The Right Thing Part 2

This post is about Ethics from Bhagavad-gita.

If you scanned the second chapter of Bhagavad-gita looking for the verse where Krishna explains the difference between "Doing the Right Thing" and "Pretending to Do the Right Thing" you were probably surprised when you couldn't find it.

I scanned it and I couldn't find it. I could, however, remember writing about it in a commentary on the second chapter that I wrote while I was in Ecuador in 2001, pre-9/11.

I dug around and found it - it's old school, written on paper with a pen.

Here's the relevant section, picking up from 2.37:

2001 "Ecuador" Gita Commentary

Krishna has now redirected Arjuna's compassion to the spiritual platform, removing the conflict between this and Arjuna's duty. He has at once validated Arjuna's compassion (2.11) and his varnashram duty.

Krishna then proceeds to demonstrate that there is no conflict between varnashram duty and material enjoyment, as Arjuna had presented. Arjuna's presentation was more the product of his compassion, an attempt to justify his not fighting on other terms than a serious analysis of the situation, as revealed by the exchange in 2.2-2.4. Krishna has now finished with that presentation. "Even if you are after enjoyment, following your duty is the way to get it, so fight"

In text 38, Krishna answers Arjuna's concern about incurring sinful reactions for his actions. The answer lies not in some pop notion of sin, based on sentimentality, but in performing one's duty in a particular state of consciousness - without calculation such as Arjuna has made [ed: emphasis added 2009]. Krishna has shown that varnashram duty is not incompatible with either compassion or material enjoyment, the two objections that Arjuna raised. Now he is signalling that sinful activity arises when one makes calculations which, due to a lack of knowledge, contradict one's duty and thus one deviates from his dharma [ed: emphasis added 2009]. In order to avoid this, one should simply carry out his duty without considerations of factors.

Note that this does not advocate blind following. Krishna has demonstrated the superiority of dharma over Arjuna's faulty calculations in this specific case, and now he lets it be known that this is also the general rule.

Although here it is not stated whether one receives sinful reactions simply by carrying out one's duty in a calculative fashion, or by calculating one inevitably deviates from his duty, Krishna will explain this in the balance of the chapter* [ed: see the 2009 commentary on this point, below]. This calculating mentality arises from attachment to the results.

2.39: "O Arjuna - thus far I have minutely analyzed the situation according to so many constituent factors (sankhya), and the conclusion is that you should fight. Now I will give you the general rule, the holistic approach that does not rely on specific factors, and which produces the same result. I have proved the specific case, now I will give the general rule."

or

"I have explained this in an analysis that relied on your material desires. Now I will explain it in terms of an approach that does not rely on your material desires, and that allows you to become free from the reaction of activity"

Summary and Analysis of Krishna's Instructions on Buddhi-Yoga

In this section Krishna is doing two things - he is instructing Arjuna in how one can follow his dharma without being deviated, or in other words without incurring sin. He also answers Arjuna's deeper concern: the fact that the promise of sense gratification in the heavenly planets is no longer sufficient to keep him on the path of dharma. Due to this, Arjuna requires a higher consideration to motivate him, and Krishna explains how the two are one - it is precisely the attachment to the fruitive results promised by the Vedas as an inducement to follow dharma that leads one to the calculative mentality that inevitably causes one to deviate. Without coming to the crisis point Arjuna has come to, one cannot discover the true purpose of dharma.

In other words, Arjuna has tired of karma, and through speculative knowledge (jnana) was seeking to renounce action.

2.41 Those working with resolute intelligence have only one goal - to discharge their duty. Those with irresolute intelligence have many goals in terms of the different superficial results of their duties. They are attached to the results, not to the duty. Thus when duty and a desired result diverge, they deviate from dharma.

* Some 2009 commentary on Motivation and Sin

I now have a thought about whether sin is incurred when following dharma with a calculative mentality, or attachment to the result. I think it is.

I have a thought experiment for you, arising from two things that I've studied since 2001. One is the compulsory ethics training that all employees, associates and managers alike, at my work must take each year. This year we had a module named "International Bribery and Corruption". It was quite a laugh to receive a certificate in this subject. The other thing is Transparency International's "Confronting Corruption: The Elements of a National Integrity System"

Anyway, think about this scenario:

You work in an office where vehicle registrations are issued. The cost of a vehicle registration is officially $100, but due to rampant corruption officials in the registry are able to charge $150 or more. You routinely charge people higher than the standard price.

I don't think that anyone has trouble identifying this as corrupt behavior.

One day your friend comes in. Rather than charge him $150 you charge him $100. Is that a corrupt action?

YES. Although you are charging him the official amount, your action is part of a pattern of corrupt behavior, where you preferentially treat personal friends. Therefore this action, while appearing to conform with official standards, is also corrupt.

That sentence above is the kind of explanatory sentence that will appear after you answer the multichoice yes/no in the online ethics training.

I've thought a lot about this, and right now I think this is correct. The person charging $100 to a friend is not Doing the Right Thing. They are Pretending to Do the Right Thing. There is a difference, and it is noted by the universe.

The inverse of this example / thought experiment is also illustrative: you are a sheriff who lets his friend get away with murder. Then when you are punishing some other criminal you are still not Doing the Right Thing, you're just Pretending to Do the Right Thing. Again, your pattern of behavior is corrupt, and this action is part of that pattern.

The terrible thing about this is that in a corrupted system all actions are essential corrupt, even those that superficially appear to be the Right Thing. If the fundamentals are askew, it is not possible to Do the Right Thing, ever. Thus we have personalities like Duryodhana, who, even while superficially appearing to follow dharma, are completely deviated.