"Lord of Discipline," says Arjuna to Krishna in the tenth teaching of the Bhagavad-Gita, "how can I know you while meditating on you?" This is a paradoxical question. It would seem that the only way to "know" Krishna is to "meditate" on him. This is even more true for the reader who, by reading, is mediating on Krishna and who, by meditating, is trying to come to terms with his divinity. Reversing the question makes the inquiry make more sense, at least on the surface: "Krishna," says my hypothetical convert, "how could a man come to know you if he does not meditate on you?" Simply by asking his strange question, Arjuna suggests that, in fact, there is a way to find Krishna without meditating on him. And then meditating on him is, in some way, an impediment to knowing him. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay If meditation impedes knowledge, it raises a deeper paradox for the Bhagavad-Gita as a whole. It becomes impossible to understand the story of Krishna and Arjuna simply because you are reading it. The work prohibits knowledge of the work. Or, if Arjuna's question is interpreted as meaning how he can know Krishna at the same time as he is meditating on him, and if perhaps his investment in meditation later will bring him the divine knowledge he seeks, then at least the the reader is deemed incapable of understanding Krishna while he is reading. For Arjuna as for the reader, contemplation (or "meditation") is both necessary and immoral. It is contemplation that allows one to understand Krishna. But while one is engaged in contemplation of Krishna, one cannot carry out one's dharma, which in the Bhagavad-Gita is defined as "performing necessary actions." Therefore contemplation, a form of inaction, precludes the implementation of Krishna's central teaching. This chicken-and-egg problem runs throughout the Bhagavad-Gita and raises the question: What is the value of contemplation? Krishna makes it clear that Arjuna must not retreat from the battle. But in revealing the infinite glories of his divine nature in the eyes of Arjuna, he rewards the "coward" for his "petty weakness". He rewards Arjuna simply for contemplating his dharma, and in a sense rewards him for not respecting it. To use a modern term, the Gita greatly "problematizes" contemplation. Asking his question to Krishna, Arjuna addresses him as the "Lord of Discipline". Arjuna learned the meaning of "discipline" (or yoga) in the Sixth Teaching, in which Krishna said: Know that discipline, Arjuna, is what men call renunciation; No man is disciplined without renouncing voluntary intent. A few stanzas later, Arjuna summarizes the lesson, saying, "You define this discipline / with equanimity." Therefore, when Arjuna asks Krishna, "How can I know you while you meditate on yourself," he is asking someone who is the Lord of equanimity itself, the very nexus of renunciation, who fills the void that remains when one has renounced All. “Discipline” has a second meaning. Towards the end of the Second Teaching on "Spiritual Discipline", Krishna says: Disciplined by understanding, one abandons both good and bad deeds; therefore arm yourself with discipline: discipline is skill in actions. The idea of ​​"forsaking good and bad deeds", is the same as the equanimity I alluded to above. But the idea of ​​"arming oneself for discipline" introduces the link between discipline and action (an action that is, in this case, fundamentally violent: "arming oneself"). “Discipline is skill,” or exactness, “in actions.” A complete definition of discipline includes both renunciation (or equanimity) andthe action. The apparent contradiction between renunciation and action is easily reconcilable: Always carry out with detachment any action you have to do; By performing an action with detachment one obtains the supreme good. Understanding "detachment" here as equanimity, the idea of ​​the word "discipline" becomes clear: it means both the renunciation of the "fruit" of action and the studied practice of performing a necessary action. If Krishna is the "Lord of Discipline" it cannot simply mean that he is capable of reaching his own standard. It means, rather, that as God he is the entity to which "discipline" must be consecrated, like every other sacrifice that is made. As Barbara Stoller says in her glossary, discipline is "the union of oneself with the divine purpose of Krishna." Rephrasing Arjuna's question in light of this definition, it reads something like: "Lord of renunciation and pure action, how can I know You while engaged in contemplation, which proves that I have neither given up my attachments nor am I acting in a pure way?" No wonder Krishna never answers the question; formulated as such it is not possible to answer. To further unravel Arjuna's impossible question an examination of "knowledge" is necessary. Miller defines "knowledge" so ambiguously and generally that the concept barely retains any meaning. He writes that it is "a non-conceptual spiritual knowledge of transcendental reality." His definition even uses the word “knowledge” to define “knowledge,” which leads one to wonder what exactly a “non-conceptual spiritual knowledge of transcendental reality” might refer to, other than itself. In the Fourth Teaching of Miller's translation, Krishna seems to postulate an equally obscure definition, if you choose to call it a definition, of knowledge: Faithful, intent, his senses subdued, he acquires knowledge; By gaining knowledge, he soon finds perfect peace. Knowledge is the state one arrives at once achieved. acquired knowledge. Knowledge is initially acquired by being "faithful, intent" and having "the senses subdued." Perfect knowledge is implicitly equated with "perfect peace". "Knowing" Krishna therefore essentially means having perfect peace. This is because knowing Krishna would necessarily mean having perfect knowledge, since Krishna is "the source of everything, / everything proceeds from [him]". Arjuna's question now goes like this: "Lord of pure action, how can I obtain perfect peace while meditating on you?" What Arjuna means by "meditate" is to wrestle with the questions raised by Krishna. Struggling with such questions means that Arjuna cannot have achieved perfect peace, since he is struggling. The answer, therefore, is a categorical no. Arjuna cannot achieve perfect peace while struggling with notions such as perfect peace. It might seem like this is where this article started. But identifying the exact meaning of the words of the question serves to raise the question of the relationship between action and peace, or between action and knowledge. This is clearly the central question that the author of the Bhagavad-Gita wishes to address. It is the question that Arjuna addresses most directly and distinctly. Arjuna is stuck between two armies, in the midst of a spiritual crisis. Krishna slowly reveals to him the nature of God, truth and duty with the express purpose of motivating Arjuna to fight, for the right reasons. Arjuna must come to "know" those reasons, the truth, in order to "act". But if one "knows", it has been proven that he is in "perfect peace". If you are in a state of perfect peace, how can you go and fight a battle? Peace would seem contrary to battle. Of course, Krishna dispels this false dichotomy Teaching after Teaching, perhaps more so..