गीता अर्जुन को ही क्यों बताई गयी?

कुरुक्षेत्र मे मौजूद तमाम लोगों के बिच श्रीकृष्ण ने गिता बताने के लिए अर्जुन ही क्यों चुना? वहां पर कई वीर और विद्वान मौजूद थे तो अर्जुन ही क्यों?...

You tube link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZIpEs4RXdE&feature=plcp

When Yash called Krishna a thief and a murderer

This is not a post about any particular subject, but about one very funny incident that happened in my home a few days back. We talk regularly with my parents and other family members in Pune via gtalk or Skype, it's always fun to talk with them and the kids enjoy very much interacting with their grandparents and cousins in Pune. These talks are mostly a weekly affair and they are entertaining for me as well as kids and tend to get quite interesting sometimes for various reasons.

A few days back Parth, a very adorable character, son of my brother recited one of my favorite bhajan (devotional song) 'Om jai jagadish hare.' He did a really good job and I was amazed that he remembered the whole song. It sounded really cute because of the way he sang it. His pronunciation was not very clear for some words so it turned out to be a very unique song that only Parth could sing. Yash joined to listen to the song and then after the song was finished I started asking Parth some questions like do you know who is Jagdish? Why do you sing bhajans? Then we also discussed why one can not sing 'Munni badnam hui'  as a bhajan instead of  'Om jai Jagdish.' We also argued for some time over why my song (Munni) could not be a bhajan but his song could be. It was fun and we both were enjoying our discussion. 

Yash was listening to all this; I asked Parth, "Do you know who is this 'Jagdish' for whom you were singing this bhajan?" 

He looked at my mom because he didn't know the answer and finally said Jagdish means Krishna

Then I said "Why you are singing bhajan for Krishna, he was not such a nice guy" 

At that point, Yash joined the conversation and then the interesting part of the conversation began,

Yash, "Parth do you know Krishna used to steal food from people's homes and he also killed his own uncle and not only that after killing his own uncle (Kansa) he also incited Arjun to kill his relatives."

I was surprised by this comment from Yash, my mom was shocked and Parth was taken aback by what Yash said, but it was interesting, I didn't say anything, I allowed him to continue with his statement as I was curious to know how he justifies his statement. 

My mom to Yash "No Yash, he was not a thief or murderer, he was God"

Yash, "Then why did he steal food from people's houses, don't we call such people a thief?"

Mom, "No, he was not a thief, he was just a little naughty boy, and those people used to have plenty of food and didn't mind Krishna taking some from their house"

Yash, "We also have plenty of sweets in our shop will it be okay if some little naughty boy comes and steals them from our shop?"

Mom, "But he never used to eat alone, he used to share with his friends."

Yash, "What if that boy also shares sweets stolen from our shop with his friends, will that be okay?"

Now my mom started losing her patience, and she used her final weapon which every religious person uses whenever they run out of options, "Krishna was God and because he was God he can do anything he wants we won't be able to understand it because we are humans"

Yash did a pretty good job in justifying his statement and because of this I was smiling during this conversation, and finally, my mom said, "Yash, you are becoming like your father, normally son picks up qualities from  his father"

Yash, "No, that's not true, Krishna didn't become like his father, even dad (me) is not like grandpa both are in different professions, so it's not necessary that every son will become like his father and I am also not like that" 

During all this discussion Parth got really confused and finally said that he would think about Krishna as some things about him sounded a little strange (stealing and killing) and then we changed the subject.

The discussion was interesting. Later I and Yash discussed why he thought like this about Krishna and how there are many other angles to his personality in Mahabharat that one should look into and learn from his character. Krishna is one of my favorite characters from Mahabharat and I am truly fascinated by his character and the role he played in that epic. I already wrote a couple of posts about him on my blog a few months back.

The discussion was not at all insulting towards Krishna or that bhajan (some people might feel that it was and I totally understand their view). It was just a different perspective, one can look at any incident from many angles and each angle can provide a unique view. Yash chose to look at Krishna's character and its actions in his own way and derived his conclusions. He had his own reasons for doing that. We all choose our own ways of looking at many situations we face in our lives and based on our approach we form our opinions and beliefs. This was a simple example of how two people can look at the same incident or person in a totally different way and both feel that they are right about their opinion. There is nothing strange about having different views about the same subject.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)

References:

1. http://selfrealization-vinay.blogspot.com/2012/04/krishna-man-or-god-part-i.html

2. http://selfrealization-vinay.blogspot.com/2012/04/krishna-part-ii.html

Bhagavad Gita — As It Is or As It Is Not (Part II)

Recently, I wrote a post related to my view about some of the purports by Prabhupada in his book "Bhagavad Gita As It Is." I particularly discussed his comments about women and mentioned lines from Purport where he said that women are more prone to degradation compared to men, and also quoted Chanakya's statement about women to support his views. Some readers were unhappy because of this and said that it was not Prabhupad's view but Arjun's. They also said that actually Arjun expressed his concern about women in related verses of the Bhagavad Gita, and Prabhupada just explained it to us in a better way in his purport. So let's try to see what's really going on in those verses of the Bhagavad Gita. 

The scene is from the great epic Mahabharat when both the armies (Kaurav and Pandav) are ready to fight a war and are assembled on the battlefield. Just before the war is about to start, Arjun expresses his desire to have one last look at the opponent's army. Krishna takes his chariot closer to the Kuru army, and there this conversation starts between him and Arjun. Arjun sees many of his relatives, cousins, teachers, and friends standing there. He has to kill/defeat them to win the war, the thought of killing his loved ones for the sake of the kingdom makes him feel emotional and nervous. He expresses these feelings to his mentor Krishna in many of these verses. Here is the translation of a few verses before and after verse 1.40 (chapter 1, verse 40). I am going to reproduce two translations here for the sake of comparison.

Dr. S. Radhakrishnan's translation,

(26) There saw Arjuna standing fathers and grandfathers, teachers, uncles, brothers, sons and grandsons as also companions.

(27) And also fathers-in-law and friends in both the armies. When the son of Kunti (Arjuna) saw all these kinsmen thus standing arrayed.

(28) He was overcome with great compassion and uttered this in sadness:

(29) My limbs quail, my mouth goes dry, my body shakes my hair stands on end.

(30) (The bow) Gandiva slips from my hand and my skin is burning all over. I am not able to stand steady. My mind is reeling.

(31) And I see evil omens, O Kesava (Krsna), nor do I foresee any good by slaying my own people in the fight.

(32) I do not long for victory, O Krsna, nor kingdom nor pleasures. Of what use is kingdom to us, O Krsna, or enjoyment or even life?

(33) Those for whose sake we desire kingdom, enjoyments pleasures, they stand here in battle, renouncing their lives and riches.

(34) Teachers, fathers, sons and also grandfathers; uncles fathers-in-law, grandsons and brothers-in-law and (other) kinsmen.

(35) These I would not consent to kill, though they kill me, O Madhusudana (Krsna), even for the kingdom of the three worlds how much less for the sake of the earth?

(36) What pleasure can be ours, O Krsna, after we have slain the sons of Dhrtarastra? Only sin will accrue to us if kill these malignants.

(37) So it is not right that we slay our kinsmen, the sons of Dhrtarastra. Indeed. How can we be happy? O Madhava (Krsna), if we kill our own people?

(38) Even if these whose minds are overpowered by greed, see no wrong in the destruction of the family and no crime in treachery to fiends:

(39) Why should we not have the wisdom to turn away from this sin, O Janardana (Krsana), we who see the wrong in the destruction of the family?

(40) In the ruin of a family, its ancient laws are destroyed: and when the laws perish, the whole family yields to lawless-ness.

(41) And when lawlessness prevails, O Varsneya (Krsna), the women of the family become corrupted and when women are corrupted, confusion of castes arises.

(42) And to hell does this confusion bring the family itself, as well as those who have destroyed it. For the spirits of their ancestors fall, deprived of their offerings of rice and water.

(43) By the misdeeds of those who destroy a family and create confusion of varanas, the immemorial laws of the caste and the family are destroyed.

(44) And we have heard it said, O Janardana (Krsna), that the men of the families whose laws are destroyed needs must live in hell.

(45) Alas, what a great sin have we resolved to commit in striving to slay our own people through our greed for the pleasures of the kingdom!

(46) Far better would it be for me if the sons of Dhrtarastra, with weapons in hand, should slay me in the battle, while I remain unresisting and unarmed.

(47) Having spoken thus on the (field of) battle, Ariuna sank down on the seat of his chariot, casting away his bow and arrow, his spirit overwhelmed by sorrow.   

Translation from the Bhagavad Gita as it is,

When the son of Kunti, Arjuna, saw all these different grades of friends and relatives, he became overwhelmed with compassion and spoke thus.(1.27)

Arjuna said: My dear Krsna, seeing my friends and relatives present before me in such a fighting spirit, I feel the limbs of my body quivering and my mouth drying up.(1.28)

 My whole body is trembling, my hair is standing on end, my bow Gandiva is slipping from my hand, and my skin is burning.(1.29)

I am now unable to stand here any longer. I am forgetting myself, and my mind is reeling. I see only causes of misfortune, O Krsna, killer of the Kesi demon.(1.30)

I do not see how any good can come from killing my own kinsmen in this battle, nor can I, my dear Krsna, desire any subsequent victory, kingdom, or happiness.(1.31)

O Govinda, of what avail to us are a kingdom, happiness or even life itself when all those for whom we may desire them are now arrayed on this battlefield? O Madhusudana, when teachers, fathers, sons, grandfathers, maternal uncles, fathers-in-law, grandsons, brothers-in-law and other relatives are ready to give up their lives and properties and are standing before me, why should I wish to kill them, even though they might otherwise kill me? O maintainer of all living entities, I am not prepared to fight with them even in exchange for the three worlds, let alone this earth. What pleasure will we derive from killing the sons of Dhrtarastra?(1.32-35)

Sin will overcome us if we slay such aggressors. Therefore it is not proper for us to kill the sons of Dhrtarastra and our friends. What should we gain, O Krsna, husband of the goddess of fortune, and how could we be happy by killing our own kinsmen?(1.36)

O Janardana, although these men, their hearts overtaken by greed, see no fault in killing one's family or quarreling with friends, why should we, who can see the crime in destroying a family, engage in these acts of sin?(1.37-38)

With the destruction of dynasty, the eternal family tradition is vanquished, and thus the rest of the family becomes involved in irreligion.(1.39)

When irreligion is prominent in the family, O Krsna, the women of the family become polluted, and from the degradation of womanhood, O descendant of Vrsni, comes unwanted progeny. (1.40)

An increase of unwanted population certainly causes hellish life both for the family and for those who destroy the family tradition. The ancestors of such corrupt families fall down, because the performances for offering them food and water are entirely stopped.(1.41)

By the evil deeds of those who destroy the family tradition and thus give rise to unwanted children, all kinds of community projects and family welfare activities are devastated. (1.42)

O Krsna, maintainer of the people, I have heard by disciplic succession that those who destroy family traditions dwell always in hell. (1.43)

Alas, how strange it is that we are preparing to commit greatly sinful acts. Driven by the desire to enjoy royal happiness, we are intent on killing our own kinsmen.(1.44)

Better for me if the sons of Dhrtarastra, weapons in hand, were to kill me unarmed and unresisting on the battlefield.(1.45)

Better for me if the sons of Dhrtarastra, weapons in hand, were to kill me unarmed and unresisting on the battlefield. It is the custom--according to ksatriya fighting principles--that an unarmed and unwilling foe should not be attacked. Arjuna, however, decided that even if attacked by the enemy in such an awkward position, he would not fight. He did not consider how much the other party was bent upon fighting. All these symptoms are due to soft-heartedness resulting from his being a great devotee of the Lord. Sanjaya said: Arjuna, having thus spoken on the battlefield, cast aside his bow and arrows and sat down on the chariot, his mind overwhelmed with grief.(1.46) 

Don't bother about the numbering of highlighted verses (1.41 vs 1.40) as they are slightly different in both translations (one has 47 verses in the first chapter and the other only 46), and numbering is not important here. One can clearly see that both translations are not that different from each other. Now let's read the purport of verse 1.40,

Purport for verse 1.40 from Bhagavad Gita As it is,

Good population in human society is the basic principle for peace, prosperity and spiritual progress in life. The varashrama religion’s principles were so designed that the good population would prevail in society for the general spiritual progress of state and community. Such population depends on the chastity and faithfulness of its womanhood. As children are very prone to be misled, women are similarly very prone to degradation. Therefore, both children and women require protection by the elder members of the family. By being engaged in various religious practices, women will not be misled into adultery. According to Chanakya Pandita, women are generally not very intelligent and therefore not trustworthy. So the different family traditions of religious activities should always engage them, and thus their chastity and devotion will give birth to a good population eligible for participating in the varashrama system. On the failure of such varashrama -dharma, naturally the women become free to act and mix with men, and thus adultery is indulged in at the risk of unwanted population. Irresponsible men also provoke adultery in society, and thus unwanted children flood the human race at the risk of war and pestilence.

To get a clear picture of what's going on, it is necessary to read all this. The situation of Arjun and his dilemma is described here. After seeing all his close relatives, teachers, and other dear ones, Arjun is feeling emotional here. His love for his relatives and his memories of the time he spent with them compel him to think about whether this war is worth fighting or not. Arjun was a very celebrated warrior, and the war was not a new thing for him; he had fought many of them before coming to fight this one. 

Arjun is feeling emotional weakness and wants to explain to Krishna his situation. Along with his emotional dilemma, he also wants to tell Krishna about the "effects of war on society." He is a clever guy and wants to make a very solid argument for not fighting the war. One cannot walk away just like that from such an important battle of their life; there has to be a very strong reason to do that, and Arjun was trying to put up a very strong argument. In that respect, he mentions all these bad things that war can bring to society and its people. He expresses his concern about the destruction of dynasties and the destruction of law, which might lead to total lawlessness in families and henceforth in society. Because of the prevalence of irreligion or lawlessness in a family or society, women of the family might become corrupted or polluted, resulting in further problems. Here, it seems he is mainly concerned about the sexual exploitation of women in a male-dominated society. After any big war (like World War) where lots of lives (mostly men) are lost on the battlefield, society's structure and composition might change drastically. A huge difference in the male-to-female ratio can create a lot of problems. Arjun's concerns seem very legitimate. 

One might accuse Arjun of taking the escapist route here; he doesn't want to fight the war, which is why he is giving reasons, but it's not out of fear; he is not a coward. He wants to question the necessity of fighting this war, which might lead to heavy losses for both sides fighting the war. He wants to show how war is "evil" and how it can prove disastrous for the whole society. He is more emotional here because this particular war involves people from his own family fighting on both sides. He can see the destruction of his own family and kingdom (which they want to acquire). His concerns and questions are very serious; that's the reason Krishna gave him such a detailed reply, which we call 'Bhagavad Gita'.

Physical abuse or sexual exploitation of females by victorious army men was very common in those days (and it happens even now), and in that regard, Arjun is expressing his concern. Nowhere, Arjun talk about the character of women, them being more prone to degradation compared to men, or women being not very intelligent and therefore not trustworthy. I feel that all these points are unnecessarily discussed in the purport; they are not at all related to the verse. If Prabhupad wanted to blame, he should have blamed males (or men) for polluting women, forcing such a big-scale war on society, but for some reason, his focus is all on women. Women can not be held responsible for rape or other physical abuse forced on them. How come one can blame a woman for an unwanted child after the rape? I found these views about women expressed in purport to be totally biased.

We all know that women have a very important role to play in any family, but the entire family's traditions or chastity and faithfulness don't depend only on them, but on all members of the family. Why put the entire burden on the shoulders of women? If the verse doesn't talk about women's nature or compare them with men, then why purport of this verse deviate from the main subject, the disastrous effect of war on society, so much? Why blame women for no fault of theirs? 

At the end of her purport, Prabhupada also blames 'irresponsible men' for provoking adultery in society, notice the use of the term "irresponsible" here, but when he commented about women, he was not talking about "irresponsible women" but women in general, that's where I have objection and I think scholar like him should have been more careful before passing such a general remark against women. And I don't think even women of the era of the Mahabharat were any less intelligent than men. His opinion about women can be his personal opinion, and he has full right to express it, but to deliver it in such a way (in the name of Gita) is wrong, according to me.

In the preface of the book, Prabhupada writes, "The Krishna consciousness movement is essential in human society, for it offers the highest perfection of life. How this is so is explained fully in the Bhagavad-gita. Unfortunately, mundane wranglers have taken advantage of Bhagavad-gita to push forward their demonic propensities and mislead people regarding right understanding of the simple principles of life." 

He claims that the importance of the Krishna Consciousness movement is explained in the Gita. Isn't it the direct marketing of his movement (ISKON) under the name of Gita as it is? Isn't he pushing his own agenda and advertising his organization here? This is the same thing for which he accused other authors. He has the right to do it, nothing wrong with it, but then, at least, please don't say something bad about others for doing the same thing. One can understand if he wrote this book as a manual for ISKON followers, as an interpretation of the Gita exclusively for his movement and its members (which is what that book is). I am not against his book, his translations, or his movement, but I am surprised by his claim that he is presenting the Bhagavad Gita "as it is." He is clearly trying to push his own philosophy and beliefs under the name of purports. I still use this book along with others to read translations of the Bhagavad Gita. The book nicely presents each verse in Devanagari script, a Latin transliteration, word-for-word meanings (Sanskrit-English), and English translation of the verse, but unfortunately, the major part of the book is Prabhupad's purports, and be careful while reading them. It's up to readers to decide what they think about the author's intentions in this book. I have expressed my opinion here. 

I just mentioned this book as an example, as I am reading it currently, I am not saying that this is the only book where the author tries to push his agenda in the name of some ancient scripture. There must be many other scriptures that might have been used by different authors for the same purpose. I think this is just one example. Readers should be careful while reading these types of books. They should try to differentiate between the actual translation of the text and the author's own opinion. It's always better to read more than one translation of any text (from other languages) to get a general idea about the meaning of that text. I think this post should explain my views, which I expressed in the previous post about the Bhagavad Gita as it is.

Thanks a lot for reading, and please share your views. 

Further reading:
1. Bhagadvad Gita-As it is or As it is NOT..

2. http://www.hknet.org.nz/seX-Vedic-view-of-women.html  

3. Why Krishna delivered Bhagavad Gita to Arjun not to someone else? 

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing) 

Bhagavad Gita — As It Is or As It Is Not

"There are two classes of men, namely the devotee and the demon." This is what Prabhupada writes about nonbelievers in the book Bhagavad Gita As It Is. The book is a translation and commentary by Prabhupada, who was the founder of the International Society of Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON). This book is one of the many translations of the Bhagavad Gita available in English and has been translated into almost 60 or more languages. In complete editions of this book (almost 900 pages), each verse from the Gita includes the verse in the Devanagari script, a Latin transliteration, word-for-word meanings (Sanskrit-English), and an English translation of the verse. This is followed by extensive commentary by Prabhupada for most of the verses (purport). This book is extensively distributed by ISKON and is a central theme of their teachings and beliefs. ISKON members also believe this book to be authoritative and literally true. I started reading this book when I was looking for a reliable translation of the Gita in English because my Sanskrit knowledge is very limited. A lack of knowledge of the Sanskrit language should not be a hindrance to studying and understanding most of the Vedic knowledge today. There are many translations of these works available in English and many other languages, and many of them are from very reliable sources. One can read them and compare to get the essence of the Vedic teachings (or any ancient philosophy).

This book was recently in the news; a group linked to the Christian Orthodox Church had demanded a ban on this book. They claimed that the text was "extremist" literature full of hatred and insults to nonbelievers, which promoted social discord. The case had drawn a flurry of criticism from Hindus across the world, and even the Indian parliament took note of this case and expressed its concern over the "ban on Gita." The Russian court finally dismissed that petition seeking a ban (a proper decision, according to me). But I was not surprised to see the news of requesting a ban on this book. I am personally against banning any book or article or movie, etc. Somehow, India (even though a democracy) has a history of banning books that carry some sensitive matters against some religion or iconic figures (like Gandhi, Ambedkar, Shivaji Maharaj, popular politicians, religious leaders, etc.). The list of banned books includes The Satanic Verses, The Polyester Prince, Shivaji-The Hindu King in Islamic India, and more. I decided to study this book to see what people found 'extremist' or 'full of hatred' in this book. My expectation was that the Bhagavad Gita should not be an extremist or full of hatred book; people can agree or disagree with things mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita, but this is true with any religious scripture. So I was wondering how come people got this impression (that it propagates hatred) from its translation, and that too translation by a person who founded the ISKON, which claims to teach Bhakti, love, and non-violence, and does some great philanthropic activities.

From the preface itself, I started to feel the aggressive tone of the author and his total dismissal of other works in the same field. Prabhupad writes, “Before my presentation of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, almost all the English editions of Bhagavad-gita were introduced to fulfill someone’s personal ambition.” I have nothing against aggressive tones or authors praising their own work, but dismissing others' work totally without any substantial evidence is arrogance without any substance; even great scientists or Nobel laureates don’t have such an attitude towards their competitors. He further writes, “Unfortunately, mundane wranglers have taken advantage of Bhagavad-geeta to push forward their demonic propensities and mislead people.”

This was just the beginning as I read more, I found many more views like this expressed in this book. As I said, nothing wrong in praising your own work, or highlighting good aspects of your philosophy/ideology, but I don’t think it’s right to demean your fellow writers like this. Let’s see what views are expressed about women in the book,

Prakriti is female, and she is controlled by the Lord just as the activities of a wife are controlled by the husband. I am sure many husbands wish that this were true :) Now let's look at his other comment about women.

In purport of Text 1.40 (chapter 1, verse 40) he writes,

“As children are very prone to be misled, women are similarly very prone to degradation. Therefore, both children and women require protection by the elder members of the family. By being engaged in various religious practices, women will not be misled into adultery. According to Chanakya Pandiita, women are generally not very intelligent and therefore not trustworthy. So the different family traditions of religious activities should always engage them, and thus their chastity and devotion will give birth to a good population eligible for participating in the varnäsrama system. On the failure of such varnäsrama-dharma, naturally, the women become free to act and mix with men, and thus adultery is indulged in at the risk of unwanted population.”

Seriously? Are you kidding me? In what way are women more prone to degradation than men? On what basis, he agree with the opinion that they are not very intelligent and trustworthy? Prabhupad might have had some bad experiences with women in his life, but that doesn’t give him the right to pass a general comment like this about all women, that too in a book where he claims to teach the Gita as it is. I am surprised that feminists are not up in arms against these statements; maybe they think it's not worth their attention.

Now let’s see what he writes about nonbelievers of his philosophy,

Purpot of Text 3.3

There are two classes of men, namely the devotee and the demon. There are a number of editions of this great book of knowledge. Some of them have commentaries by the devotees, and some of them have commentaries by the demons. Commentation by the devotees is real, whereas that of the demons is useless.

(So the world is conveniently divided into two types of people, one who believes in his teachings and philosophy, and others, DEMONS, a very kind way to address your fellow human beings)

Purport of Text 3.4

That Krishna is the supreme authority is accepted by the whole world, not only at present but from time immemorial, and the demons alone reject Him.

(text 3.5) A nondevotee or a demon cannot understand this transcendental nature. Consequently, these descriptions in the Gita cannot be understood by demonic brains.

If this is not Hatred of nonbelievers, then I wonder what it is? World demon is used for nonbelievers (even for other translators of the Bhagavad Gita); it appears many times, describing nonbelievers in this purport and also at different places in the book.

I can go on like this; there are many sentences in the book that will make one wonder whether the author wants to teach love or hatred toward other communities. How come the Indian Government, which is so sensitive towards religious feelings, didn't find this book offensive towards those who don’t believe in Krishna and his superiority? The objection (or demand for a ban) was not on the Bhagavad Gita as it was projected in the media, but was on this book, which is more than 90% purports by Prabhupad, but the book claims to tell us the real meaning of the Bhagavad Gita (very clever marketing trick). It’s the purports, which constitute most of the book in its complete edition (>90%). The translation part given in this book is good and mostly comparable with all other translations of the Gita, but his interpretation of the Gita verses in Prabhupad’s purports is the real problem. He propagates his own views and ideas in the name of the Gita very aggressively (and does the same thing for which he blamed others). I request the readers of my blog to read the book themselves and decide if I am right or wrong. It's definitely not Gita as it is, but what Prabhupada wants it to be; his purports spoil this book completely. This book is not only about the Gita, but it’s mostly a promotion of the Hare Krishna movement’s cult beliefs. Hopefully, the real Bhagavad Gita doesn't teach such a fundamentalist, sectarian, narrow view, but if I am wrong, please correct me.

Thanks a lot for reading, and please share your comments. 

Links:

1. http://vedabase.net/bg/ (for Bhagavad Gita- As it is)

2. http://breaking-free.info/2012/11/25/anything/

Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing.

Krishna-Part-II

There are many facets of Krishan's personality that attract me. I think Krishna lived his life in the present without worrying about the future; he didn't reject or get attached to anything. He lived his life as it presented itself, accepted whatever came his way, and didn’t try to run away from anything, let it be love, mischief, embarrassment, war, politics, wickedness, criticism, or even death. He enjoyed his life to the fullest and remained calm and cheerful during most of the epic, even during the war. 

Krishna not only preaches the theory of Karma in the Mahabharat, but he is also an ideal example of it. He accepted the consequences of all his actions without any complaint. War was not the result of his actions; he was not responsible for starting the war. But still, at the end of the war, Gandhari (Duryodhan's mother) blamed him for not doing enough to prevent the war and for killing her 100 sons. Without getting into arguments, he listened to her patiently. She cursed him that his family would also meet the same fate, and everyone would get killed like her sons. He accepted her curse without any complaint as he knew that some of his actions during the war were responsible for her pain and suffering. He is the perfect example of the theory of Karma; everyone, including him, has to face the consequences of their actions (good or bad). No one should escape the result of their actions. One can see the shades of all traits found in human nature in Krishna's personality; he is all-inclusive, and maybe that's why the Mahabharat gives him the status of god.  The Kuru army was much stronger than the Pandava army, and Krisha had to use tricks, magic, and deceit on the Pandavas' behalf to defeat them. Mahabharat teaches us many lessons, like just being on the right side doesn't guarantee victory, we have to earn it, we should not underestimate our enemy at any stage, evil is not always weak, and every action will produce its results, sooner or later.

In the epic, he is seen as a reliable friend, lover, clever politician, cunning and ruthless war strategist, intelligent foreign policymaker, spiritual guru, peacemaker, etc. He is the one powerful character in the story who can dictate the course of events using his charm, intelligence, and if necessary, force. He was the one who protected Pandavas whenever they were in danger and needed his help, but failed to protect his own family from destruction. He is the person who fights with the king of Gods, Indra, to save the villagers of Vrindavan from Indra's wrath by lifting Govardhan mountain and this is the same Krishna who is accidentally killed by a hunter in the forest. He did not die a heroic death of the warriors; he died like any other creature in the forest.  

I think he is the one among all the Gods to whom humans can relate very easily, and this might be the reason for his popularity. We all see parts of Krishna (and many other characters from the Mahabharat) in us at different stages of our lives. That is why I like this story, as we can easily relate to it. It's impossible to understand the Mahabharat completely without understanding all aspects of Krishna's personality; he is the heart and soul of this epic. It would have been easy for the authors of the Mahabharat to make Krishna a perfect and ideal God, who always upholds dharma and uses his unlimited powers to achieve his goals, but they didn't. They preferred to give us a character that is very much like all of us, with many limitations. They showed us how dharma is subtle, and many times it's difficult to differentiate right from wrong. As I wrote in one of my previous posts, we all face situations in real life like Arjun's dilemma at the beginning of the war, and many times wish to have someone like Krishna to advise us.

I don’t think two or even ten posts are enough to describe Krishna's character completely. I may keep coming back to him in my future posts whenever it's necessary, but for right now, I will stop here and would like readers to study and understand all aspects of his character. Maybe it will help us to live our lives in a better way.

Thanks for the reading, and please share your thoughts.

Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing. 

Krishna: Man or God? (Part I)

Arguably, Krishna is the most complex character from the epic Mahabharat. I have been fascinated by the complexity of Krishna’s character since my college days. He is a multidimensional character; one can see all shades of human nature in this single character. There are many characters in Mahabharat who display one or two traits of human nature brilliantly, but in Krishna's character, one can see everything, all in one; that's why people often wonder who he is. God or human? A hero or villain? In the Mahabharat, Krishna is present as God himself; he is the incarnation of Vishnu. The book seems to be clear about the divinity of his character. But in the story, not all his actions match his character of God. In fact, to many, his character may seem to have a dual personality, one who preaches the highest morality and another who doesn't hesitate to use the dirtiest tricks to win the war or kill the opponent. His presence was essential for the Pandavas’ victory in the war. Krishna didn’t fight in the war using any weapon, but he was the brain behind the Pandavas’ war strategy and played a key role in killing all the commanders-in-chief of the Kuru army. Despite all his faults and mistakes, almost all the characters in the Mahabharat admire him. His popularity has grown over time, even after people know all these contradictions about him. Krishna is one of the most popular Gods in India; maybe he has the largest number of followers among all Gods in India.

Krishna tried his best to avoid war; he even made a very generous offer to Duryodhan on behalf of Yudhishthir (to give him just five villages instead of half of the kingdom). He tried very hard to convince Duryodhan that war was not good for both sides, but he failed. Once all his attempts to avoid war failed.  Once war was declared, he believed in winning the war at any cost. He believed that the Pandavas’ cause was right, and the only thing that mattered to him was their victory. It’s not unusual for a hero to win the battle using cunning ways; there are many examples in history, but we don’t expect this type of behavior from God. If God is all-powerful and all knowledgeable, then why can't he fight the war by fair means? That means in the epic, he is also a human, or God is not omnipotent (all-powerful). Actually, the Mahabharat shows us many instances where it challenges the concept of an omnipotent God. 

During the war, we see an altogether different side of Krishna; his darker side is exposed during crucial moments of war. He wanted Pandavas to win and was ready to pay any price for that. He has to use all his charm, power, and intelligence from the first day of war itself. First, he has to use his power as a God to convince Arjun to fight the war. He has to reveal his divine nature to Arjun to convince him that whatever he is saying is the right thing (Bhagavad Gita was delivered in this process).  He is also seen as an opportunist who teaches an honest man (Yudhisthir) to tell a lie (about the death of Ashwathnama), the only lie he told in his all life. He even advises hesitant Arjun to strike down Karna when Karna was in a helpless and defenseless state. Because of these acts, as the war progresses and the Kuru army’s commanders fall one by one, we somehow begin to sympathize with the Kauravas. Even Duryodhan, before dying on the battlefield, lists Krishna’s many misdeeds during the war and accuses him of not fighting fairly. People might think that the end result of his actions justified the means he used, but I don't think Krishna thought like that. After winning the war, Krishna, who is cheerful throughout the epic, becomes serious and gives a very sobering message to the victorious Pandavas. He says that the Kauravas were great warriors, and they could not have defeated them in a fair fight; that is why he had to use magic and deceit on their behalf. It seems that the epic’s morality is subordinate to Krishna, the God.  

Many Critics and intellectuals have studied his character in very much detail, but these books are not very popular in the general public, as they put you in a very uncomfortable position. Krishna's role in the Mahabharat forces us to confront a moral dilemma. It puts us in a difficult situation, where it’s difficult to differentiate between good and bad. Both sides in war engage in good, bad, and even ugly deeds, and there is greatness on both sides. Krishna's character is also like that; it contains shades of all characters in the epic. Krishna is Karna, Arjun, Yudhisthir, Bhishma, Shakuni, and Drona all in one. One must accept all sides of Krishna, no matter how contrasting they are. But people divided his personality into many pieces, took the piece that they liked or were comfortable with, and neglected all other aspects. Some only accepted him as an adorable child, some were happy with his raas leelas, some took his image as a lover, some wanted only his Bhagavad Gita, and some saw him as a villain and criticized him for his actions during the war. Many bhakti movements only accept him in portions and present only a one-dimensional image of him. They glorify only certain aspects of Krishna's personality and keep mum or give some vague explanations about other aspects that they are not comfortable with. As I said, one can find whatever they want in his personality, so all these movements have taken bits and pieces of his personality and used them to propagate their own philosophies. I feel this is a great tragedy that people never tried to accept and understand him totally.

Thanks for reading, and please share your comments.

Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing.

Why did Krishna delivered Bhagavad Gita to Arjun not to someone else?

Why Arjun? Why not Yudhisthir or Bhim or Karna or anyone else, there were so many brilliant characters in Mahabharat so why Krishna chose Arjun for delivering one of the most important religious scriptures in human history. I used to get this question in my mind many times while reading about Bhagavad Gita. People believe that because Arjun was like his discipline and he favored or liked him among all Pandavas that’s why Krishna delivered Gita to him. I think both of them were very good friends with mutual respect and admiration for each other and it’s not because of their relationship but the particular situation during that battle that resulted in the delivery of Gita to Arjun. The significance of this message is great largely due to that situation.

The first thing we should understand is that Arjun was a very celebrated warrior at that stage, neither war nor killing his enemies was a new event for him, he had done that on numerous occasions before. After seeing all his loved ones as opponents on the battlefield he became weak and got confused. He got into a real dilemma on the day of battle and started thinking why is he fighting? Is it worth killing his own relatives for a piece of land? What is he going to achieve after all this? Even if they win the war is that victory worth after so many deaths and destruction? These were all very genuine and relevant questions. Arjun was a warrior and his duty was to fight because of his confusion so many doubts and concerns originated in his mind and he started deviating from his true nature. That’s why I think Gita is delivered for people who are searching for answers and Arjun was such a person on that day. We all are like Arjun at some stage of our life. Gita is not for people who are not looking for the answers or who already have their answers. Other characters of Mahabharat standing on that battlefield have already decided their stand. They had their reasons for being there and were very well convinced why and for whom they were fighting that war, so there was no point in giving them any advice because they didn’t need it and were already on their selected path. Krishna’s advice to them would have fallen on deaf ears. They were pretty convinced about their path and principles that’s why he didn’t try to advise them like he did to Arjun.

We all face similar situations like Arjun in our life, it presents us with situations where it’s tough to choose, where it’s difficult to understand which way to go? What is right and what is wrong (it's called dharmasankat)? That’s why it’s been delivered to Arjun and no one else and I think he was the only person who had the capability to understand it and grasp it because his doubts were genuine and his questions were honest. As I said before it's not for people who already have their answers, and believe me there are many people like that, on Kurukshetra battlefield itself except for Arjun everybody had their answers with them.

If Gita was supposed to be the guide to teach how to live life then Krishna would have delivered it to Arjun or to the whole society well before the battle so that Arjun wouldn’t be in any confusion during the battle, why did he wait till that day to deliver it? According to me, Gita makes more sense to you if you are looking for some answers, unless you have any questions Gita won’t appeal to you and would sound like some heavy dose of preaching or any other book. Its significance increases drastically if you are in a dilemma and facing a very difficult situation at any stage of life like Arjun. Arjun is not just a person here it’s a stage of mind; it’s a symbol of a person who is really confused at a very important juncture of his life, in a serious dilemma. It can be me, you, or anyone else; we all are Arjun if we are in that stage.

Mahabharat is an amazing story that you can read at any stage of your life and will find something new every time you read it (depending on what stage of life you are reading), but Gita is not like that you have to be seeking answers to understand it that’s why I think normally it’s studied or read separately. We need to find our Krishna to get our Gita and it can come in any form like any book, person, or any source from where you get your Gita delivered to you. All these religious scriptures (For example Bhagavad Gita, Bible, Quran, and many others) were delivered for people who are seeking answers, and who need some guidelines, you can find answers for many or all of your questions in them. Arjun can be a single person or the entire society and if you have not found your answers yet then keep on searching your Gita may come in any form so be prepared to recognize it, grasp it, and use it as your inspiration and guide.

Thanks for reading and please share your comments.

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)