“The most enlightening part of what John said on Sunday, which I hadn’t fully understood before—but now grasp thanks to the transcript—is the following:
However, there’s a weakness in the Gita: when Krishna reveals both the good and bad aspects of reality, Arjuna is overwhelmed and asks for it to be taken away. Krishna should have insisted that Arjuna confront and accept all aspects of reality, rather than avoiding them.“
Absolutely no disrespect to John or yourself, but this isn’t a fair or legitimate criticism of the Gita.
Right back in the second chapter, Krishna highlights the dualistic nature of samsara and how the play of the opposites, light and dark, joy and sorrow, pleasure and pain, are unavoidable and must be accepted and endured with a spirit of even-mindedness. This even-mindedness, samatvam, is one of the key values he encourages us to cultivate.
I cannot emphasise this point enough: Krishna certainly does not suggest avoiding rather than dealing with the less pleasing aspects of reality. Quite the opposite! One of the Gita’s key themes (as not just a moksha shastra but a dharma shastra) is that Arjuna must face up to his duty and take action, even though his duty is not a pleasant one, to put it mildly.
It’s Arjuna that tries to wiggle his way out of this by repeatedly expressing an interest in renunciation. Krishna shoots him down each and every time. He points out that Arjuna’s desire to take to sannyasa goes against both vishesha dharma (the dharma of the situation) and Arjuna’s personal swadharma. So, Krishna is not suggesting Arjuna “avoid” the painful and less pleasant aspects of life in the dharma field—he makes it clear that Arjuna must face up to and fulfil his dharma. Dharma is paramount and must even come before moksha. (Of course, if Arjuna’s swadharma was a mumukshu and not a warrior, the situation would be different).
Possibly John was referring to when Krishna grants Arjuna the cosmic vision of vishwarupa; Krishna as Ishvara; the entire cosmos and every facet of it, “good” and “bad”, including time, life, death and decay. Shaken by this vision, Arjuna asks Krishna to resume the familiar form of his mentor.
Krishna does so so he can continue to relate the rest of his teaching (we still have the remaining third of the Gita to come at this point). This was basically a literary device to depict the universal nature of Ishvara. His point has already been made; Ishvara is both that which is pleasing and that which is not. Again, to quote what he said in chapter two:
“While the senses give rise to heat and cold, pleasure and pain, these experiences are fleeting; they come and go and must be endured. Those who remain even-minded in both pleasure and pain have true discrimination and are qualified to attain liberation”.
Most the Vedantic scriptures presuppose the seeker has already cultivated a sufficiently qualified mind. The Gita is quite unique in that it provides a blueprint for taming the mind. A person with significant unresolved emotional and/or psychological problems sadly isn’t a candidate for Self-Knowledge, but for (hopefully) most seekers, the proper application of dharma, karma yoga, bhakti and upasana yoga lay the foundations for Self-Knowledge by cultivating a discerning, dispassionate and devotional mind and heart. I believe when the fourfold qualifications are in place, it’s far less likely a seeker will succumb to enlightenment sickness. They’re kind of a fail-safe; one must skip them at their peril!
Just wanted to “defend” the Gita. There is no weakness.
