The Dawn of Understanding

Today I finally was able to understand what Krishna meant from the beginning of his teachings. It took me a lot of time and effort, but after today's discussion in class I was able to see what he meant all along. Krishna wants Arjuna to choose whether to fight or not, based on his teachings. This is why he mentions the relation between action, and inaction. He mentions detachment and discipline, and how a man is supposed to live by them to be able to enter his realm of no reincarnation and no change. They were all clues to help him decide whether he was supposed to kill his friends and family. According to Krishna's teachings, he was supposed to fight because it was his sacred duty. He had to do so detached of his feelings for his family, and at the same time beseech no reward from his action. I t would all be a sacrifice for Krishna, and for his accomplished duty, Krishna would take him to the realm of no change where he would find the true joy.

I am very happy because I was finally able to crack this code, but I'm not too satisfied with the real message. How come it is justified to kill and have war because it's one's sacred duty? I really don’t like the way Krishna justifies killing under his terms, "When one is free of individuality and his understanding is untainted, even if he kills these people, he does not kill and is not bound.” (18th Teaching, pg. 137, 17). If you believe in reincarnation it isn't too bad, but for me, we just have one life, and it isn't fair someone comes and kill with the excuse that he is doing it with detachment and isn’t looking for a final reward (no, that’s not too comforting). I don't know about the period where they were living, but today I don't think that part of the teachings is very acceptable. I just hope I never have to read these types of books again. They can be really controversial and somewhat confusing. And what’s worse, they make me feel like a bad person, even if I don’t believe in what he’s saying.

.