation,
because why should he extol the characteristics of intelligence, beauty
and power when these are synonymous for renunciates of the very source
of worldly corruption? (In fact in extreme cases of renunciation we find
the self-willed destruction of exactly these three things: intelligence,
beauty and power.) This is what Krishna says:
4 The
visible forms of my nature are eight: earth, water, fire, air, ether;
the mind, reason, and the sense of 'I'.
5 But
beyond my visible nature is my invisible Spirit. This is the fountain
of life whereby this universe has its being.
6 All
things have their life in this Life, and I am their beginning and end.
7 In
this whole vast universe there is nothing higher than I. All the worlds
have their rest in me, as many pearls upon a string.
8 I
am the taste of living waters and the light of the sun and the moon
I am OM, the sacred word of the Vedas, sound in silence, heroism in
men.
9 I
am the pure fragrance that comes from the earth and the brightness of
fire I am. I am the life of all living beings, and the austere life
of those who train their souls.
10 And
I am everlasting the seed of eternal life. I am the intelligence of
the intelligent. I am the beauty of the beautiful.
11 I
am the power of those who are strong, when this power is free from passions
and selfish desires. I am desire when this is pure, when this desire
is not against righteousness.
(pages
74 - 75)
This section amplifies Krishna's earlier description of himself, but is
only a foretaste of a later eulogy on his own nature. In this chapter
Krishna adds another ingredient to the pot of ideas concerning his nature
a possible clue to the distinction between Krishna and the gods:
19 At
the end of many lives the man of vision comes to me. 'God is all' this
great man says. Such a spirit sublime how rarely is he found!
20 Men
whose desires have clouded their vision, give their love to other gods,
and led by their selfish nature, follow many other paths.
21 For
if a man desires with faith to adore this or that god, I give faith
unto that man, a faith that is firm and moves not.
22 And
when this man, full of faith, goes and adores that god, from him he
attains his desires; but whatever is good comes from me.
23 But
these are men of little wisdom, and the good they want has an end. Those
who love the gods go to the gods: but those who love me come unto me.
(pages 75 - 76)
Those who love the gods go to the gods: but those who love me come
unto me. This is an important statement: in PCM gods in the plural
exist only as symbols, as objects of symbolic devotion, and as such can
only limit devotion by representing aspects of the infinite
and eternal. Krishna on the other hand represents the totality for Arjuna,
and at the same time is it for himself, but is also generous: if
a man worships a god then Krishna gives him faith; from the god the man
attains his desires but from Krishna what is good. And what is good? The
infinite and eternal.
In chapter eight of the Gita Arjuna asks Krishna to explain the
meanings of Brahman, Atman and Karma, showing again that he needs Krishna
to breath life into these ancient concepts, to make them real for him.
What is unusual in Indian scripture about Krishna's reply is not that
he gives a radically new interpretation of the terms, but that he places
himself at the centre of the exposition. A Christian equivalent might
be a mediaeval knight asking his spiritual mentor to explain the virgin
birth, the resurrection and the holy trinity, and receiving the reply
that his mentor encompassed all these things and was the path to their
realisation.
Krishna also describes the implications of success or failure on the path:
23 Hear
now of a time of light when Yogis go to eternal Life; and hear of a
time of darkness when they return to death on earth.
24
If they depart in the flame, the light, the day, the bright weeks of
the moon and the months of increasing light of the sun, those who know
Brahman go unto Brahman.
25 If
they depart in the smoke, the night, the dark weeks of the moon and
the months of decreasing days of the sun, they enter the lunar light,
and return to the world of death.
26 These
are the two paths that are for ever: the path of light and the path
of darkness. The one leads to the land of never-returning: the other
returns to sorrow. (page 79)
All the metaphors
in this passage relate to love or its absence, and it stresses a well-known
part of Indian religious thought already mentioned: that the fully realised
person does not return, is not reborn. Remember that as far as PCM goes
this is an irrelevance, as only one's present reality counts. However
it is worth noting that Krishna previously stated that he returns from
time to time, so one has to ask why non-return should be praised so highly
(we will return to this issue).
In chapter nine Krishna expands further on his nature.
4 All
this visible universe comes from my invisible Being. All beings have
their rest in me, but I have not my rest in them.
5 And
in truth they rest not in me: consider my sacred mystery. I am the source
of all beings, I support them all, but I rest not in them.
6 Even
as the mighty winds rest in the vastness of the ethereal space all beings
have their rest in me. Know thou this truth.
7 A
the end of the night of time all things return to my nature; and when
the new day of time begins I bring them again into light.
8 Thus
through my nature I bring forth all creation, and this rolls round in
the circles of time.
9 But
I am not bound by this vast work of creation. I am and I watch the drama
of works.
(page 80)
Note that Krishna contradicts himself in verse 5 above, saying
previously that all things have their rest in him and now saying that
they do not. Van Buitenen explains this by saying that as 'an order of
being completely transcendent to the creatures' Krishna is not summed
up by them (the manifest world) [13].
PCM takes a subtly different line: as a (human) being Krishna is summed
up by the manifest, but as the infinite and eternal, he is not any kind
of being at all he is the unmanifest pure and simple. This distinction
is explored in more detail later, but for now the point can be made that
there is no need for Krishna to be of any kind of transcendent order,
or at least not any more than any other person: he is merely able to shift
his identity to the whole.
In this chapter Krishna also reiterates the previous point about the gods:
25 For
those who worship the gods go to the gods, and those who worship the
fathers go to the fathers. Those who worship the lower spirits go to
the lower spirits; but those who worship me come unto me. (page 82)
PCM does not say anything about the objective existence of the gods or
spirits of any kind, neither denying Rudolf Steiner his panoply of disembodied
spirits, or to the less sophisticated the reality of their ancestors as
spirits (as with Jung). Whatever reality they have, and in Krishna's time
they were very real to many people, Krishna is saying that they represent
a lesser truth.
In chapter ten Krishna enters into the great eulogy on his nature, enumerating
natural phenomena and how he is the source of each. Krishna describes
all of Nature as emanating from himself, and all the human qualities as
emanating from himself, though significantly all the best qualities.
Arjuna, perhaps realising that this is a never-to-be-repeated moment in
his life (or in the life of any aspirant), asks him to go on, even though
there seems to be nothing more that Krishna could possibly add:
ARJUNA
18 Speak
to me again in full of they power and of they glory, for I am never
tired, never of hearing thy words of life.
KRISHNA
19 Listen
and I shall reveal to thee some manifestations of my divine glory. Only
the greatest, Arjuna, for there is no end to my infinite greatness.
20 I
am the soul, prince victorious, which dwells in the heart of all things.
I am the beginning, the middle, and the end of all that lives.
21 Among
the sons of light I am Vishnu, and of luminaries the radiant sun. I
am the lord of the winds and storms, and of the lights in the night
I am the moon.
22 Of
the Vedas I am the Veda of songs, and I am Indra, the chief of the gods.
Above the man's senses I am the mind, and in all living beings I am
the light of consciousness.
(pages
85 - 86)
Krishna continues in this vein. He identifies himself with elements of
traditional Hindu culture like Vishnu and the Vedas and Indra, and with
universals like mind and consciousness. There is no system in this exposition,
it is poetry, and can be considered to work on Arjuna more in the sense
of a hypnotism than a teaching. Mystics are often condemned for the hypnotic
powers of their rhetoric, and this is a natural fear because great manipulators
and dictators use similar techniques. Arjuna is more like a son however
and loves to hear the words of Krishna as from a father, the precise meanings
of which rank second to the vision behind them:
36 I
am the cleverness in the gambler's dice. I am the beauty of all things
beautiful. I am victory and the struggle for victory. I am the goodness
of those who are good.
37
Of the children of Vrishni I am Krishna; and of the sons of Pandu I
am Arjuna. Among the seers in silence I am Vyasa; and among poets the
poet Usana.
(page 87)
These verses are especially poignant for Arjuna the reference to gambling
must strike at his heart, because the war they are about to embark on
has come about through the reckless gambling of his family, engendering
the struggle for victory and the victory itself, though at this point
whose is unknown. Krishna also says that he is Arjuna. Arjuna is
not offended, because he is not concerned with the logic of it, but we
can only be astonished, for out of all the challenges to one's identity
posed by the Gita this is the most direct: how can one person say
that they are another? Krishna goes on to finish this section with:
42 But
of what help is it to thee to know this diversity? Know that with one
single fraction of my Being I pervade and support the Universe, and
know that I AM.
(page 88)
Arjuna begs him to go on as his divine words touch his depths, and finally
asks him to show him his ultimate reality directly. Arjuna wants to see,
to know, for himself.
At this point Arjuna is no longer listening to the words of his friend;
something happens to him. This may be the moment of transmission, where
the teacher actually reaches his disciple and he begins to apprehend the
infinite, and is presented in vivid imagery. Whether this is the imagery
of centuries of elaboration by unknown scholars, or whether Arjuna saw
it as written does not matter much: the lives of the mystics are full
of visions whose contents can easily be questioned: why does Julian of
Norwich see Christ; why does Ramakrishna see Kali? Arjuna sees the divine
nature of Krishna as the blinding sun, as the stars, as rushing torrents,
as a host of gods all images of immense power and mystery, and in an echo
of the event in Krishna's childhood where his adoptive mother saw the
sun and the stars in his mouth.
ARJUNA
4 If
thou thinkest, O my Lord, that it can be seen by me, show me, O God
of Yoga, the glory of thine own Supreme Being.
KRISHNA
5 By
hundreds and then by thousands, behold, Arjuna, my manifold celestial
forms of innumerable shapes and colours.
6 Behold
the gods of the sun, and those of fire and light; the gods of storm
and lightening, and the two luminous charioteers of heaven. Behold,
descendent of Bharata marvels never seen before.
7 See
now the whole universe with all things that move and move not, and whatever
thy soul may yearn to see. See it all as One in me.
8 But
thou never canst see me with these thy mortal eyes: I will give thee
divine sight. Behold my wonder and glory.
SANJAYA
9 When
Krishna, the God of Yoga, had thus spoken, O king, he appeared then
to Arjuna in his supreme divine form.
10 And
Arjuna saw in that form countless visions of wonder: eyes from innumerable
faces, numerous celestial ornaments, numberless heavenly weapons;
11 Celestial
garlands and vestures, forms anointed with heavenly perfumes. The Infinite
Divinity was facing all sides, all marvels in him containing.
12 If
the light of a thousand suns suddenly arose in the sky, that splendour
might be compared to the radiance of the Supreme Spirit.
13
And Arjuna saw in that radiance the whole universe in its variety, standing
in a vast unity in the body of the God of gods. (pages 89 - 90)
I mentioned earlier a capacity that I have for a similar sort vision (though
I could be quite wrong about its similarity), and bring it up again, not
to diminish the power of this passage, but to de-mythologise it. We will
see later how the infinite is highly accessible to anyone, without the
privileging of any unusual experiences, but for now I want to propose
that sometimes the first intimations of it can be accompanied by the kind
of imagery in the above passages. It is probable that a sudden encounter
with the infinite stimulates the imagination in this way, though we can
find examples of mystics where this is totally absent. Note that the imagination
has an important role in PCM, though not in the usual sense of the word
(this is developed later in the book). The important point is that Arjuna's
visions of Krishna, though highly expressive of the infinite, do not necessarily
indicate a special status for Krishna.
However we choose to understand it there is no doubt that it is a transforming
moment for Arjuna, and he praises the ultimate in Krishna, and even apologises
for treating him as 'merely' a friend:
40 Adoration
unto thee who art before me and behind me: adoration unto thee who art
on all sides, God of all. All-powerful God of immeasurable might. Thou
art the consummation of all: thou art all.
41 If
in careless presumption, or even in friendliness, I said 'Krishna! Son
of Yadu! My friend!'; this I did unconscious of thy greatness.
42 And
if in irreverence I was disrespectful when alone or with others and
made a jest of thee at games, or resting, or at a feast, forgive me
in they mercy, O thou Immeasurable!
(page 93)
The Teacher, whoever he or she is, has that effect: one may know them
as friend, but when confronted with the immensity that they have access
to one is humbled. We cannot assume however that Arjuna addresses Krishna
as 'God' in the above passage: van Buitenen's translation just gives 'All'.
There is a difference between this vision, and the ones of Julian and
Ramakrishna mentioned above: this is a vision induced by the teacher.
This is probably the wrong word, however, as most accounts suggest more
a process of empathy where the disciple falls into an appropriate mental
frame because the master is in that frame. Arjuna would not have had such
a vision on his own, but cases like this are rare in the history of mysticism,
perhaps because transmission generally is rare: more individuals come
to the ultimate more-or-less on their own than through a teacher or guru.
They may also be rarely recorded because it is such an intimate moment.
The episode between Chaitanya and his devotee mentioned previously is
of the same kind of intimacy, and Chaitanya insisted that it stay a secret.
Luckily for us it did not, though our problem is to try and understand
it.
After the vision dies away for Arjuna he asks Krishna: should he worship
Krishna as embodiment of the Transcendent, or should he worship the Transcendent
directly? Krishna's answer, for his friend, and for that era, was: it
is harder for a man to reach the Transcendent directly. It is inevitable
that Krishna says this, because his life-long experience would be that
people change in contact with him: a person who lives in the infinite
and eternal inevitably affects the orientation of those around them. We
only know in detail of the impact he had on Arjuna, but he must have affected
others; however with Krishna we have a mystic who appears to have mainly
adopted the life of a lay person (admittedly the rather exclusive one
of a prince) and not that of a preacher.
Another way to look at Arjuna's experience is in terms of expansion and
contraction, terms which are used by the Sufis to describe the states
of an adept. A Sufi saint called Bayazid said "The contraction of
the heart lies in the expansion of the ego, while the expansion of the
heart lies in the ego's contraction."[14] Both states are gifts of God (the 'Beloved' in Sufi terms).
A student on the Sufi path will experience contraction and expansion as
alternating, but in each expansion there is the possibility of a further
widening: eventually to become one with the Beloved. Arjuna experiences
for a moment what it is to expand to the point of being the universe;
Krishna is permanently in this state, (though we need to examine in more
detail what this means). In ordinary life we know this rhythm; in its
extreme it is a manic-depressive condition, but ordinary events expand
or contract one: a pay rise, praise and success, falling in love, seeing
one's football team win, or one's country do well at the Olympics, a sense
of elevation from music or painting or drama or comedy: all these expand
one. The feeling when blamed for something, on losing something, on losing
one's job, and in the extreme the death of someone close: all these shrink
one. The Sufi poet Rumi consoles his reader on the inevitable contraction
that comes with expansion:
When contraction
comes to you O traveller,
It comes
for your own well-being do not despair!
For in
expansion and joy you keep on expending,
But expenditure
requires an income for stocking provisions.
If it were
always the season of summer,
The heat
of the sun would set upon the garden
And burn
up its beds to the very roots.
That ancient
place would never be green again.
Although
December's face is sour, it is kind.
Summer
laughs, but also burns.
When contraction
comes, behold expansion with it!
Be fresh
and do not throw wrinkles upon your brow!
(from the
Mathnavi) [15]
How do we relate this to Krishna? Has the sun burnt up the roots of his
being, so that he is in a permanent state of expansion? I think not: the
expansion that Krishna shows Arjuna is not a question of holding on to
some exalted state, for as Rumi says, this expenditure would deplete one.
It is more a recognition that in the depths of one's being one is all
of that or in the words of the Upanishads "thou art that". The
pain of contraction, or loss of the 'Beloved', will accompany every phase
of expansion, teaching one in the end that the real expansion is not a
process of elevation, but a shift of identity. For the Sufis, contraction
and expansion is an intermediate state.
At the end of the Gita Arjuna is eventually lifted in spirits,
and rises up to fight. The story continues in the Mahabharata,
and the scene that we just witnessed is lost in mythology and epic adventures.
What is not commented on unfortunately is any change in Arjuna beyond
the recovery of his will to fight. If we can assume that Arjuna had what
is often referred to as a mystical experience (one in which he loses his
normal boundaries and gains access for a brief moment to the infinite
and eternal) we can also see that we know of no permanent change in his
orientation (although the one often leads to the other, it cannot be assumed).
What we do know is that he sees Krishna in a new light, and this in itself
is promising what is more important to us however is an understanding
of Krishna.
>
Read
Krishna Part 3 as Web Page |
48k text
References
for Krishna, part Two
[10] John
8:58, The Revised English Bible
[11] Jung, C.G., Psychology
and the East, Ark Paperbacks, London and New York, 1991, p. 99
[12] Jung, C.G., Memories,
Dreams, Reflections, London: Fontana 1993, p. 306
[13] Buitenen, van, J.A.B., (Trans.)
The Bhagavadgita in the Mahabharata, Chicago and London: The University
of Chicago Press, 1981, p. 166
[14] Nurbakhsh, Javad, Sufism,
New York: Khaniqahi-Nimatullahi Publications, 1982, p.29
[15] ibid p.31 |
|
