| |
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.
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
|
