Philosophy and Spiritual Discipline

This teaching, as the word well describes it, is trying to teach us basically what is morally good.

Arjana, not sure what to do, asks Lord Krishna for advice. He says that he will not fight, and falls silent. Krishna starts talking about how he has nothing to worry about in killing people or in being killed, because although the body is killed, the spirit can never be destroyed. This sounded a lot to me like Buddhist teachings, as well as the rest of the chapter. It all revolved around the idea that killing a person's body would not really kill them, because every human has never seized to exist. This really gave me the idea that the author believed in reincarnation:


"It is not born,
it does not die;
having been,
it will never not be;
unborn, enduring,
constant, and primordial,
it is not killed
when the body is killed." (pg 34)


This means that we are basically immortal, and it is kind of the law of conservation of energy but with humans. Krishna said that instead of saving lives by not killing anyone, he was making his life worse, and like we have already seen in previous parts of the book, he used the technique of cause and effect to explain what would happen if he didn't fight, starting with:

"People will tell
of your undying shame..."

to

"If you are killed, you win heaven;
if you triumph, you enjoy earth;" (p. 37)

To explain that not fighting and giving up is bad, Krishna says:

"From anger comes confusion;
from confusion memory lapses;
from broken memory understanding is lost;
from loss of understanding, he is ruined." (p. 41)


This book more and more starts reminding me of some type of Book of Virtues, because it is like a moral fight between if it is good to kill your enemies because their soul will live on, or if it is good to stand back because you will destroy societies.

I would like to know at last which side of the story wins, and how the author will do to support his point.