Gita Talk #3: It’s Showtime. Please Start Talking All At Once!

Via Bob Weisenberg
on May 4, 2010
get elephant's newsletter

Bhagavad Gita Mitchell

OK, sports fans, the game is on. This is our first weekly discussion of Mitchell’s Bhagavad Gita. This week we’re talking about the Introduction, which goes through p. 35 (with ten pages of very interesting notes, pages 199-210.)

Before I forget, the reading for next Monday is Chapters 1 and 2, pages 41-60.

This is a true experiment. So I’m just going to play it by ear.  The best thing that can happen is if you all jump right into the game, instead of watching from the sidelines. I know we’ll have a great discussion if you:

–Tell us what’s on your mind.
–Ask us the questions you were asking yourself as you were reading the Introduction.
And especially, read other readers comments and reply with your questions, disagreements, or comments.

I’m committed to responding to every question individually myself, but the more help I get the better.

Don’t be shy! There are no wrong questions. And the Elephant crowd is noted for its warmth and civility in handling even the most controversial issues.  We have a wide variety of experience in this group, from many first time readers to veteran devotees and everything in between.  We all have something to offer each other.

If you don’t have anything particular in mind, then think about these issues and give me your thoughts:

1) How did the Introduction make you feel about reading the Gita?
2) How did it compare to your expectations going in?
3) If you have read other versions of the Gita, how does Mitchell’s vision in his Introduction compare?
4) Are there any questions you’d like to ask?
5) Watch Yoga’s Secret Love Song, one particularly rapturous vision of the Gita (7 min. video from Graham Schweig).  What are your reactions?  How does Schweig’s vision compare to Mitchell’s vision of the Gita in his Introduction?

Helpful Hints

Elephant has a terrific discussion system. If you haven’t been here before, I think you’ll find it very intuitive. Some hints:

–When you post a comment, make sure you subscribe to “All new comments” in the pull down menu at the bottom of the comment box.  (Otherwise you’ll just receive e-mails when people reply to your comment.)
–You can post ad hoc each time, or you can register with “Intense Debate”, which will allow you to show your avatar, profile, and keep a history of all your comments.
–This system allows replies to replies and keeps good track of them in an easy-to-read and intuitive way.
Replies get hidden automatically as comment volume grows.  You need to click on “Replies” at the bottom of each comment to see them.

If a particular issue gets particularly big or hard to follow , I may open subsidiary blogs to help focus our attention.

I prefer to keep the substantive Gita discussion here on Elephant Journal. But we can also communicate on our Facebook site and on #GitaTalk on Twitter.

Again,  the reading for next Monday is Chapters 1 and 2, pages 41-60.

Please be sure to let me know if I can help you in any way.

Please see
Welcome to Gita Talk
for all Gita Talk blogs and general information.
Jump in anytime and go at your own pace.

934 views

About Bob Weisenberg

Bob Weisenberg: Editor, Best of Yoga Philosophy / Former Assoc. Publisher, elephant journal / Author: Yoga Demystified * Bhagavad Gita in a Nutshell * Leadership Is Like Tennis, Not Egyptology / Co-editor: Yoga in America (free eBook) / Creator: Gita Talk: Self-paced Online Seminar / Flamenco guitarist: "Live at Don Quijote" & "American Gypsy" (Free CD's) / Follow Bob on facebook, Twitter, or his main site: Wordpress.

Comments

165 Responses to “Gita Talk #3: It’s Showtime. Please Start Talking All At Once!”

  1. Sevapuri says:

    Lola has a good point about debating the translations or grappling withthe content , sometimes the diiferant translations can give rise to different interpretatons of the content, i think the lines may get blurry at some point in our discussions, it is the content and the message that inspitres me regardless of the translation.
    The idea of God transending the material realm or seen as a material representation is something that Greg picked up on in Mitchells commentary and i thought that was really interesting as well. There is some thought that we need a materail representation of God so that the mind can in some way grasp the concept of God (Surguna) and understanding this can lead to understanding God without a form (Nirguna) It happens in the Gita when Arjuna knows that Krishna is God but asks Krishna to show him his real form and then completely freaks out when he does.The mesage here i think is that we understand God where ever we are at any given point and as we learn, read ,study and understand we begin to see God differently. I think this is one of the important themes of the GIta- knowing God.
    The Schweig video is lovely and inspiring

  2. Thanks, Seva. Great insights.

  3. princess villabroza says:

    mommy knows best either its difficult to do.Lalo na kung mahirap ito gawin pero kailangan syang sundin dahil tama kailangan lang maging understanding na anak
    when i am a baby my mom's always take care me nung nalaman ni mommy ang natural talent ko she's very happy
    i am proud because she is my mother always caring, loving, teachingand knows the good way for us

  4. Sawennatson says:

    Here you go, Susan. The entire set of video clips from Sam Keen`s lecture in Berkeley:http://fora.tv/2010/03/11/Sam_Keen_In_The_Absence

  5. Greg says:

    True. At the beginning of his teaching he seemingly avoided such matters — but not actually. It is there but he purposefully took a subtractive or negative approach.

    He spoke in terms of what it was not. Subtract this, subtract that, not this, not that. He spoke of cessation of attachment to that which was "not self." In other words, he pointed out all the attachments to false identities.

    All false identities were of the nature of fabricated phenomena. Material appearances. One could sum this up by saying Buddha nature has no fabricated, phenomenal aspect. Further distilling it, one could say he taught materialism was a wrong view.

    Rather than attempt to add a label to that which had no thingness, he stripped off all labels that referenced thingness or fabrication. What was a Buddha? A Buddha was someone who had ceased all attachment to that which was "not self." A Buddha was someone who had ceased identifying with fabricated material appearances.

    Later in his teachings he did explain such ideas further with "positive" examples but that was hard to understand without the preliminary experience of cessation of attachment. Folks like Batchelor never completed the beginning steps so later teachings appear to them as myth or superstition. Does that make sense?

  6. Greg says:

    My apology. Batchelor, in particular, raises my ire. He calls the Buddha a liar, a manipulator, and a dead old superstitious guy and then proposes that he will put forth true Buddhism. He then proceeds to offer up the exact opposite of the Buddha's teachings.

    It is the most blatant attack on the discipline in the popular literature. It is a total showstopper as far as students go — his ideas will drop your practice dead in its tracks. So my "name calling" is actually an accurate description of a very hostile and unwise (is that a better word for foolish?) activity.

  7. That's terrific, Sawenntson. Might have to write a blog about this series.

  8. Greg says:

    The problem re Batchelor is that there is no atheistic, secular, materialistic Buddhism. That is something else, not Buddhism. As noted above, he misrepresents the subject, which damages the efforts of new students.

    I totally understand the challenge involved in needing to confirm the notion of Self through individual practice. That was the instructional challenge the Buddha faced. Understanding does not come from the texts, however, the texts can guide the individual practice. In the discussion of the Gita by Mitchell we find the same dynamic —text alone will not accomplish the mission.

    You have touched upon an important topic — compassion. It is at once an "end goal" and the process through which one reaches the "end goal." The video introduction to the Gita by Graham captures this dynamic.

    Interesting. Was not aware that Wittgenstein was deeply spiritual; I know he ended up getting spun in and his life ended in tragedy.

    The Buddha actually did speak to metaphysics but in a subtractive manner and then, later in the teachings, in a more straightforward manner. Will be fun to take up the Self/Atman concept as we move through the Gita. (And then there is the greatly misread teaching of the Anatta doctrine – not atman – in Buddhism.)

  9. Good point, Katharina. Many readers do interpret the "call to battle" as a metaphor for whatever challenges one faces in life. Some scholars also point out that war was a way of life for many of the elite at that time, so it would be easier to see it as an everyday challenge when written. Of course, it's still an everyday challenge for many today, as evidenced by the earlier comment from the mother of the soldier who went to Iraq.

  10. integralhack says:

    Yes, I think you and I have spoken of Atman/atman/anatman before on my blog (and perhaps on Elephant).

    Yes, some biographers and pundits refer to Wittgenstein's life as a tragedy, but Wittgenstein himself said on his deathbed that he had a "wonderful life." He died of prostate cancer, but led a very full life full of invention, creativity and accomplishment. Once one of the richest men in Europe (a reluctant heir to his father's Viennese fortune), he was also a major benefactor to artists like Rilke and Trakl.

    While there was a good deal of angst in Wittgenstein's life (he fought in WWI and was a prisoner of war), I can't equate some existential torment as "tragedy" since anyone who thinks beyond the mundane is bound to suffer. We will have to take his final appraisal of his life at his word.

    There is a great biography of Wittgenstein by Ray Monk, if you're interested.

  11. integralhack says:

    Yes, the Buddha made the point that the self was not the aggregates (skandhas). Some read this as denying the self, but this is not the case, he just pointed out what was not the self.

    But I'm getting off track here a bit. I think we're in general agreement regarding these matters, so let's return to the Gita. Not that we can't return to some of these concepts, of course, to elucidate (hopefully) some related ideas in the Gita.

  12. integralhack says:

    Bob,

    Good to know. There is hope for me yet! Seriously, it is nice to have this variety of perspectives on the Gita, including yours.

    -Matt

  13. It takes an analytical to know one.

    One of the several startling things that drew me to Yoga is discovering that here I am reading one of three central ancient texts of Yoga, and there's a category just for me! Jnana Yoga, the Yoga of Understanding, every bit as legitimate as the Yoga of Meditation, the Yoga of Devotion, and the Yoga of Giving.

    See Strokes for Different Folks

  14. It takes an analytical to know one.

    One of the several startling things that drew me to Yoga is discovering that here I am reading one of three central ancient texts of Yoga, and there's a category just for me! Jnana Yoga, the Yoga of Understanding, every bit as legitimate as the Yoga of Meditation, the Yoga of Devotion, and the Yoga of Giving.

    See Strokes for Different Folks

  15. Meaghan says:

    I too am relatively new to the Gita – not to it's ideas or teachings – but to true study of the text. When I first encountered the Gita (in my first teacher training – which I also took out of personal interest and with no intention to teach) I had a real resistance to it. The idea of non-attachment was so foreign – "but if we aren't attached why would we do good work?" – and the wartime setting really confused me – "how can fulfilling the duty to fight be a good thing?" – not to mention the great big, capital G word – God – got me all riled up! But now, many years down my path of yoga I really do appreciate the ideas and the teachings. But I haven't actually picked up a copy of it to re-read. Looking forward to this opportunity to re-explore it and to re-examine it now that greater experience in the practice and study of yoga has no doubt softened my perspective. So far, Mitchell's introduction has me thinking that his version is a very good place to start!

  16. Thanks for joining us, Meaghan. I'm starting to get a much better idea of why so many people have trouble with the Gita at first. Many stop right there, and many go on to love it. It's one of the reasons I started "Gita Talk"–to help people get over that first turn-off. I had the same problem when started out. But now it's one of the most important books I've ever read. Please write again often as we read through the text.

  17. brazillianhippie says:

    Hi Susan, thank you for pointing that out, I dont know much about the Pandavas and Kauravas background, can anybody point me in a helpful direction to find out more about it?

  18. brazillianhippie says:

    Hi Greg. Was wondering if you could tell me why you see the author's bias as a more materialistic view? I hadnt picked up on that and want to be able to see the different perspectives….

  19. Hi, brazillianhippie. See The Kurukshetra War . All the essential facts are in the first paragraph. The rest may be more than you need, but it's there if you want it.

  20. Hi, brazillianhippie. See The Kurukshetra War . All the essential facts are in the first paragraph. The rest may be more than you need, but it's there if you want it.

  21. Hi, brazillianhippie. I don't agree with Greg on this point. Mitchell is as deeply spiritually oriented as any translator I've read.

  22. Greg says:

    Basically, the reason I felt there was bias in that direction had to with the following line:

    "The vision of God as elemental undifferentiated energy is an aspect of the truth…"

    This line follows a discussion of Oppenheimer and the bomb, prior to which he also writes:

    "This is a vision of pure energy, which does not discriminate between good and evil, creation and destruction."

    The equation of God with material conditions — i.e. energy — is essentially materialistic. It places God or Krishna in an equivalency with material conditions.

    Does that makes sense?

    (Bob, I am not making any evaluation regarding whether or not he is a spiritual person, as in being a nice and compassionate person.. I believe the language, however, points to a bias toward materialism in his point of view, of which he may or may not be aware.)

  23. The Gita itself, as we will see in the text, is explicitly inclusive on this point. It allows for everything from God as the infinite unfathomable life-force of the Universe (Mitchell's view) to an intimate personal God, and everything in between. I think you are simply defining his use of the word "energy" too narrowly. He means "infinite unfathomable life-force of the Universe", which I assume you do, too.

  24. Susan says:

    Excellent suggestion, Bob. It is nice to know the players of the story, I think. I love to know the background.

  25. Margann wrote on another blog:

    I’ve read the Gita before, and am disappointed in my own reaction. To me it feels like a “guy book” based on a belief in the caste system and reincarnation. As a 72 year old female, I find I have to dig for the inspiration. But I do love the concept of work without thought of reward. I will work hard on this reading, because I know millions have been inspired by it.

  26. Hi, Margann. I'm so glad you voiced this concern, as I'm sure it is common and will certainly come up in our "Gita Talk" discussions. Let me just make a couple of quick comments here.

    In the case of the caste system, I believe in any ancient text, be it the Bhagavad Gita or the Bible, there are going to be archaic, outmoded ideas that simply have to be disregarded if one is to make the text relevant for today. In fact, Stephen Mitchell says exactly this in the notes (p. 199-210) to his introduction. He even goes so far as to list the specific verses that should be disregarded.

    As for reincarnation, that one is a little trickier, because there are many people who still believe in literal reincarnation today, even though I do not myself. My own approach to reincarnation is to turn it into a powerful metaphor about how our actions affect future generations. Other readers might choose to just disregard it as they would the caste system.

    One other suggestion. I wrote my eBookhttp://YogaDemystified.com to see if I could describe the concepts of the ancient texts, including the Gita, in plain English. If you go there you can see exactly why I find the Gita so inspiring and exciting, in spite of its sometimes troublesome cultural references.

    Thanks for writing.

    Bob Weisenberg
    YogaDemystified.com

  27. Hi, Margann. I'm so glad you voiced this concern, as I'm sure it is common and will certainly come up in our "Gita Talk" discussions. Let me just make a couple of quick comments here.

    In the case of the caste system, I believe in any ancient text, be it the Bhagavad Gita or the Bible, there are going to be archaic, outmoded ideas that simply have to be disregarded if one is to make the text relevant for today. In fact, Stephen Mitchell says exactly this in the notes (p. 199-210) to his introduction. He even goes so far as to list the specific verses that should be disregarded.

    As for reincarnation, that one is a little trickier, because there are many people who still believe in literal reincarnation today, even though I do not myself. My own approach to reincarnation is to turn it into a powerful metaphor about how our actions affect future generations. Other readers might choose to just disregard it as they would the caste system.

    One other suggestion. I wrote my eBookhttp://YogaDemystified.com to see if I could describe the concepts of the ancient texts, including the Gita, in plain English. If you go there you can see exactly why I find the Gita so inspiring and exciting, in spite of its sometimes troublesome cultural references.

    Thanks for writing.

    Bob Weisenberg
    YogaDemystified.com

  28. I wouldn't call it an nitpicky ontological debate. I'd call it an attempt to define "God" for everyone else.
    Then, as a fan of Stephen Batchelor and other non-theistic Buddhists and yogis, I already know what Greg thinks of my viewpoint.

  29. integralhack says:

    I certainly don't want to define "God" for anyone, but I am interested in learning what similar concepts might mean and imply in the texts that I read.

    Personally, I still appreciate Stephen Batchelor and particularly enjoyed his "Verses from the Center: A Buddhist Vision of the Sublime" very much.

    -Matt

  30. Rhonnie says:

    Thank you Bob. I did have a "Whoa" response as I began to read the entries. I trust all that I have experienced that has brought me to picking up the Gita and to this discussion. I found that once I slowed down to digest the entries that there is a wealth of passion, knowledge and depth.
    My thoughts and perspective are from feelings from the heart. I appreciate very much that you see clearly where I am and your words of guidance and encouragement.
    I am the eternal student. I am happy to be here.
    With Gratitude.

  31. Rhonnie says:

    Meaghan,

    I completely understand the resistance to non-attachment. This has been intellectually challenging for me. I, like you over the years through my journey and experiences have grown to embrace non-attachment. YES! The G-word was very unsettling to me for many years. AND with all of this I knew inside "there was more".

    I now appreciate the ideas and teachings as metaphors that, in the face of my humanity support growth and learning.
    I look forward to reading your ideas and thoughts from a perspective of "true study of the text".

  32. That's very interesting, Vanita. I love the affectionate phrase you used, "a little pocket bible looking thing…" I got the picture immediately!

    I'm glad you had at chance to read Mitchell's notes in the back. He tucked away some of the most interesting stuff there and didn't really reference it except in the Table of Contents. Can picture him trying to construct his elegant Introduction and trying to decide what to include and what not to include, and eventually deciding to go with the notes?

    Thanks for writing.

  33. Rhonda says:

    Sevapuri~

    I connected with your words, "The mesage here i think is that we understand God where ever we are at any given point and as we learn, read ,study and understand we begin to see God differently. I think this is one of the important themes of the GIta- knowing God."
    Many years ago one of my yoga teachers had said, "It's your birthright to know God." it was a statement that has stayed with me. 15 years later through reading, study and self reflection your words touched me.
    With Gratitude

  34. Rhonnie says:

    Katharina~

    THANK YOU for this statement. "To me it felt like perhaps it was about doing whatever it is that you are called to do without being attached to a fear of death or a fear of life."

    I have interpreted as Bob mentions the "call to battle" as a metaphor for whatever "challenges" one faces in life. This is limiting, it excludes and doesn't acknowledge what others may be called to do in their lives.
    With Gratitude.

  35. I haven't read enough Batchelor to know for sure, but the portion of his book I browsed online made pretty much sense to me. The only exception might be that I feel perfectly comfortable with defining God as the "infinite unknowable life-force of the universe".

    This is the dominant notion of God in the Gita, although all other notions are embraced as well in a flood of universalism. So I have no need, unlike Batchelor, to be an atheist. But then, he's defining God in a more conventional way that doesn't allow the out of "infinite unknowable life-force of the universe".

  36. Thanks for taking the time to reply to the replies, Rhonnie. It's interactions like this that make these discussions so interesting and valuable. I also think that our discussions will only deepen as we all get to know each other working through each chapter one-by-one.

  37. Greg says:

    As we move along we can parse those issues and see if they bear fruit.

    Would love to have his comments to my analysis but we can trade views and see what you and I can make out of those subtle points for which diamond cutter discernment is needed.

    I believe I can expound on what I mean to some benefit for all readers but I will need your help and the help of other readers to make sure I am communicating clearly. For want of skillful means I have been known to spin my wheels in the ditch…hopefully you come prepared with chains and a hitch.

  38. Greg says:

    Will be interesting to see if the Gita supports "unknowable life-force of universe." My hunch is that close parsing will explicate the concepts and get us past that stop along the path. We will see…

    (I have no investment in achieving any particular agreement on the matter but am happy to share some insights I've happened on along the way…)

  39. tanja says:

    thank you, vanita, for pointing out something which really resonated with me. as i've been reading comments about translations, and myself wondering about the effects on the text of it not being mitchell's own translation etc etc (all very valid and important discussions and topics, of course) what you said really cut to the heart of it for me personally – "I feel like this version was written with loving intent. ". yoga is an experiential path, and reading the gita in this format, without commentary, will be an opportunity to resonate with it from within rather than intellectually or academically, even though i follow discussion on all levels with great interest.

  40. integralhack says:

    I do hope you do share your insights, Greg! We may not always agree, but I appreciate your critical perspective which helps me navigate between the Scylla of of ironic relativism and the Charybdis of fuzzy affirmation.

    After all, you are the Sherlock Holmes to my Professor Moriarty–you complete me. I kid, I kid. Sort of. 🙂

  41. integralhack says:

    I feel similarly, Bob. I like Batchelor and he can define his practice however he wants to, but at times I don't understand his rhetoric. It is one thing to dismiss ideas like rebirth from your own practice, but it doesn't change the fact that it was–according to the Buddha's own account–central to the Buddha's awakening and is part and parcel of the doctrine of dependent arising.

    Given that the Buddha's program is to stop rebirth and the cycle of suffering anyway, I find the issue to be somewhat ironic.

    It would be a little like telling yogis worldwide that we are going to scrub yoga of the concepts of prana or chakras because there is no empirical evidence to support them.

  42. Greg says:

    Wonderful analogy. As long as one notes the internal contradictions in Batchelor, the practice will not suffer.

    Professor Moriarty —— okay, will have to look that one up. lol

  43. Rhonnie says:

    Vanita~

    Thank you for this statement, "The notes on page 201 regarding the possibility that "the later chapters were written ….out of compassion for less mature readers" reminded me that we are all where we are – and that I must respect wherever others are in their spiritual evolution, (which is often hard to do)!" I was initially taken back because I was reading comments that I don't understand at this point. At the same time I feel excited to have the opportunity to read and receive others ideas and knowledge.

    I love your words, "The last part of the introduction where he says "……ultimately it has nothing to teach" is very liberating to me. I'm going to approach this reading and version as an exercise of listening with my heart."
    This is my seat as I begin.

  44. anneke says:

    I just read that Christopher Isherwood also worked on a translation of the Gita. He helped swami Prabhavanada of the Vedanta Society who translated and Isherwood refined the writing. (BTW I have this information from 'The Subtle Body' a yet-to-be published book about the history of yoga in the West (sorry Bob) written by Stefanie Syman.) Isherwood had been concerned that his pacifism was incompatible with the Gita, since Krishna urges Arjuna to fight. Then he learned that "the Gita doesn't sanction war… any more than it sanctions pacifism. It cannot, from its absolute standpoint, do either. It leaves each individual to discover what his or her dharma is."

    After WWII Marcel Rodd put out an edtition with a preface by Aldous Huxley. Sales soon neared a quarter million copies.

    I have been looking at Paramahansa Yogananda's commentary on the Gita (don't have Mitchell's) in which the pantheistic doctrine of the Gita is: God is everything. The Gita's verses celebrate the discovery of the Absolute, Spirit beyond creation, as being also the hidden essence of all manifestation.

    The main theme of the Gita, Yogananda says, is that one should be an adherent of sannyasa, renouncer of egoity ingrained through avidya within the physical self of man. By renunciation of all desires springing from the ego and its environments, which cause separateness between ego and spirit; and by reunion with the Creator through ecstatic yoga meditation, samadhi, man detaches himself from and ulitmately dissolves the compellent forces of Nature that perpetuate the delusive dichotomy of the Self and Spirit.

    I love the way Yogananda speaks of the historical origins of the Gita. "The authorship of the Mahabharata, including the Gita portion, is traditionally assigned to the illumined sage Vyasa, whose date is not definitively known. It is said that the Vedic rishis manifested their immortality by appearing before mankind in different ages to play some role for man's spiritual upliftment. Thus they appeared and reappeared at various times throughout the extensive period of time encompassed by the revelation of the scriptures of India, a phenomenon confounding to any scholar who relies on facts rather than faith in an unenlightened age in which man has learned to use hardly ten percent of his brain capacity, and that quite awkwardly for the most part."

    He explains: "My guru, Sri Yukteswar, never permitted me to read with mere theoretical interest any stanza of the Bhagavad Gita (or the aphorisms of Patanjali). Master made me meditate on the scriptural truths until I became one with them; then he would discuss them with me."

    Maybe this is why, whenever I open this book and read a passage and commentary, I am absolutely enthralled.

  45. Thanks for joining us here, deserthorseyoga, and for your very interesting comment.

  46. Thanks for all this fascinating background, Anneke. I'm sure many of these issue of approach will come up as we move through the text.

  47. Thanks for joining us here, Amy. Your long experience with the Gita is most welcome, and I hope you'll be with us often to help us with some of the finer points of the text.

    You're right about Mitchell. For him deep spirituality is a matter not of getting more and more complex but by devolving into utter simplicity, to the point of absolute oneness. From his point of view, he didn't simplify the Gita to match his idea of spirituality. Rather he he chose the Gita because he thinks the Gita say exactly that–that deep spirituality devolves to utter simplicity.

    That happens to match my own view as well. But, as you know better than I, that's not the only way to look at the Gita!

    I'm so glad you're here. Please stick with us and help us out. we really need some true Gita scholars like yourself in the mix.

  48. Lorraine says:

    Ok, I'm finally getting around to posting my thoughts. I've got to say, though, that the mere size of this group is somewhat intimidating. Indeed, it's great that so many people are interested. I haven't had a chance to read through all of the replies but will do so tonight as I will have the time.

    The introduction was easy reading. Some of the things that Krishna says is very similar to the words of Christ. One statement that is similar to Christ but not completely is, "Krishna says, that he is all that is. But all that is, is in him, though he is not in it." Christ states, "I am in him and he is in me." I'm curious as what Krishna means, that he is not in it.

    I appreciated the reference to Isaiah 45:7 referring to God as elemental undifferentiated energy and of God making peace and creating evil. Something to think about….

    Looking forward to reading further (actually I've read the first two chapters, but will be going through them again to make notes.) I'm curious to read more about Krishna's encouragement that Arjuna do his duty as warrior. Seems contradictory to me but maybe further reading will clear that up for me.

  49. Lorraine says:

    I agree. I appreciate understanding a little more of the historical background. I was a bit confused myself….

  50. Lorraine says:

    Excellent video and I plan on watching the whole thing. I need to go read his book, "In the Absence of God" next!