Why Arjuna is a hero/victim of Krishna, who is just another war-mongering self-righteous pseudo-god

Just read the Bhagavad-Gita (any translation) and you will know what I'm talking about. There is nothing right in what Krishna is telling Arjuna, other than explaining some "spiritual" truth's, that could have been told to all the members of the tribe in a peacefull way, if Krishna would have been a true real divine incarnation. But he was just not.

Recommending to fight, although it might be the case that a warrior has to fight, is just plain and down-right evil. The one and only thing Krishna was supposed to do and say to Arjuna would have been this:

"You're a warrior who don't wants to fight anymore? Good! Here is what we do: We tell our so called enemys we end the war RIGHT NOW, for the sake of having a party. We can talk about it, men. I'm God. I can do everything."

Hail Buddha!

a reply to: Willingly
Instead Dwarka was destroyed with an atomic missile....or do ia have the right story....

a reply to: Willingly

Life itself is being compared to war. When the opponent is tough will you back down and be defeated, or will you have the faith to conquer whatever enemy stands in your way?

Arjuna is backing down because he lacks faith. Krishna is reminding Arjuna that he has everything he needs to win, he simply needs to believe in himself.

At least that is what I got out of the Scriptures.

a reply to: Willingly

All religion is social control for the benefit of the patriarchy and the state. The Bhagavad-Gita, being very ancient, displays this reality in a blatant form, much like the Old Testament.

Buddhism, by the way, is often used for the same purposes. It is the state religion in my country, where the Buddhist establishment has been oppressing others by state sanction since 1972.

originally posted by: Willingly
Why Arjuna is a hero/victim of Krishna, who is just another war-mongering self-righteous pseudo-god

What a perfect example of how literalists remain ever clueless!
If you had looked at the story as a metaphor, and more deeply, perhaps even you might have found some value.
Those who can see no deeper than the 'superficial' might become masters of the superficial, but of anything 'deeper' they remain clueless.
An important but narrow Perspective and, oddly enough, the one that seems to do most of the 'judging' and condemning!

"Hail Buddha! "
Buddha neither judges nor condemns.

All I can say is I agree entirely, if you cannot look deeply you are condemed to a limited view.a reply to: namelesss

a reply to: ancientthunder

What a pity, then, that so many who agree upon this are in fact so shallow. I have never encountered a ‘spiritual’ person on the internet who had any depth to their thinking at all. Underneath the know-it-all, holier-than-thou pontificating, the usual egotism, pettiness, passive-aggressive whining and self-serving judgementalism are always clearly visible.

this is not as simple text like any other book and it is has a lot of depths in my opinion.

Reading spiritual materials with "everyday thinking mind" will only get you to wrong precepts and views. Such text should not be read like ordinary books - word for word! - if one would like to get spiritual wisdoms out it.

Spiritual text should be read, contemplated and meditated about to peek behind the lines. Only then the space between the words will get larger in real meaning and insight. That kind of reader will with the use of intuition "pull out automatically" according to one's own spiritual development insights which will help one to grow further and learn more about truth.

Such books are meant as "spiritual lecture" on many different subject and for instance one is understanding the "reality of non-duality".
Which is one of main theme in Vedas and it should be read with that in mind in my opinion. the same theme is also the focus in many other philosophies in Eastern religions such as Zen, Tao, Buddhism, etc... oh and from what I can read and understand even old original alchemist in the west had taught the same spiritual truths like that of nonduality in symbols in paintings and text.

Also if new reader or spiritual seeker wants to get a bit more of real meaning out of such text, than I would really recommend to read commentaries, notes or explanations from other masters about Vedas or any other spiritual text. In that way, at least, reader will conceptualize the texts in more appropriate way to understand a bit better right view and precepts.

a reply to: namelesss
you have explained it really good in other words,
I also agree with you.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Life itself is being compared to war.

And? Would you consider that as true? What kind of "god" would say that LIFE ITSELF is war? In my eyes only a war-monger.

When the opponent is tough will you back down and be defeated, or will you have the faith to conquer whatever enemy stands in your way?

The war is a war about concepts/ideas, not about who is the one who is allowed to rule and ran a kingdom. The purpose is to deny and negate the whole concept of kings and queens and kingdoms as a whole.

Arjuna is backing down because he lacks faith. Krishna is reminding Arjuna that he has everything he needs to win, he simply needs to believe in himself.

To believe in oneself is good. To fight and kill half of your community is as bad as it can possibly get. IF you have superiour knowlegde and/or skills, like Krishna seem to have, you MUST use them in a non-violent way. Otherwise you're just another piece of the lie, told for eons, for the sake of keeping a certain hierarchie in power.

Krishna is immature. Arjuna is not. THAT is the problem in the Bhagavad-Gita.

a reply to: Astyanax

All religion is social control for the benefit of the patriarchy and the state. The Bhagavad-Gita, being very ancient, displays this reality in a blatant form, much like the Old Testament.

Buddhism, by the way, is often used for the same purposes. It is the state religion in my country, where the Buddhist establishment has been oppressing others by state sanction since 1972.

I did not say hail buddhism. I said hail Buddha. Big difference. Don't you think?

a reply to: namelesss

What a perfect example of how literalists remain ever clueless! If you had looked at the story as a metaphor, and more deeply, perhaps even you might have found some value.

I haven't said that the Bhagavad-Gita is of no value. And even IF it is a metaphore, and analogy for an internal war, would a good psychologist recommand to "kill" all those seeming internal "enemies"? Or would he/she recommend to examine them and then work with their particular ablities for the sake of being an integrated and well balanced person?

Those who can see no deeper than the 'superficial' might become masters of the superficial, but of anything 'deeper' they remain clueless. An important but narrow Perspective and, oddly enough, the one that seems to do most of the 'judging' and condemning!

Yes, "judging and condemning". But who in the Bhagavad-Gita is doing it? Arjuna or Krishna? Krishna of course. In the chapter about the difference between devas and asuras Krishna prefers the devas and indeed is judging and condemning the asuras. He even recommend Arjuna to kill them. Arjuna is the one who saw the value in his so called enemies, but Krishna just told him to kill them, because he, the pseudo-god Krishna, already deceided they are of no value.

Buddha neither judges nor condemns.

I don't agree. Everybody judges all the time to a certain degree and that is just fine. Only the means and values by what one judges must be known and well thought out. And yes, condemning is wrong. Everybody has something of value to give to the community, even the asuras.

And here is the whole teaching of the Buddha in a nut-shell: Give up your "superior" position of being a king/queen or ruler/leader of a kingdom that is only yours because you have the right "blood" and are merely born into it. A real ruler/leader is the one who can justify his or her right to rule/lead by other means than just being born into a particular family-tree.

a reply to: ancientthunder

All I can say is I agree entirely, if you cannot look deeply you are condemed to a limited view.a reply to: namelesss

Indeed. Agreed.

a reply to: UniFinity

this is not as simple text like any other book and it is has a lot of depths in my opinion.

Yes, agreed. BUT almost every so called spiritual scripture contains the lie, the justification of war, in one or another form. Of course it has to contain some truth also. That's the trick: Here is some truth, so you can swallow the lie better.

a reply to: UniFinity

Reading spiritual materials with "everyday thinking mind" will only get you to wrong precepts and views. Such text should not be read like ordinary books - word for word! - if one would like to get spiritual wisdoms out it.

Somewhere someone has to begin. And reading so called spiritual scriptures with an "everyday thinking mind" is not a problem in my eyes. Where to begin anyway, before one is that matured to get what certain scriptures are refering to?

And Bhagavad-Gita is a scripture that undoubtfully DOES justify war and violence. Killing half of the people Arjuna was raised and educated by isn't something that needs to be denied, rejected and refused?

Such books are meant as "spiritual lecture" on many different subject and for instance one is understanding the "reality of non-duality".

There is no such thing as "reality of non-duality" in what I'm talking about. A scripture that could and have been used to justify war and killing fellow human beings has lost all it's validity. The german ss-nazis all knew that scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. And guess what they thought they were dealing in?

Which is one of main theme in Vedas and it should be read with that in mind in my opinion. the same theme is also the focus in many other philosophies in Eastern religions such as Zen, Tao, Buddhism, etc... oh and from what I can read and understand even old original alchemist in the west had taught the same spiritual truths like that of nonduality in symbols in paintings and text.

First things first, my friend. And first things are: AHIMSA (non-violence). The Krishna figure in the Bhagavad-Gita is NOT a divine spirit. Period!

Once again, what should have had happened in the Bhagavad-Gita is this: After Arjuna refused to kill half of his friends, family-members and teachers, Krishna could have said something like this:

"Okay, Arjuna. I get your point. Let's all gather together and I will teach all of you how to decern right from wrong and how to life together in peace and harmonie. I'm God, yah know, I can do that."

And if anybody is asking me, I could take apart the whole Sita-/Ram story also.

Here is some tiny little bit of that, formulated as some question:

How and why could it even be possible that some asura-king could rob and take away the wife of a true real divine avatar, while running around as some deer?

Digg it!

a reply to: Willingly

Why do you hail Buddha? Do you want him to take you aboard?

a reply to: Astyanax

Why do you hail Buddha?

Because he, as the fictional and/or historical figure he was, he denied and refused his status as a prince for the sake of getting to know what ALL the pain the saw was caused by, as he was not imprisoned in his fathers kingdom anymore. That is what I call compassion, intellectual honesty and emotional AND spiritual maturity.

Do you want him to take you aboard?

No need for that.

a reply to: Willingly

You have your interpretation and you seem quite decided that there is nothing more to it than what you read word for word. You even mentioned some tricks...funny! but sorry there are NO tricks in there only TRUTH!

But hey, that is your choice and opinion and I have mine.

If you want to see how this should be read, than I recommend to check the commentaries from people who have studied spirituality or Vedas for majority of their life and see how they explain the text as I have already said.

True hidden meaning of spirituality or esoteric knowledge is not so simple to absorb and without meditation or a bit spiritual background or understanding of at least general themes and concepts, you are just reading a story...there is nothing wrong with that. But to say such things like you do about the text is just wrong and inappropriate in my opinion.

It is like watching a foreign movie without subtitles and after watching you come on ats and start a thread... : )

Please, don't be so quick to dismiss the value of a REAL spiritual masterpiece which has been probably one of most influential text in ancient India and other close by countries. It probably goes to say without a doubt that there is a lot of hidden meaning in there...well maybe if one is religious or spiritual and is reading with that in mind.

I wish you good luck with further reading and with recognizing the real meanings and wisdom in the spiritual books you read.

originally posted by: Willingly
a reply to: namelesss

What a perfect example of how literalists remain ever clueless! If you had looked at the story as a metaphor, and more deeply, perhaps even you might have found some value.

I haven't said that the Bhagavad-Gita is of no value. And even IF it is a metaphore, and analogy for an internal war, would a good psychologist recommand to "kill" all those seeming internal "enemies"? Or would he/she recommend to examine them and then work with their particular ablities for the sake of being an integrated and well balanced person?

You are very correct!
"A 'demon' is merely an unLoved 'angel'!"
One can 'kill/destroy' an 'enemy' by Loving them, as you say, integrating them, like a white cell 'integrating/assimilating' a foreign object!

Those who can see no deeper than the 'superficial' might become masters of the superficial, but of anything 'deeper' they remain clueless. An important but narrow Perspective and, oddly enough, the one that seems to do most of the 'judging' and condemning!

Yes, "judging and condemning". But who in the Bhagavad-Gita is doing it? Arjuna or Krishna? Krishna of course. In the chapter about the difference between devas and asuras Krishna prefers the devas and indeed is judging and condemning the asuras. He even recommend Arjuna to kill them. Arjuna is the one who saw the value in his so called enemies, but Krishna just told him to kill them, because he, the pseudo-god Krishna, already deceided they are of no value.

When I mention 'judging/condemning', ultimately, I am not 'judging' or 'condemning' judgment and condemnation, no matter the pain that they accompany.
Judgment and condemnation are features of Reality to be experienced!
People like to say that God is Love, and that certainly is correct, but, being Omni-, we are also everything else in existence!
We are also an insane and ugly God/Universe!
There is no written treatise/scripture that is not lies, to be 'interpreted as we are fit to see/perceive.
Perhaps to prise out a ray of Light here or there.
It is NOT about the words!
ALL words are meaningless scribble!
ALL 'meaning' exists in the thoughts of the beholder!
Though you and I might read something and see nothing of value, another might be in just that right place to see the words and have them inspire Enlightenment!
"We do not see the world as it is, we see it as we are!"

Buddha neither judges nor condemns.

I don't agree. Everybody judges all the time to a certain degree and that is just fine.
Beware looking in the mirror and extrapolating to 'everyone does it'!
For instance, if to are spending a Zen/thoughtless moment, 'judging' is impossible!
If you are existing in a state of unconditional Love, 'judgment' is impossible!

Only the means and values by what one judges must be known and well thought out. And yes, condemning is wrong. Everybody has something of value to give to the community, even the asuras.

How can there be 'judgment' without 'condemnation'?
We NEVER have the breadth and depth of Knowledge to ever 'judge' another!
Thus scripture warns against judgment and promotes unconditional Love!

And here is the whole teaching of the Buddha in a nut-shell: Give up your "superior" position of being a king/queen or ruler/leader of a kingdom that is only yours because you have the right "blood" and are merely born into it. A real ruler/leader is the one who can justify his or her right to rule/lead by other means than just being born into a particular family-tree.

What a brilliant lack of understanding, pursuant to an utter lack of actual practice!
So. perhaps we'll just move past this.

a reply to: UniFinity

You have your interpretation and you seem quite decided that there is nothing more to it than what you read word for word. You even mentioned some tricks...funny! but sorry there are NO tricks in there only TRUTH!

And what is "TRUTH", in your perspective? Can you give me a brief definition?

But hey, that is your choice and opinion and I have mine.

Exactly. There is no "Truth" in spiritual scriptures. There are only pointers to something that could be called truth.

If you want to see how this should be read, than I recommend to check the commentaries from people who have studied spirituality or Vedas for majority of their life and see how they explain the text as I have already said.

Who are you refering to? Swami Sarasvati Dayananda, for example? Done that, read his commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita. And thanks for assuming I'm uneducated regarding the Bhagavad-Gita.

Please, don't be so quick to dismiss the value of a REAL spiritual masterpiece which has been probably one of most influential text in ancient India and other close by countries. It probably goes to say without a doubt that there is a lot of hidden meaning in there...well maybe if one is religious or spiritual and is reading with that in mind.

I never said the Bhagavad-Gita is of no value. What I said is this: Krishna is an immature pseudo-god, who prefers to teach Arjuna to fight a war just because he already is on the battlefield and is a warrior. That is like saying, "you're a thief and I caught you attempting to steal something. So continue doing it, although you told me you don't want to steal anymore."

I wish you good luck with further reading and with recognizing the real meanings and wisdom in the spiritual books you read.

Did that. Been there. Thanks for assuming I'm an iconoclast. Which is true.