Thank you for your thought provoking post, Vrindavan. I have a few observations for your consideration:

The Sanskrit word that has been translated as “irreligion” in the verse is adharma. A partial translation would be, ‘without or against dharma’ (similar to ahimsa; without himsa, or violence). That would mean that dharma, in context, would be translated as ‘religion’. But, according to authorized and self-realized bhakti yogis that I've heard from, throughout the Gita the word ‘dharma’, as it applies to Arjuna’s unwillingness to fight, is taken to refer not to ‘religion’ but rather to Arjuna’s social obligation as a warrior. So, one may reasonably ask, why is dharma understood to refer to religion in the context of a woman and understood to refer to social obligation in the context of a man?

And to which religion does Arjuna refer? And why does Arjuna focus on the notion that women become degraded and polluted rather than focusing on the idea that men become degraders and polluters? The implication is either one of the absence of agency or volition on the part of women (women are not free to reject degraded men) or that women are naturally susceptible to degradation and pollution when the opportunity for irreligious behavior presents itself (women are not capable of rejecting degraded men). Which of these is the correct, contextual understanding?

Which brings me to the curious link: you propose that the verse indicates that “the role of women is of paramount importance within society.” But the link takes us to an essay about the role of men in family relationships: I don’t get to the connection (editor?). More importantly, you have not offered a definition of what the role of women is according to the Bhagavad Gita. One would surmise from the verse that, according to the Gita, when religion is prominent the role of women is to have "wanted" progeny. Is child production the only role afforded to women in the Gita's conception of a religious society?

The idea that “women should be loved, protected, cherished and held in the highest esteem” and “protected from all negative influences” is the kind of attitude that produces invisible women hidden inside of black burkas who are prohibited from any form of independent activity from driving to voting to leaving the country without the permission of a ‘protector’, namely a male relative. It sounds as if you are saying that the Bhagavad Gita endorses the Saudi Arabian model for treating adult women as minors: is that the case? If this is the kind of respect that a soul in a male body should accord a soul in a female body then how does this promote equality on either a material or spiritual level?

I think you may have to address these kinds of questions if you are to successfully contextualize the Gita’s position on this issue for modern, intelligent, and educated women whose frame of reference for ‘protection’ by men and for ‘religion’ when it comes to the role of women is one that understandably inspires them to close the book as soon as they come in contact with this verse, 18 verses shy of the first spiritually contextualizing instruction.

I have faith in your ability to present a stronger argument for the contextual understanding of this verse than you have made thus far, though you may have to ignore the word count to do it. - Ys, Hkd

When we ask ourselves "why am I afraid?" and follow the trail to the end we find that all fears ultimately roll back to fear of death: an experience that is the exclusive province of material bodies. And, since psychology as it's currently studied, taught, and practiced, even within new age and modern yoga community contexts, is based on the assumption of consciousness as a product of matter, we are not likely to receive much meaningful help from coaches and counselors who buy into that paradigm. Thanks for highlighting the fact that the Gita's arguments are based on an unconventional premise and, consequently, offer us a different kind of thinking from that which created our propensity for fearfulness. Always a pleasure to read your entries, Vrindavan.

Thank you for offering us a comprehensive definition of ahimsa. There's a difference between being judgmental and using good judgment: one speaks to attitude, the other to intelligence. We engage our capacity for critical thinking when we evaluate our options and choose a course of action. Ancient yoga wisdom texts encourage us to do so and, for yogis, such texts and the self-realized teachers who have lived by them should guide our evaluations.

Rather than emphasizing acceptance without judgment, the Yoga Sutras clarify how to use good judgment when it comes to establishing a hierarchy of relationships: cultivate an attitude of joy toward the virtuous and equanimity toward those who are non-virtuous. Virtue, in context, is understood in terms of the ethical imperatives previously delineated, ahimsa being the first and foremost among them. In the hierarchy of yogic virtues a carnivorous diet is not on the same level as a vegetarian diet.

Yoga wisdom texts do not describe karma as a guilt-inducing fiction; it’s considered a law of nature by which we are accountable for our good and bad deeds in equal measure. Understanding this can be a formidable impetus for yoga, which begins when we truthfully assess our location on the map of yogic virtues and determine to move toward the highest ethical ideal as best we can from wherever we are. As you have so rightly indicated, the role of the teacher is to offer intelligent, truthful, and compassionate guidance devoid of discouraging judgmentalism.

I agree with you on almost every point here, Michael. The only exception is on the issue of who to assist. I agree that there's no way anyone in a 200-Hour TT is going to develop enough expertise to offer appropriate adjustments to every variety of practitioner in their class. And since I find it almost impossible to adjust everyone in my class - in a style of yoga where hands-on adjustments are emphasized - I see no reason to think a less experienced teacher will be able to do so and they certainly shouldn't try. Where our views differ is in who to adjust: I'm inclined to recommend that new teachers offer general, simple (or fundamental) assists to the students in their class that are newest to yoga and therefore need the most help getting into the ballpark of the alignment for a pose. My reasons for this are that this kind of general assist is better for the new teacher than trying a deep assist that they are not really ready to offer, more appreciated by the novice who knows they need the most help (and who will then want to come back to the same new teacher's class, thus building a relationship - see Amy Ippoliti's logic on teaching beginners classes), and let's the new teacher work up toward giving the deep assist to someone with an established practice who wouldn't be as appreciative of an assist being given by someone who isn't really ready to take them deeper into a pose.

Anyone thinking about taking a Yoga Teacher Training would benefit from reading your post since it offers them food for thought and questions for the studio or teacher(s) whose training they are thinking of taking - thanks.

You can try a different word: I usually refer to the Supreme Being, the Paramatma, the personal form of the Absolute Truth, etc. as a way to make it clear that the God they're used to hearing about and the God I'm talking about are not exactly the same idea. The concept of God and the concept of the Absolute Truth are two different things (see http://vedabase.com/en/sb/1/introduction for my favorite explanation of the difference). A lot of students in my classes are disaffected Catholics or people who rejected an orthodox or fundamentalist family religion and they are often amazed and relieved to hear that they can have a personal relationship with a non-judgmental supreme deity within the context of yoga.

I never hesitate to use the word "God" in my classes, but I make an important distinction between the western religious idea of a creator "God" as he appears on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and the devotional yoga conception of the personal form of the Absolute Truth, which includes us as infinitesimal parts of an infinite and complete whole with whom we have an eternal relationship. I make it clear that theistic devotional yoga is non-sectarian; something that you can apply regardless of what form your faith takes off the mat. Not everyone is into yoga as a spiritual practice or a yoga philosophy that insists on a transcendental yet heirachical duality. Those folks don't come to my class and I'm fine with that. The people who do come to my class (and there are plenty of them) are enlivened by the insights into yoga philosophy that I'm sharing; they've made it clear to me that it's one of the reasons they come to my class.

You may want to consider the possibility that your brother is a Ksatriya - meaning "one who protects' and is naturally predisposed toward martial disciplines. Sometimes fighting is ahimsa, as illustrated by the Bhagavad Gita, wherein Krishna teaches the science of yoga to Arjuna while simultaneously urging him to fight a battle Arjuna is trying to avoid. We live in a season of time where conflict is unavoidable. Yoga is more about how we act in the face of that unavoidable conflict, and sometimes the proper response - our dharma - is to fight the good fight for the sake of righteousness rather than for personal reward. I know of members of the military who are also very advanced yogis: perhaps your brother will be one of them.

The Bhagavad Gita begins with the question "how did they act", not "what did they say". So I wholeheartedly agree with you that our off the mat actions, how we embody the values of yoga, are more important than our words or the symbolic value (if it even has that) of doing asana at a protest rally.

In order for our culture to change we have to change the way we live, beginning with a constructive disengagement from the elements of consumer culture. Unfortunately those elements are the things that make our life convenient and comfortable. Since consumer culture is ultimately unsustainable we have a choice; voluntary inconvenience and discomfort (tapasya) now or involuntary inconvenience and discomfort later.

A yoga concept worthy of consideration in this regard is yukta vairagya: appropriate renunciation. There are a couple of ways to practice this. For starters, just as we can practice yoga even if we are not yet fully observing the yamas and niyamas (although I would argue that acknowledging and aspiring to observe them is mandatory), we can renounce the accoutrements of consumer culture in a progressive way, one step at a time, in order to ease out of the convenient and comfortable lives with which we have become so familiar and into a different way of living that is as unfamiliar as it is necessary.

In many cases I think this will begin with figuring out how to slow down. This is actually very difficult for us; we are engrossed in the mode of passion, instant gratification, schedules packed so tight we have no room to breath let alone walk instead of taking the bus or taking the bus instead of driving our car. So the question here is; "how can we slow down the pace of our lives and how slow can we go?"

Once we've slowed down enough to think we can ask ourselves "Who is being served by my actions?" When you think about it, all of our actions are a form of service. When our service is directed toward our own pleasure then the mentality that created our consumer culture is still present. If our service is meant for the benefit of others - family, friends, society, humanity - there may still be a selfish motive, albeit an extended one. Traditional yoga wisdom texts recommend a form of service that transcends worldly selfishness: service to the source of all being or offering one's life energy to the Supreme Being without attachment to the fruits of our actions. My feeling is that any action short of this category still retains at least the seed of the consciousness that created the consumer culture with which those who participate in or sympathize with the Occupy protests feel so much dissatisfaction, but this idea gives us a worthy, though lofty, target to shoot for.

Another idea is that one can chop down a tree with an axe that has a handle made from wood taken from a branch of the same tree that you are chopping down. When environmentalists gathered from around the country to stage a protest at a press conference given by the CEO of Chevron, he thanked the protestors for using his company's product in the course of arriving at their destination. Ha ha very funny, Mr. Watson, but the point remains: If we find creative ways to use the means of consumer culture to bring about it's transformation into yoga culture, that's also yukta vairagya.

I'm in complete agreement with you, Carol. Traditional yoga wisdom texts encourage us, as yogis, to use our intelligence, our power of critical thinking, to ascertain the difference between what is real (spiritual, permanent, unchanging) and what is illusory (material, fleeting, incorrect perception) and wholeheartedly reject material conceptions that perpetuate illusion in favor of yogic conceptions that liberate us from illusion. A socio-economic system that is unfair, cruel, and unsustainable can only exist as a function of illusion whereas a system that supports equal opportunity, compassion, and sustainability is a system that reflects and supports yogic values. If we perceive the Tea Party / Wall Street ethos as inherently antithetical to the values of yoga then obviously yogis should vigorously oppose it. "Armed with yoga, stand and fight" (BG 4.42).

Thanks Ife. If you ever decide that you know something I hope that you won't stop talking as a result; then how would we have these very enjoyable conversations? I really like that quote for Joseph Campbell. Metaphor does not necessarily negate the possibility of being: literal and allegorical readings are not mutual exclusives. Transcendental means that state where there is no difference between the idea of a tree, the sound vibration "tree", and the tree itself: not an experience we can know with our mundane senses, but I'm convinced we can get there from here if we use transcendental sound vibration to purify and awaken our dormant spiritual senses.

Please forgive me for violating my usual rule: it's your post, so you should always have the last word (my sense of etiquette). I think I understand what you're trying to say, though, and by your way of thinking perhaps there is no point in talking but I look forward to hearing more of what you have to say anyway. - Hkd