Bhagwad Gita - Post 12

Dear All,

Today's post summarizes all the dilemma we undergo in our spiritual journey and how it can be related to the subject and content of first chapter.

It may be a little long post, but it is important to take in all the doubts in one go in this post.

DILEMMA OF SUBJECT-OBJECT

1) Pandavas facing the Kauravas is like a spiritual seeker facing the whole world. The objective sentiments are represented by the Kauravas, and the subjective sentiments are represented by the Pandavas.

It is difficult for the subject to face the object entirely on the assumption that it is an alien element that is outside, because the world is not an alien element. 

That is, only when we are able to discriminate between, we the subject and the world as an object, we will be able to fight / leave / transcend the object. 

We can speak of this subject - object but in reality, we are confused as we identify ourselves as both subject and object, similarly, we confuse the world also sometimes as subject and sometimes as object. 

(Those who have been listening to the sadan talks in Muscat can related to the Krishna's example explained in the talk where, 

Devotee = Subject

World   = Object

Initially, Krishna / God is also an object and we understood that first the world as object has to be transcended and only Krishna as object is perceived with single pointed devotion, then Krishna is brought nearer, then Krishna merges into us.

At this state of merger, all objects cease to exist and only we the subject, i.e. we the SELF, exist)

DILEMMA / FEAR OF FIGHTING OUR INTERNAL NATURE

2) Like the Arjuna feared war, spiritual seekers who are honest in their pursuit will begin to feel a sense of internal fear and tremor after years of spiritual practice, due to various questions that will arise which did not arise earlier because they had a wrong notion that the things they have to fight against are totally outside. 

The experience in spiritual meditation, living with Gurus, doing austerities in ashrams, etc., will slowly bring out the facts of the inner components of nature and  we stand exposed to our own internal shortcomings and a fright of an unknown nature will take possession of us.

Many seekers leave spiritual path at this juncture, when they (their inner defects) stand exposed. They do not want to recognize their  defects, hence, the easier way is to leave spiritual path and then "eat, drink and make merry, for, tomorrow, you may die" stand is taken!!!

DILEMMA OF IGNORING THE WELFARE OF  KITH AND KIN

3) A spiritual seeker develops various doubts of the following types.

Am I deserting the world in my enthusiasm for God?”

Have I not a duty towards people who are suffering?

 Am I to fly and reach to God individually, allowing my own brethren, kinsmen and humanity to wallow in the mire of ignorance? Is it not my duty to be of some assistance to these sufferers?” 

This is an extension of the logic of Arjuna’s feeling that the world is too much of a reality to be bypassed so easily with the feeling that it can be attacked, subjugated and destroyed, because of the fact that it has a relation of kinship with oneself. 

“They are me and, therefore, I have a duty towards them; and my duty is not to oppose them, but to feel for them.” This is one question. 

DILEMMA ABOUT GIVING UP THE (MY) WORLD

4) Arjuna was an epic representation of the internal chaos that one may have to face in the beginning of spiritual life. 

A spiritual seeker may feel, 

There is a great confusion,

I have lost everything, 

I have lost my father and mother,

I have no friends here, and nobody talks to me,

I am sick, 

I have achieved nothing,  

I have no guidance, no teachings. I will go crazy.” 

Whether to renounce the world or not renounce the world—who told us what is to be done? 

Has anybody told us that it is necessary to renounce the world? Is there a rational ground for our feeling that the world has to be renounced?  Is it because we want God? 

No scriptures will come to our rescue till the time we are filled with ignorance. 

Our own conscience can only come to our rescue and convey to us that the renunciation is only internal, we may not be required to leave everyone externally. 

DILEMMA / FEAR OF INCAPACITY

5) Arjuna’s difficulty is a spiritual difficulty; it is a spiritual crisis in which he found himself. 

 In an epic manner, Vyasa describes this chaos of the spiritual seeker who was   otherwise very adventurous and who went forward to face the battle of life, but who immediately became diffident and threw down his weapons. 

“No japa, no meditation, no book-reading helps. I am unable to do anything,” Arjuna said. 

GURU/GOD ONLY CAN RESCUE 

In this condition, our only resort is the Guru. Had his self-confidence continued and had he stuck to the wrong arguments that he put forth in the First Chapter, nothing would have come out of it. 

However, some satvic karma rose up, and he felt that it was necessary for him to know what was to be done. 

Arjuna asked Sri Krishna, “In this chaotic condition of my mind, what is my duty? I surrender myself to you, great Master. Please tell me.” 

The answer of Bhagavan Sri Krishna is, “You understand nothing. You draw conclusions without proper understanding of the structure of life and your relationship to people or things in general. This is a very sorry state. How can you draw conclusions without proper premises? If you draw a conclusion based on a wrong premise, the conclusion is also wrong. 

Therefore, all that you have been told up to this time is without any foundation because you do not know either yourself or the world.” 

(Relevant Extract for all spiritual seekers from commentary on Bhagwad Gita by Swami Krishnananda)

Love.

Bhagwad Gita - Post 11

Verse 46

Yadi maam aprateekaaram ashastram shastrapaanayah;

Dhaartaraashtraa rane hanyus tanme kshemataram bhavet.

If the sons of Dhritarashtra, with weapons in hand, should slay me in battle, unresisting and unarmed, that would be better for me.

Here, Arjuna declares his final opinion that, under the circumstances narrated during his long-drawn limping arguments, it is better for him to die in battle unresisting and unarmed, even if the Kauravas were to shoot him down, like a hunted deer, with a dozen arrows piercing his royal body.

In the previous verses, Arjuna mentions a number of evils that would come from the impending battle, but he was not able to see that evil would actually prevail if these wicked people were allowed to thrive in society. 

As often happens, people are unable to see their own mistakes and instead attribute them to situations and to others. 

Similarly, Arjuna felt that the sons of Dhritarashtra were motivated by greed, but he could not see that his outpouring of compassion was not a pure  sentiment, but a materialistic infatuation based on the ignorance of being the body. 

The problem with all of Arjuna’s arguments was that he was using them to justify his delusion that had been created from his bodily attachment, weakness of heart, and dereliction of duty. 

In practical life, when a person attends his first interview for job and he fails in the interview and he attends few more interviews and fails, he may end up taking a stand, “See, if I get a job, then I will be depriving another person of that job, so I shall not attend interview any more’. 

Thus, due to our weak heart, our fear of losing (fear of change, which is one of the manifestation of ego), we end up showing a kind, loving gesture, justifying our withdrawal from our dharma. 

The compassionate gesture thrown by Arjuna after seeing the strength of the warriors in the enemy side is not appreciable. If, before the war, he had taken this stand of non-violence and preparation to be killed by Dhritarashtra’s sons in the worst situation, then Arjuna can be adored as an epitome  of non-violence and compassion. 

Like the job seeker’s family needs his job salary, standing in the battlefield,  to say such lines as Arjuna says in this verse is a sheer sign of fear, ignorance and running away from one’s dharma as a Kshatriya.

It may be put forth that although Arjuna disregarding kshatriya ethics might refrain from battle out of deluded compassion for friends and kinsman; but as far as the enemy is concerned they will not refrain themselves from battle; but are determined to fight for dominion of the kingdom. Being fully intent on victory the sons of Dhritarashtra may slay you even if Arjuna  does not fight. Then what is the use of not fighting? 

For the answer to the above question, the expression "Kshema" used by Arjuna in this verse is worth observing.

Arjuna states that even if the sons of Dhritarashtra being devoid of wisdom and obsessed by greed would slay him unarmed and unresisting, this would still be more preferable (Kshema) than perpetuating sin by slaying friends and kinsman and permanently going to hell as a result. (as he would not get Moksha due to the sin committed of killing his kinsman)

Whereas, He should have considered the Moksha, the welfare of the entire society and should have plunged into the war!!!

Love.

Bhagwad Gita- Post 10

Dear All,

Arjuna tries to convince Sri Krishna for not fighting with Kauvarvas, with various explanations like the following, (verse 32 to 35)

For I desire neither victory, O Krishna, nor pleasures nor kingdoms! Of what avail is a dominion to us, O Krishna, or pleasures or even life?

Those for whose sake we desire kingdoms, enjoyments and pleasures, stand here in battle, having renounced life and wealth.

Teachers, fathers, sons and also grandfathers, grandsons, fathers-in-law, maternal uncles, brothers-in-law and relatives.

These I do not wish to kill, though they kill me, O Krishna, even for the sake of dominion over the three worlds, leave alone killing them for the sake of the earth!

In spite of all that Arjuna said so far, Krishna is as silent .  Therefore, Arjuna gives up his melodramatic expression and assumes a softer, a more appealing tone and takes the attitude of explaining in vain, a serious matter to a dull-witted friend and says, 

Verse 36

Nihatya dhaartaraashtraan nah kaa preetih syaaj janaardana;

Paapam evaashrayed asmaan hatwaitaan aatataayinah.

Killing these sons of Dhritarashtra, what pleasure can be ours, O Janardana? Sin alone will be our gain by killing these felons.

The kaurvas had  committed such sins that they deserve to be slayed immediately, arjuna mentions  that  the kaurava brothers were behaving towards the Pandavas as felons. 

If it is put forth that in killing aggressors there is sin that argument can be nullified because in the Vasistha Samhita ( it is mentioned as Niti Shastra in come commentary), it is stated that the following six types of aggressors can be killed.

1) one who administers poison

2) one who commits arson 

3) one who attacks with deadly weapons 

4) one who steals one’s wealth 

5) one who usurps another's property 

6) and one who kidnaps another's wife

In case of Kauravas, they had  usurped  Pandava's property, they had tried to kill Pandavas by placing them in a place prone to fire , they had humiliated Draupadi and they had done many  other wrong things to Pandavas.  So, as per the above shastra, they could be slain. 

However, arjuna takes another route and says that he would in turn be accruing more sin if he slays his own relatives.  His reasoning is based on  Dharma sastra where it is stated that one should not cause harm to any living creature. 

Since Dharma sastra is superior to any other sastra, the killing of revered elders such as Drona, Bhishma and all his Kaurava brothers and their army can only be the cause of a bigger  sin. 

Without the elders and the relatives, the enjoyment of sovereignty will not be palatable, rather, it  will only result in remorse.

Arjuna addresses Sri Krishna as Madhava, Janardana etc. in these verses which are attributable to  the husband/consort of goddess of good fortune. 

Arjuna indicates  by this that  as the Husband, He is the protector of the family and not the destroyer. 

Accordingly, Arjuna should also follow Krishna’s path as protector and he should not act contrary to Sri Krishna’s nature, by killing his relatives ( Kauravas, who are his family members)

Arjuna's seemingly learned objection to killing enemies is a misinterpretation of our sacred texts (Shastra), and to have acted upon it would have been suicidal to our very culture. 

As a Kshatriya, after the war has been decided, where Arjuna was fully geared up and was enthusiastic to fight against adharma  and army is lined up on both sides and the conches have been blown, taking the support of Dharma Shastra only reflects the cowardice and fear of Arjuna.

Therefore, Krishna refuses to show any sign either of appreciation or criticism of Arjuna's stand. 

The Lord understands that his friend is raving hysterically and the best policy is to allow a mental patient first of all to bring out everything in his mind and thus exhaust himself.

Love