The Philosophy of the Bhagavadgita - 5.6. Swami Krishnananda

===================================================================

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, June 04, 2020.

Chapter 5: The Mortal and the Immortal-6.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.

Any argument or logical approach should take into consideration what is called the ‘universe of discourse’. One must know the field in which the reason is operating at any given moment of time. One cannot jump into another field altogether different from the one in which the reason operates. 

We argue as a citizen of the world, a unit in human society, or we argue on the basis of our being a metaphysical unit. A metaphysical argument should not be employed to solve problems which are purely social and personal, too intimate perhaps, material or physical. 

Similarly, purely social and economic arguments should not be used in the description or understanding of metaphysical realities. Everything has to be taken at the level in which it is. And Arjuna made a mistake of mixing up his arguments. 

He was on the one hand fear-struck with the possibility of death and destruction in the war, he might die and he might lose everything; and the question of success or victory in war does not arise if that predicament takes place. 

On the other hand, he had a fear from society, the fear of committing sin by way of destruction of values conducive to social solidarity. And he did not understand what would happen to him as a result of these errors that he might commit in the name of war.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.

The metaphysical side of human nature is, in a peculiar manner, connected with the empirical features. In the very beginning of the Second Chapter, Krishna resorts to the principle of the immortality of the soul. 

Do we die, really? 

The phenomenon of death is analysed threadbare. 

Who dies? And what is the meaning of death? Death is generally regarded as destruction. Does it stand to reason to say that anything can be totally destroyed? Is there a real destruction of anything?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.

Now, destruction is the total negation of what is, and what is, is called the real. When something really exists, it cannot be called a phenomenon or a passing phase. A real thing cannot pass away, and that which passes away cannot be called the real. The real has to ‘be’, and, therefore, it is called the real. The unreal cannot be, and there is no necessity to entertain any kind of fear or doubt in regard to it. Either that which dies is real or it is unreal. We cannot have a third alternative to imagine. Something dies, or someone dies. 

Is that thing or that person real, or unreal? 

We have to be clear in our minds when we consider this process of arguing. If we say that the thing that has died was real, then we are contradicting ourselves, because, if it had been real, it could not be destroyed; there is no death for it. It is already declared that it is real, and the real cannot not be, and the unreal cannot be. 

Thus, that which is, that which is real, cannot be regarded as destructible. If we say that the thing that has died is not real, that it is unreal, then there is no question of its death; it has already been dubbed as unreal. 

The destruction of a non-existent thing is unthinkable. And a destruction of an existent thing, also, is equally unthinkable because that which is existent cannot be destroyed, and that which can be destroyed cannot be regarded as existent. Then, what is it that dies?

--------------------------------------------------------------

To be continued ....

=========================================================