Bhagavad Gītā as a Dialogical Space in Philosophical Counseling

The importance of dialogical space and its various forms, useful in philosophical counseling, has been emphasized in recent discourse. The discourse primarily focuses on various aspects of the exchange between the counselee and the counselor in the form of external dialogue. This paper, drawing insights from Hubert Hermans, broadens the discourse into the domain of Agentive Reason, which includes the internal dialogue of the counselee, comprising various I-positions. By engaging with the associated network of the counselee’s “I-positions,” the counselor expands the counselee’s internal domain, thereby facilitating the counseling process. This paper aims to show that this process is best served when the counselor is able to cultivate his/her dialogical relationship with the counselee towards forming a metaposition from where the organization of existing and new I-positions can be seen, questioned, restructured, and most importantly, acted upon. This paper seeks to demonstrate this prospect through a symbolic exploration of Bhagavad Gītā in the form of a dialogical space. It examines how Arjuna’s agentive crisis, echoed in his internal dialogical tension of many maladaptive I-positions, is addressed by extending his dialogical self to Kṛṣṇa’s positions and counter-positions, leading the interaction to a dialogical metaposition in Arjuna’s external domain. The goal is not to establish Kṛṣṇa as a philosophical counselor or to present his discourse with Arjuna as a treatise on philosophical counseling. Rather, the intent is to encourage exploration of the symbolic representation underlying the Gītā, which helps us decipher various dialogical metapositions in the external domain that may correspond with the positions, needs, and emotions in the counselee’s internal domain. This has a threefold purpose: first, to recognize the open boundaries of the dialogical self; second, to examine the instrumental role of the counselor in negotiating these boundaries when they are closed in self-defense; and third, to introduce the concepts of Informed Ignorance and Agentive Reason.