Does individuality exist according to the Bhagavad Gita? From the beginning of the text, Arjuna is posited as a limited mortal and Krishna as the supreme and infinite other. These dualisms are a common thread throughout the text and offer light on defining one's individuality in the context of a larger presence. From this dualism present in the text, the human being becomes self-aware of his own individuality, and it is in this “individuality” that the concept of an infinite supreme spirit and its distinct relationship between himself and the true infinite spirit lies. . This true individualistic essence of the “self” is essential to the validity of the Bhagavad Gita and provides a dualistic approach to the text that reflects the hierarchical difference between Krishna and the individual “self.” Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Defining individuality in a living being means assigning it a distinct essence that is distinguishable from other beings, for lack of a better term: a “self.” In the Bhagavad Gita, this idea of ​​a “self” is described as a double spirit, one “transient and eternal” and the other as “the supreme spirit of man” (125, 15.16). Outside of the individual “self” that every living being contains, there is a greater spirit that manifests as Krishna. Krishna describes himself and his vast being as the “seed-giving father” (119, 14.3) from whom all forms originated. Granted that this manifestation of Krishna defends this transcendent idea of ​​a supreme and infinite spirit, it challenges a dualistic reading of the Bhagavad Gita and the “individuality” of every living being. Is Krishna intrinsically synonymous with the “self” or are they separate? If the Bhagavad Gita were to suggest that the individual “self” is intrinsically synonymous with the supreme and infinite spirit Krishna, this would pose a great contradiction to the foundation of the Bhagavad Gita and call into question the validity of Krishna's expansion and power. If the “self” and Krishna are synonymous, then by extension, every living being possesses some portion of divinity and divine essence within it, and is therefore deified at or near the level of Krishna. This not only invalidates the influence and power of Krishna, but also calls into question the “beginninglessness” of the divine spirit. Krishna states that “because I transcend the transitory/and am higher than the eternal,/I am known as the supreme spirit of man/in the world and in sacred knowledge” (126, 15.18). This statement serves as a huge ellipsis that Krishna is the manifestation of the Divine. Yet this representation is a double-edged sword. Assuming that this manifestation of Krishna defends this infinite divine spirit, it challenges the idea and scope of the individuality of every living being. If there is a portion of Krishna in all beings, and the ultimate goal, according to the Bhagavad Gita, is to detach ourselves from our physical body and mind to liberate our “self” into the Divine, then this suggests the presence of Krishna in all beings. being a true beginning - a time when Krishna existed as a great expanse before dividing parts of himself to be infused into all beings - and an end - a time when every living being achieved nirvana and returned to spirit infinite. This interpretation also demolishes the religious purpose of the Bhagavad Gita as a religious text. Assuming that a non-dualistic, rather monistic, reading of the text is a misinterpretation, one can only assume that people have innate individuality in their selves. This allows for the idea of ​​the existence of an underwater being, such as Krishna, and the existence of a spiritual hierarchy and division between.