Bhagavad-Gita and the meaning of life

It is hard to even begin to put my thoughts about The Bhagavad-Gita together after reading it. Just when I think I have found some kind of meaning or understanding it slips through some crack that is connected to my own habits needing to questioning everything. The most predominant question that comes to mind is that of killing. Is it okay? Sure it is, but only if one is in the proper mind-frame that allows one to view the situation without any feelings of attachment. This thought is just begging for me to ask how one can even think about taking life without forming some sort of connection or passion? After all, if one feels compelled to kill then there has to be some passion involved right? Even if you didn't expect any "fruits" from your actions, you would still be acting to make a difference. Certainly the prey would feel like there was some reason for being hunted or condemned to death. Couldn't death be a kind of change, and change be a kind of fruit in itself then? I don't really know what I think; at this point in my life I just don't see how one could live in today's world except "passionately". I feel that most of us exist on the passionate/desire level of understanding life. I do however feel that I could transcend to a more pious plain of existence by trying to stick to a kind of awareness and detachment. These two concepts are not very natural to us because of our emotions, but this story does provide some helpful practices to keep in mind while seeking out our own notion of a devoted "self". Yoga, dharma, Karma, jnana, and bhakti are interlinked to create an enlightened individual. I do of course have a problem with both dharma, and bhakti. I am not sure what my "dharma/duty" is, for I have not concluded what my calling is to be. So where and how can we discover this? Who knows, maybe it does just happen. As for "Bhakti/devotion", how can we be devoted to anything without a kind of attachment? Renouncing the world to claim our faith in God is rather cynical. I mean isn't the whole world God's creation? Yes, according to this book it is. So...what the hell?

Just as I finished with that last line a kind of light went on in my broken and beer soaked brain. Assuming that we are in fact all re-incarnations of a sort, wouldn't it be fair to say that if in fact we are truly tired of living various lives over and over again, the only way to step outside of time would require a renunciation of the world? Our souls finally getting tired of the same old routine, seeking out a timeless and peaceful existence. Makes me feel as though I am truly punishing myself by wanting to remain in this body...with this face. T.S. Eliot popping in my head and saying to me, "we had the experience, but missed the meaning". But what if we didn't miss the meaning? Instead we accepted the kind of reality we see and live in to be okay and worth doing again. What if living outside of time sucks? What then? I don't feel as though I have missed the meaning, I simply would just like to do it again, thus "an approach to the meaning restores the experience", the very wonderful and challenging experience of life.