A fundamental conflict in the Bhagavad Gita is the notion of whether or not the “self” is independent of or synonymous with the larger supreme spirit (or “Self”), manifested in Krishna; it is the main criterion of distinction between reading the text from a monistic or dualistic perspective. In other words, does an individual's “self” truly belong to himself or is it part of a larger entity? The idea that the self is independent of Krishna is essential to the validity of the Bhagavad Gita, as it supports the validity of Krishna's existence and the concepts of dharma, karma, and reincarnation. 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, in the context of the Bhagavad Gita, means assigning it an essence that distinguishes one being from another, a sort of “soul” or “self” at the center of one's being. The text addresses three levels of being summarized in: [1] the physical body which is ephemeral, [2] the mind and ego, and [3] the “self” which is eternal and indestructible in nature. This “self” lives multiple lives in multiple bodies in the endless cycle of death and rebirth until one abandons attachment and practices unceasing devotion to Krishna, for only he can save them “from the ocean/of death and rebirth” (110 , 12.7). . Those who have mastered the mundane world will then exist in the infinite spirit, will be enlightened by self-knowledge, which will illuminate the ultimate reality of existence, and will find true liberation in something infinite and euphoric that no other worldly experience could ever have . compare. As presented in the text, this “self” is described as a double spirit, one “transient and eternal” and the other as “the supreme spirit of man” (125, 15.16). Outside the individual “self” that every living being contains, there is a greater spirit, manifested in Krishna. 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 must be the one true “self” and is presented as the manifestation of the “Self”. Yet this representation is a double-edged sword. Assuming that this manifestation of Krishna upholds this transcendent spirit of a Divine, it challenges the idea and scope of the individuality of every living being. If the Bhagavad Gita were to suggest that the individual “self” is a part of Krishna, this would pose a great contradiction to the foundations of the Bhagavad Gita; questions the validity of Krishna's power and the “beginninglessness” of the supreme “Self” (117, 13.31). As Krishna describes himself and his vast being, and in his “womb is the great infinite spirit;/in it I place the embryo,/and from this, Arjuna,/comes the origin of all creatures/it infinite spirit the great womb / of all forms that come / in all wombs, / and I am the father who gives the seed” (119, 14.3). This passage could be interpreted to mean that there is a portion of Krishna in every living being, since he is the “seed-giving father” (119, 14.3). If the “self” and Krishna, as the manifestation of the all-encompassing divine spirit, were synonymous, then by extension, every living being holds a part of the divinity and divine essence within it. Every living being, therefore, must be deified and deified by extension. This suggests that there is a beginning and an end, a before and after, in which the “Self” has given parts of itself to infuse into all living beings, and when these living beings reach nirvana, they will eventually return to the “Self ” until there are no more “selves” left on earth. This therefore invalidates the influence and power that Krishna holds,..