『바가와드 기따』에 나타난 끄르슈나의 논증과 그 평가

Abstract

When Bhagavad-gītā is to be read from the point of view of argument, the conclusion of Kṛṣṇa who is a speaker in that argument is 'Arjuna should act'. The premises to support this conclusion are: ① even though an action is done, there is no sin, ② a non-action is sin in itself, ③ a non-action is possible in an action, ④ an action is justifiable if it is done by someone as an agent of God. Among the premises ① and ② which respectively imply a negative and a positive position on action present the nature of action. And ③ shows a paradigm shift synthesizing these two previous premises and presents the method of action. And finally ④ which reinforces ③ presents the ground of action. Consequently, this argument of Kṛṣṇa can be evaluated as a good argument. But to say decisively that this argument based on four premises has a persuasive power is out of touch with reality, since complex variables that are shown in the communicative process of persuasion between two persons should also be seriously taken into consideration. In other words, although this argument is good according to a logical standard, it must be evaluated again according to a communicative standard. After all, if this argument is evaluated in the aspect of logical relation between conclusion and premises, it is not a sufficient condition but a necessary condition for the Arjuna's final decision to fight in the war. Besides this argument can also have a possibility to be good in the aspect of communicative standard, on the ground of which Arjuna secures a moral justification through the fact that Kṛṣṇa is the highest God.