Regarding these ideals, it is necessary to analyze Krishna’s actions, Socrates’ daimonion’s actions, and the similarities and differences between the two. A few similarities can be gleaned from these two things, the advice and the daimonion. For example, they are both out of the body. Krishna comes to Arjuna, to contact him and to speak with him directly. Likewise, Socrates’ daimonion contacts Socrates directly. Both are apparently not exactly self-realised things, but instead they are a helping hand from divine spirits. Another, more interesting similarity is the focus on action. Krishna’s words are mostly about action, and acting without hesitation or thought to “the fruit of the act.” Again, this rings true to how Socrates’ daimonion communicates with him, as it is an impulsive command, telling him to commit an act, and Socrates does so without thinking or questioning. Although these similarities may seem apparent, there are some stark contrasts between the two. For instance, Socrates’ daimonion did not at all guide him in any way. In fact, it did the exact opposite. All that ever occurred between him and his ‘divine sign’ was that it told him quite explicitly what not to do. In one such case, Socrates was planning to leave his residency to go …show more content…
To start, Krishna is a separate, identifiable entity that comes to Arjuna. Socrates’ daimonion is an abrupt, indirect, something that just happens every once in a while. Krishna guides Arjuna through a mental journey, bringing him through and beyond his illusions of himself in a single, unbreaking moment. Arjuna will, as a result, make decisions based on a taught-and-learned ideal, to act without being consumed by the action, and to become free of attachment. These things are ways of life to be followed consistently and indefinitely. Socrates on the other hand will just obey the signs that appear when they come, otherwise doing as he