UB: धृतराष्ट्र उवाच
धर्मक्षेत्रे कुरुक्षेत्रे समवेता युयुत्सवः। मामकाः पाण्डवाश्चैव किमकुर्वतसञ्जय।।1.1।।
1.1 धृतराष्ट्र said On the holy field of कुरुक्षेत्र, gathered together eager for battle, what did my people and the Pandavas do, O Sanjaya?
UB:
- Either in the title or the first word or a group of words, most Indian texts convey the intent of the book. Use of the word धर्म is stated as a giveaway here that Gita is a text of धर्म
- धृतराष्ट्र used the word मामका to refer to his kids and Pandu sons as others. Quite unknowingly, use of words by us gives us away.
- Mystical meaning – धृतराष्ट्र represents a spiritually blind person who lives within a body (क्षेत्र) meant for धर्म, whose core nature is action driven (कुरूक्षेत्र). This blind is aligned to forces that are ego-driven who live life as an individuality separated from others against aspects that are universal unitive type.
HB: Was sanjaya a man or a machine? Secondly, was Dhritarashtra referred to blind as an adjective/ metaphor? Why can’t sanjaya be a telescope?
UB: Why should Sanjay be a machine? Yoga texts do refer to such Siddhis meaning ability to see from a faraway place as possible – no need in my mind to take this as a telescope
HB: Can’t sidhis be governed by science, a power beyond comprehension of an average person
UB: Yogic texts provide a step by step process which provides various experiments that need to be undertaken by a Yogi. These state that if and when a Yogi reaches stage 6 (Dharana), the Siddhis will come on their own. I will however be vary of using the word “Science” since this word has many meanings and too many emotions attached to it 😀
HB: The very fact that there are experiments indicate a possibility of science.
UB: I am a lowly commerce man 😀. Science however refers to common conditions, observer – observed distinction, ability to repeat experiment & having the same outcome, etc. as primary rules. In Adhyatma however, there is no observer- observed since experiment is being conducted on oneself. Conditions cannot be the same since each person can never be in the same mental conditions as they begin such experiments. Lastly, why have a stamp of a word like “Science” to make Adhyatma look valid when validity of this field is done based on its own parameters rather than those determined by another discipline ? Which is why I am wary of use of this word at a general level.
HB: A siddhi also means complete understanding, possibly achieved through reflection and perseverance (tapasharya). Required for scientific research. Wouldn’t it be better to integrate our truth with theirs, where ever possible
PK: I kinda agree with HB ..,if truth or knowledge is absolute it must be true in varied conditions including varied disciplines . While I understand where UB us coming from ie adhyatmic journey is personal and hence not reproducible in my opinion the fact that we have some learned gurus or teachers assures me that folks are trying to reproduce this so as to make this knowledge widespread and accessible .. To an extent that’s what science does as well.. Research something then if it’s useful make it accessible and attempt to make it easily reproducible .., while not easy by any means the goal. Is Noble and to me similar in both disciplines .. At least that is my approach as I would find it difficult to walk on any path that says suspend your reason … Which is why I have such a problem with the word faith .. It’s hard for me to accept things without dissecting and digesting it 😃😃😃.., it’s my prarabdha for this janam … My nature , my career choices and my interests I have been observing recently as I have gotten interested are in this bent … My 2 cents
PK: UB : your explanation of that shloka was very nice… Many layers in what I thought was a simple introduction .., I enjoyed the complexity 🙏🙏🙏🙏
UB: PK / HB 👍. Today is still day 1 and we will have many debates in the days ahead when we may want to tear off each other’s hair. 😀 So we can reserve some debates for the days ahead
VB: I am confused.
PK: Confused about what VB?
VB: As usual, I have a contrarian view. I want to know who assigned the mystical meaning to the verse. Was it given by the person in last 100 years or was it given when this shlok was written. And PK and UB will know where I am going with this line of thinking.
HB: Always love it when basic assumptions are challenged
VB: Is the shlok supposed to have a deeper meaning at all? Or is it assigned by a learned person who was looking for deeper meanings in Gita
HB: It could simply be a narrative
VB: Exactly
PK: Now that is a good question VB … I would hazard a yes .. Some assumptions are inevitable .., in science and philosophy ..the question really to me becomes is this fairly plausible or reasonably accurate ? Assuming Dhristharsthra is a metaphor for blind love vs sanity and reason , the deeper meaning is interesting … Maybe Mahabharata. Is just a story but may be it is not .., 😃😃
VB: You would hazard a yes to what?
PK: I wish we could chat. Yes to a learned person assigning deeper meaning
VB: Ok. Then I would tend to believe that this is a narrative and a story
PK: Ok – so you prefer small posts😃 So you don’t think it is story? I do .. Not sure if I believe this really happened
VB: Whether Mahabharata is a story or not, this shlok is just a beginning. I do not think it has a deeper meaning. I believe we are making it complicated when it is not. We can say blindness of D is a metaphor for his blind love. But was that how writer intended?
PK: Well .. One can never be sure of what an author intended. The best books are those which can be interpreted in multiple ways
VB: If he intended, deeper meaning would have been discussed when this was written. Not now.
PK: How are you sure it was not discussed then?
VB: We can still have the discussion on science adhyatma etc. I do not know and hence that was the 1st q I asked. And u hazarded a yes 😀
PK: Now I am confused 😃😃 I was replying to UB who said he is wary of science in adhyatmic studies 😃😃My sense is everything is connected … My yes was to your question VB of whether there is a deeper meaning to shloka
VB: Oh! I feel science is doing the same experiment in diff samples and learning for that.
PK: Agree with you on science .. But somewhere they should meet with spiritual matters. Not sure of how , when 😃😃 This is pretty much what Deepak Chopra is making millions on😃😃
VB: So study on self is science. I do not think we want to call it or relate it to science to validate it.
PK: That’s my theory or at least approaching it that way … As an experiment on myself and seeing if all those learned folks are correct 😃
VB: Science is not a pagan word.
PK: Agree .. Is spiritualism pagan ?
VB: No. Not at all.
VB: Science is a process. Nothing more nothing less
PK: So is spiritualism or mystical matters … It’s a process as well .. Inward that’s all !
VB: I used pagan in the sense of a taboo or not a normal, meaning
HB: Is there any references to earliest versions of gita, like old and new testament
UB: References meaning?
HB: Is there some original Gita, absolutely not messed by subsequent authors who added their own bits and pieces
UB: Gita is broadly the same at least since the time Shankara gave a commentary on it. It is Shankara who gave a commentary on its import – he took it out of MAHABHARATA and made it as a separate text for conveying the truth . since then, many others have also given their commentary. There are a few additional shlokas in those by a few others but these changes are not substantial. About the point raised by VB, there is a technical background to this. As you will know, all Adhyatma texts have sprung from the Vedas. One of the earliest commentary on the Vedas is by Yaska who wrote that all Vedic Mantras have three levels of meaning – Adhibhautika, Adhidaivika and Adhyatmika (external, internal and Real). Most Vedic texts and even epic events like Ramayana and MAHABHARATA are conveyed by learned Gurus at all three levels. This has been a standard fare for thousands of years. So this is not new.
VB: HB, why is science “theirs”? Is “deeper meaning is interesting” a good enough reason to assign depth when MAYBE , it was not supposed to have depth. I have a fundamental issue with the posit that everything has a deeper meaning. Without hurting anyone’s feelings, this reminds me of a cartoon where people in a modern art gallery gather around a ladder and talk about thoughts that the sculpture was representative of. Till they are interrupted when the janitor comes and takes his ladder away
UB: These three meaning may also roughly correspond with the words – physical, intellectual and spiritual. One who really knows all three levels of meanings and all meanings are consistent and not contradictory is known as the real knower of Vedas – this has been a traditional understanding for 1000s of years
VB: Ok. Point taken. This is not a plain ladder
UB: 😀 Every branch of Gyan has a certain structure and operates by defining a certain frame of rules. I guess if we have to catch the ideas, we have to accept the postulates as claimed by the branch and see if this is applied consistently and thereby helpful in giving you insight into the way of things. And multiple levels of Gyan is a concept as old as the Vedas. So this is not a matter of convenience but a very real aspect of the basic structure of Adhyatma
HB: Did I say science is theirs? I was referring to truth
VB: UB, I agree to what you have said earlier I will go by this posit. Though it is contrary to my fundamental belief, I am willing to go on to see where it takes me. So about the mystical meaning, what does dharmashetre kurushetre as 1st 2 words mean?
HB: UB, wouldn’t the three levels be for abstraction of whole and not necessarily for each verse
UB: Yes – it is not for each and every verse
VB: HB, that is how I interpreted this statement of yours. Maybe I am wrong
UB: I gave this meaning since Abhinavagupta has given this in his commentary. Kshetra means field of operation or activity. This comes further in the 13th chapter where Kshetra is used in terms of a physical body. This Kshetra as per Vedas is meant to be used for Dharma. We will come to what is Dharma later. Equally, Kuru means action in Sanskrit and our body is an instrument of action – we are always DOING things and our body is also a field of action. BTW, let me admit that I am a baccha on this and am also learning. So if you insult my crap, I will feel happy since this will make me dig further 😀
VB: So how does the two words together translate?
UB: This is normally translated – ‘in the place Kurukshetra which is also a Dharmakshetra’, the Kauravas and Pandavas are standing in front of each other
VB: Ok
UB: सञ्जय उवाच
दृष्ट्वा तु पाण्डवानीकं व्यूढं दुर्योधनस्तदा आचार्यमुपसङ्गम्य राजा वचनमब्रवीत्।।1.2।।
1.2 संजय said King दुर्योधन, on seeing the पांडव army in battle array, approached his teacher Drona and said these words:
पश्यैतां पाण्डुपुत्राणामाचार्य महतीं चमूम्। व्यूढां द्रुपदपुत्रेण तव शिष्येण धीमता।।1.3।।
1.3 Behold, O teacher, this mighty army of the पांडव, arrayed by the son of द्रुपद, your intelligent disciple.
अत्र शूरा महेष्वासा भीमार्जुनसमा युधि। युयुधानो विराटश्च द्रुपदश्च महारथः।।1.4।।
1.4 There (in that army) are heroes, great bowmen, like भीम and अर्जुन; युयुधान,विराट & द्रुपद a mighty warrior;
धृष्टकेतुश्चेकितानः काशिराजश्च वीर्यवान्। पुरुजित्कुन्तिभोजश्च शैब्यश्च नरपुङ्गवः।।1.5।।
1.5 धृष्टकेत, चेकितान, and the valiant king of Kasi; पुरूजित and कुन्तिभोज, and शैब्य the best among men;
युधामन्युश्च विक्रान्त उत्तमौजाश्च वीर्यवान्। सौभद्रो द्रौपदेयाश्च सर्व एव महारथाः।।1.6।।
1.6 युधामन्य the valiant, and उत्तमौजा the strong; and also the son of शुभद्र and the sons of द्रौपदि, all mighty warriors.
UB: Combined as a bunch since they are similar in nature and meaning is self-evident. There is a bit of psychology here – why should Duryodhana approach Drona first? Firstly, he is edgy before the war as is natural. Second, he is not sure if Drona is really on his side since he likes the Pandavas. So to needle him, he takes the name of Drupada first since he knows that Drupada’s son was conceived to kill Drona. Message is – do not be too kind to someone who has vowed to kill you. And if you are being kind, you are foolish.
VB: Nice. I feel like being a fly on the wall during Mahabharata. “And if you are being kind, you are foolish.” – was this really meant? I think not.
UB: Did not understand
VB: Did D mean that to his guru
UB: If one reads MAHABHARATA, one does find D always uncomfortable with the trio – Bhishma, Drona & Kripa. But because he had to be politically correct, he kept them on his side. He always used to suspect their allegiance. And he used to openly needle them
VB: Yes. But this is the start. How can one interpret without establishing the roles and background?
UB: That is because while Gita begins now, it is part of MAHABHARATA where there is enough background on the relationship of D with all others. Hence, many commentators refer to this as a continuity. Unless you are of the school that Gita was a later development inserted forcefully within MAHABHARATA 😀
VB: Nope. you are right. I totally am wrong. Shutting up.
HB: They were humans weren’t they? Slight anxiety is natural. D might simply be assessing the situation in the war
UB: As I said, if Gita is read as a continuity, this point will become apparent. Also, our interest in this way of reading is how NOT to treat people whom we may have placed in positions of trust. D intention was to win the war of course but how one should speak to your trusted people is a skill one may learn from Yudhistira. However, from a pure Gita reading, D will not come up again and not critical to know him
VB: I posted a rebuttal to this. I hate to think of human beings as depressed folks
HB: Some of them are, it can’t be denied
VB: True. Some always are. But as a general observation, that we are driven by depression, no
UB: Agree – depression word is depressing. One may say incompleteness but not depression
PA: Forgetting our true nature which is sat chit Amanda. Causes to be driven constantly by the ego mind (D) which takes us into unhappiness and sadness. To access the space which each of us possess where we are naturally happy is somehow not taught in the normal process of education. Being happy and peaceful irrespective of the external situations is the only achievement worthwhile in life. That’s of course the economic theory or rather the economics of business which you have posted VB. With the basic idea behind that that resource are limited and to create scarcity and competition. A complete opposite of nature and spirit being limitless bountiful and full of abundance
PK: VB : I heard that theory too .. A version which said that economy is depressed in Asian countries with Buddhism – hindu philosophy as they are not consumer driven .. Interesting hypothesis and to some extent true .. U.S. is very consumer driven economy where the key is to buy more and more stuff .. Typically Asian – Americans do not buy (pun intended 😃) into that philosophy. I liked PA’s summary of the goal we wish to achieve … Long lasting joy or contentment vs the fleeting momentary happiness that is subject to or even driven by external stimuli … It seems a hard but worthy goal to me .. Dekhte hain what happens over the next two decades …😃😃
UB: 👍 Great PA and PK. Any goal will be pursued if we are convinced of its worth not emotionally but when there is conviction that this is indeed worthy. To get this conviction is a more difficult job really.
UB: अस्माकं तु विशिष्टा ये तान्निबोध द्विजोत्तम। नायका मम सैन्यस्य संज्ञार्थं तान्ब्रवीमि ते।।1.7।।
1.7 Know, O best of द्विज, those who are important on our side, those who are the defenders of my army, I shall name them to refresh your memory.
भवान्भीष्मश्च कर्णश्च कृपश्च समितिञ्जयः। अश्वत्थात्मा विकर्णश्च सौमदत्तिस्तथैव ।।1.8।।
1.8 Yourself, भीम & कर्ण, the victorious कृप, अश्वत्थाम, विकर्ण and जयद्रथ the son of सोमदत्त;
अन्ये च बहवः शूरा मदर्थे त्यक्तजीविताः।नानाशस्त्रप्रहरणाःसर्वे युद्धविशारदाः।।1.9।।
1.9 And there are many other heroes who are determined to give up their lives for my sake. They all are experts in using manifold शस्त्र and are dexterous in battle.
अपर्याप्तं तदस्माकं बलं भीष्माभिरक्षितम्। पर्याप्त त्विदमेतेषां बलं भीमाभिरक्षितम्।।1.10।।
1.10 Inadequate is this force of ours, which is guarded by भीष्म, while adequate is that force of theirs, which is guarded by भीम.
अयनेषु च सर्वेषु यथाभागमवस्थिताः। भीष्ममेवाभिरक्षन्तु भवन्तः सर्व एव हि।।1.11
1.11 Therefore all of you taking your places firmly in your respective divisions, guard भीष्म at all cost.
तस्य संजनयन्हर्षं कुरुवृद्धः पितामहः। सिंहनादं विनद्योच्चैः शङ्खं दध्मौ प्रतापवान्।।1.12।।
1.12 Then the valiant grandsire भीष्म, seniormost of the कुरु clan, roaring like a lion, blew his conch with a view to cheer up दुर्योधन.
UB: Now that you have witnessed the nature of edginess of D, we will come to a different texture of edginess faced by Arjuna in the coming verses
VB: It was a surprise to me that D considered bheeshma as inadequate and had such high regards for bheem. PK, interesting what u heard – I heard that theory too .. A version which said that economy is depressed in Asian countries with Buddhism – Hindu philosophy as they are not consumer driven .. Interesting hypothesis and to some extent true .. U.S. Is very consumer driven economy where the key is to buy more and more stuff ..
UB: He had 11 Akshouhini sena while Pandavas had 7. I guess it was his state of mind at that time of war
VB: So, one who had more was weaker or inadequate? Or does it mean that he had too many folks to manage. Continuing on earlier post – I am no commerce man , what is a good economy? One that can cater needs of country or one that does not match to global benchmarks. In Sri Lanka, it is super clean, people seemed very happy. Does it mean that a low growth rate or GDP is bad? What have an either/or? Why not both? Long lasting contentment with intermittent joys of eating unhealthy cream rich cake or taamsi diet. 11 month of simple leaving and 2 weeks of staying in a luxurious resort in opulence 😀
UB: D felt that his army is inadequate – as I said, it is his fearful state of mind that made him feel this way. The word used is अपर्याप्त as against पर्याप्त of his foes. There are some commentators who translate पर्याप्त as limited and अपर्याप्त as unlimited thus reversing the shloka meaning. However this seems inappropriate since D asks Drona to provide cover to Bhishma in the next verse which can come only out of fear. As per his war strategy, till B is alive, his army is safe and Pandavas cannot declare victory and so he should be covered appropriately. A defensive strategy
PA: What a great translation UB 🙏🙏enjoying this. Sure VB. Actually it is not either or rather living in the midst of everything but being detached. The divine consciousness actually creates through you – Form which we see around the world. However there is an aspect of nothingness or just formless. It’s like this the universe wants to experience thorough you the form and the formless managing sometimes we have this energy to do something and create things – that’s the creative force behind it. Sometimes we want to be quite and retreat into this void as in meditation. Both aspects are the play of the divine and the pendulum towards just a one side is not the best rather a combination of Doing and Retreating. – I heard this from Eckard Tolle – power of now. The key also is the realise and let that divine work through you
VB: You used the word “detached”. Is it not living in the midst of everything and getting attached once in a while. So, and pardon my layman language, learn to be content with the styrofoam cup. But enjoy the ceramic cup as it is a reward for all of your work. And recognise that ceramic cup is not permanent
UB: ततः शङ्खाश्च भेर्यश्चपणवानकगोमुखाः। सहसैवाभ्यहन्यन्त सशब्दस्तुमुलोऽभवत्।।1.13।।
1.13 Then suddenly conches and kettle drums, trumpets, tabors and blow horns blared forth; and the sound was terrific.
ततः श्वेतैर्हयैर्युक्ते महति स्यन्दनेस्थितौ। माधवः पाण्डवश्चैव दिव्यौशङ्खौ प्रदध्मतुः।।1.14।।
1.14 Then श्रीकृष्ण and अर्जुन, stationed in their great chariot yoked with white horses, blew their divine conchs.
पाञ्चजन्यं हृषीकेशो देवदत्तंधनंजयः। पौण्ड्रं दध्मौ महाशङ्खंभीमकर्मा वृकोदरः।।1.15।।
1.15 श्रीकृष्ण blew his conch, पाञ्चजन्य, अर्जुन his देवदत्त and भीम of terrible deeds his great conch पौण्ड्र.
अनन्तविजयं राजा कुन्तीपुत्रोयुधिष्ठिरः। नकुलः सहदेवश्च सुघोषमणिपुष्पकौ।।1.16।।
1.16 युधिष्ठिर the son of Kunti blew his conch अनन्तविजय and नकुल and सहदेव blew their conchs सुघोष and मणिपुष्पक.
काश्यश्च परमेष्वासः शिखण्डीच महारथः। धृष्टद्युम्नो विराटश्चसात्यकिश्चापराजितः।।1.17।।
1.17 And the King of Kasi the supreme bowman, शिखण्डी the mighty warrior, धृष्टद्युम्न and विराट; and सात्यकि the invincible;
द्रुपदो द्रौपदेयाश्च सर्वशःपृथिवीपते। सौभद्रश्च महाबाहुः शङ्खान्दध्मुःपृथक्पृथक्।।1.18।।
1.18 द्रुपद and the sons of द्रौपदी, and the strong-armed son of सुभद्र – all, O King, blew their several conchs again and again.
स घोषो धार्तराष्ट्राणां हृदयानिव्यदारयत्। नभश्च पृथिवीं चैव तुमुलोव्यनुनादयन्।।1.19
1.19 And that tumultuous uproar, resounding through heaven and earth, rent the hearts of धृतराष्ट्र sons
UB: My kids find it cool that even conches of Pandavas have different names 😀
PA: I also find it so cool too 👍👍👍
HB: My two pence. Born with attachment, first it’s the umbilical cord, then the mother s arm and so on…. thus our philosophy believes that it’s constant human endeavour to seek an opposite state. Probability as a way towards liberation and enlightenment. The belief is a natural extension of stages of human development. Thus, the question to remain detached within a state of attachment is aspirational ideal state of existence, considering the fact that we are part of a larger system of complex interconnections. It may mean a flexible elastic maze similar to s spider web, any one joint rigid may destroy the entire web
PK: I like your explanation … Very interesting … Am facing the rigid joint phenomenon in my life right now – we have a dinner plan with friends and one person is being inflexible – I am shutting up but not very happy about it 😃 I am realizing that adjusting when I think the other person is being unreasonable is something I need to work on – I get irritated as I think everyone needs to give and adjust but usually there are always 1-2 dominant alpha males who think that what they say goes 😃😃.., nice folks overall but believe they know best
UB: HB – we will have interesting debates in the days ahead 😀
HB: I have to read today shloka. I am just loving the diverse views. I think about it, since the day mm group has been formed, we are less and less seen on w group. Slowly detaching and attaching here. I am think that is the challenge, to remain equipoised. Shook 1.7 to 1.9, as I remember D wanted karna as his sensation, young, dynamic warrior as his senapati, who as not entangled in blood relation ship with pandavas. The society probably would not have allowed such a think considering karnas lineage. The key pad of this phone is jammed… Moreover, warfare was probably evolved to an extent that quality of sena also mattered
UB: अथ व्यवस्थितान् दृष्ट्वाधार्तराष्ट्रान्कपिध्वजः। प्रवृत्ते शस्त्रसंपाते धनुरुद्यम्यपाण्डवः।।1.20।।
1.20 Then Arjuna, who had हनुमान as his ध्वज, on beholding the sons of धृतराष्ट्र in array, took up his bow, while शस्त्र were being readied to be used
अर्जुन उवाच
हृषीकेशं तदा वाक्यमिदमाहमहीपते। सेनयोरुभयोर्मध्ये रथं स्थापयमेऽच्युत।।1.21।।
1.21 And he spoke, O lord of earth, these words to श्रीकृष्ण. अर्जुन said: Draw up my chariot, O श्रीकृष्ण, between the two armies,
यावदेतान्निरीक्षेऽहंयोद्धुकामानवस्थितान्। कैर्मया सहयोद्धव्यमस्मिन्रणसमुद्यमे।।1.22।।
1.22 So that I may have a good look at those who are standing eager to fight and know with whom I have to fight in this enterprise of war.
योत्स्यमानानवेक्षेऽहं य एतेऽत्रसमागताः। धार्तराष्ट्रस्य दुर्बुद्धेर्युद्धेप्रियचिकीर्षवः।।1.23।।
1.23 I wish to see those gathered here ready to fight in this battle in order to please the evil-minded son of धृतराष्ट्र.
सञ्जय उवाच
एवमुक्तो हृषीकेशो गुडाकेशेनभारत। सेनयो: उभयोर्मध्ये स्थापयित्वारथोत्तमम्।।1.24।। भीष्मद्रोणप्रमुखतः सर्वेषां चमहीक्षिताम्। उवाच पार्थपश्यैतान्समवेतान्कुरूनिति।।1.25।।
1.24/ 1.25 सञ्जय said – Thus addressed by अर्जुन, श्रीकृष्ण drew up that best of chariots between the two armies before the view of भीष्म & द्रोण and all the other kings, O धृतराष्ट्र, and said, ‘O अर्जुन, behold these assembled Kauravas.’
HB: I can hear the horn
VB: HB – I do not believe it is aspirational or idealistic. It is doable. In fact all of us who are in this group, I believe do it to some extent. Complete detachment is not possible.
HB: Striving to attain a healthy Level is also difficult.
VB: Complete detachment is anyways not a reasonable expectation or a goal if u live in a family/ society. Healthy level is very subjective. Who defines healthy? I think I have attained a healthy level😀. Seriously.
HB: That’s precisely why I added a Mark
PK: I agree with you VB – not sure if I wish to be completely detached – I like some worldly pleasures and attachment to my family and friends 😃.., the detachment I am aiming for is the one where I do not react to each and every external stimuli 😄… I find that I am reasonably detached from the works in general – its folks close to me who push my buttons 😄😄😄 and I am learning to recognize that and react with equanimity .. Which is mostly muttering “not my circus, not my monkeys” .., thus does not work when it’s my kids 😃😃 Reasonably detached from world in general (politics, general junta , etc ) 😄😄
UB: तत्रापश्यत्स्थितान्पार्थः पितृ़नथपितामहान्। आचार्यान्मातुलान्भ्रातृ़न्पुत्रान्पौत्रान्सखींस्तथा।।1.26।।
1.26 Then as अर्जुन looked on, he saw standing there fathers and grand-fathers, teachers, uncles, brothers, sons, grandsons and comrades;
श्वशुरान्सुहृदश्चैवसेनयोरुभयोरपि। तान्समीक्ष्य स कौन्तेयःसर्वान्बन्धूनवस्थितान्।।1.27।।
1.27 Fathers-in-law and dear friends in both armies. When Arjuna saw all these kinsmen in array,
अर्जुन उवाच
कृपया परयाऽऽविष्टोविषीदन्निदमब्रवीत्। दृष्ट्वेमं स्वजनं कृष्ण युयुत्सुंसमुपस्थितम्।।1.28।।
1.28 He was filled with deep compassion and said these words in despair. अर्जुन said: O कृष्ण, when I look on these, my kinsmen present here, eager for battle,
सीदन्ति मम गात्राणि मुखं चपरिशुष्यति। वेपथुश्च शरीरे मे रोमहर्षश्चजायते।।1.29।।
1.29 My limbs are weakened, my mouth gets parched, my body trembles and my hairs stand erect.
गाण्डीवं स्रंसते हस्तात्त्वक्चैवपरिदह्यते। न च शक्नोम्यवस्थातुं भ्रमतीवच मे मनः।।1.30।।
1.30 The bow गांडीव slips from my hand and my skin is burning. I can stand no longer. My mind seems to reel.
निमित्तानि च पश्यामिविपरीतानि केशव। न च श्रेयोऽनुपश्यामि हत्वास्वजनमाहवे।।1.31।।
1.31 I see, कृष्ण, inauspicious omens. I foresee no good in killing my स्वजन in the fight.
UB: 1st chapter is called as विषाद योग; from now on, विषाद of अर्जुन begins. D was nervous owing to his eagerness to win a war; he was clear that the people in front of him is an enemy. अर्जुन however suffers a nervous breakdown arising not from fear of an enemy but from having to fight against स्वजन। अध्यात्म flow always gushes out from any गुरू only as a response to a fundamentally moral problem – अध्यात्म is not to be seen as psychological counselling applied to a “lower-level” mental situation. Even if it is given to a lower situation, the listener will be unable to absorb it.
UB: न काङ्क्षे विजयं कृष्ण न च राज्यं सुखानि च। किं नो राज्येन गोविन्द किं भोगैर्जीवितेन वा।।1.32।।
1.32 I desire no विजय, nor राज्य nor सुख. What have we to do with राज्य, O कृष्ण, or life of भोग?
येषामर्थे काङ्क्षितं नो राज्यं भोगाः सुखानि च। त इमेऽवस्थिता युद्धे प्राणांस्त्यक्त्वा धनानि च।।1.33।।
1.33 Those for whose sake we do desire राज्य, भोग and सुख, stand here in war renouncing life & wealth –
आचार्याः पितरः पुत्रास्तथैव च पितामहाः। मातुलाः श्चशुराः पौत्राः श्यालाः सम्बन्धिनस्तथा।।1.34।।
1.34 Teachers, fathers, sons and also grandfathers, uncles, fathers-in-law & grandsons, brothers-in-law and other relatives
एतान्न हन्तुमिच्छामि घ्नतोऽपि मधुसूदन।अपि त्रैलोक्यराज्यस्य हेतोः किं नु महीकृते।1.35।।
1.35 These I would not slay, though they might slay me, even for the sovereignty of the three worlds – how much less for this earth O कृष्ण?
निहत्य धार्तराष्ट्रान्नः का प्रीतिः स्याज्जनार्दन। पापमेवाश्रयेदस्मान्हत्वैतानाततायिनः।।1.36।।
1.36 If we kill the sons of धृतराष्ट्र, what joy will be ours, O कृष्ण? पाप alone will accrue to us if we kill these murderous felons.
तस्मान्नार्हा वयं हन्तुं धार्तराष्ट्रान्स्वबान्धवान्। स्वजनं हि कथं हत्वा सुखिनः माधव।।1.37।।
1.37 Therefore, it is not befitting that we slay our kin, the sons of धृतराष्ट्र. For if we kill our स्वजन, O कृष्ण, how indeed can we be happy?
UB: These look like compelling arguments; however, one must note that rational arguments made from an unstable mind do not carry conviction. More such arguments will be made while कृष्ण continues to listen quietly with a smile on his face 😀
PK: I hear you .. I wonder though sometimes at what point does being right become more important than keeping peace ? This is also a conundrum right?
UB: Indeed – this is a classic case of धर्म संकट where the issue at hand is a moral Q and not some day-to-day anxiety that we experience for exams, office career pressure, etc. This is thus a deeper problem. In case you are wondering if we are going too fast, let me assure you that we will slow down significantly from next chapter when each verse may require elaborate discussions.
PA: Waoo Arjuns dilemma is so well described!!! Beautiful
VB: There are so many of these interesting moral conundrums. I remembered one. Here it goes. There is a place where train tracks go into a y fork. One fork is widely used and one is not used. One day there r deaf kids playing on both tracks. More on widely used and less on rarely used track. A train is coming with failed brakes. Which track will u ask the driver to take. Many people answer – rarely used one. Less people get killed. But then. What about the mom who knew about this and asked her kids to play on rarely used track. She got punished. And the mom who was careless got lucky. Conundrum ends
PK: Yup – I have heard versions of this morality conundrum – one version is one fat guy vs 4 children etc … No right answer
HB: I have read in bits and pieces too.
UB: यद्यप्येते न पश्यन्ति लोभोपहतचेतसः। कुलक्षयकृतं दोषं मित्रद्रोहे चपातकम्।।1.38।।
1.38 Though these people, whose minds are overpowered by greed, see no evil in the destruction of a कुल and no sin in treachery to मित्र,
कथं न ज्ञेयमस्माभिःपापादस्मान्निवर्तितुम्। कुलक्षयकृतं दोषंप्रपश्यद्भिर्जनार्दन।।1.39।।
1.39 Why should we not learn to shun this crime – we who see the evil of ruining a कुल, O कृष्ण?
कुलक्षये प्रणश्यन्ति कुलधर्माः सनातनाः। धर्मे नष्टे कुलंकृत्स्नमधर्मोऽभिभवत्युत।।1.40।।
1.40 With the ruin of a कुल, perish its ancient कुलधर्म, and when धर्म perish, अधर्म overtakes the whole कुल.
अधर्माभिभवात्कृष्ण प्रदुष्यन्तिकुलस्त्रियः। स्त्रीषु दुष्टासु वार्ष्णेय जायतेवर्णसङ्करः।।1.41।।
1.41 When अधर्म prevails, O कृष्ण, the स्त्री of the कुल becomes polluted (or exposed to pollution); when this happens, there arises intermixture of वर्ण.
सङ्करो नरकायैव कुलघ्नानां कुलस्य च।पतन्ति पितरो ह्येषांलुप्तपिण्डोदकक्रियाः।।1.42।।
1.42 This mixing of वर्ण leads to hell in the कुल itself and its destroyers; for the spirits of their ancestors fall degraded, deprived of the ritual offerings of food & water.
दोषैरेतैः कुलघ्नानां वर्णसङ्करकारकैः। उत्साद्यन्ते जातिधर्माः कुलधर्माश्चशाश्वताः।।1.43।।
1.43 By the दोष of the कुल-destroyers who bring about inter-mixture of वर्ण, the ancient traditions of the कुल & वर्ण are destroyed.
उत्सन्नकुलधर्माणां मनुष्याणां जनार्दन। नरकेऽनियतं वासोभवतीत्यनुशुश्रुम।। 1.44।।
1.44 For those whose कुलधर्म are destroyed, dwelling in नरक is ordained, O कृष्ण; thus have we heard.
PK: The feminist in me is compelled to comment 😃🙏: I disagree strenuously with emphasis on woman being the cause of adharm ; j also see no tokens whatsoever in inter- mixture/ inter- marriage ( religious/ racial or otherwise) …
UB: Expecting this😀
PK: I think this stuff overblown is the cause of a lot of strife in the modern world and one of my reasons for distrust of organized religion 🙏🙏🙏.., I mean no disrespect 🙏🙏🙏 This makes lot more sense and I would prefer to ignore these 4-5 paras 😃😃😃😃🙏
UB: My way of seeing this – first, these are arguments made by Arjuna, a man with unstable mind and this is nothing to do with organized religion. Two, social stability in society was deemed very critical in ancient India as in modern society and Indians had this concept of Varna to ensure stability, third, indeed post a war where many men die, traditions will collapse since women may not have choices to marry people of their Varna and four, women are actually seen as key contributors for continuity of traditions and inter – mixture will cause a dent in that process. Now whether Varna is the right construct to social stability is a separate debate which we will have opportunity to discuss in the 4th Chapter. And please – there is no offence in an open discussion. Besides, I am equally reading these lines with critical eyes like all of you 😀
PK: Yeah – my take is unstable mind with incoherent thoughts – we should move on 😃 I will channel you 😃😃 Puránamityeva na sádhu sarvam, na chápi kávyam navamityavadyam – Not everything old is good, not everything new is bad.
Kalidasa
UB: Hahaha. I will modify this slightly as UBdasa – Not everything new is Good and not everything old is bad. My statement is more valid today since people tend to think of modernity as some sacred achievement while academic world has already rejected modernity and moved to post-modernism
PK: 😃😃😃..there is more than a grain of truth in your words !
VB: Agree 100 percent with PK. I do not agree to concept of varna, as I know about it. If when u explain it in more details later, maybe I may change. So will hold on to my horses for now. Women marrying across varna and causing turbulence, will not even dignify it with a response
UB: Hahaha – since Varna has been fully rubbished in modern era, I fully know where you are coming from. Men marrying across Varna was also a problem. As I said, we can come to this in 4th chapter. If men marrying also created problems, why was men not mentioned too?
VB: Replace if by when
UB: Because in the context of war, men die. Which is why mention was made about women. At least that is the way I choose to see it. People like me are termed as apologists 😀
PK: I also am not a fan of purity of clan or race … To me it fundamentally goes against the universal consciousness which is the goal ! If we are all human why every about Varna of Kuladharma ? Why create some boundaries and then justify them? Worry about I meant ?
UB: I will leave this to 4th chapter
PK: Ok😃😃
UB: Just one thing – when we talk of universal consciousness, this “universal” includes all of life – plants and animals too. Not just human
PK: Fair enough – I can accept that 😃
HB: I believe there were 9 ways in which marriage was recognised including niyoga. The polluted clan probably meant exploitation / abuse of women after war and illegitimate children
UB: Yes HB – this is how even I see this
UB: अहो बत महत्पापं कर्तुं व्यवसिता वयम्। यत् राज्यसुख लोभेन हन्तुं स्वजनमुद्यताः।।1.45।।
1.45 Alas! We have resolved to commit a great पाप in that we are ready to slay our स्वजन out of desire for राज्यसुख & भोग.
यदि मामप्रतीकारमशस्त्रं शस्त्रपाणयः। धार्तराष्ट्रा रणे हन्युस्तन्मे क्षेमतरं भवेत्।।1.46।
1.46 If the well-armed sons of धृतराष्ट्र should slay me in battle, unresisting and unarmed, that will be better for me.
सञ्जय उवाच
एवमुक्त्वाऽर्जुनः संख्ये रथोपस्थ उपाविशत्। विसृज्य सशरं चापं शोकसंविग्नमानसः।।1.47।।
1.47 सञ्जय said – Having spoken thus on the battle-field, अर्जुन threw aside his bow and arrows and sat down on the seat of the chariot, his heart overwhelmed with grief.
UB: This ends the 1st Chapter named rightly as विषादयोग. It is unusual to see wailing by a man deemed highly educated (of his era), supremely confident, very powerful and who had been raring to wage the war post the immense sufferings faced all his life. More so that this is happening as the war was about to begin. This deep वेदना needs to be sufficiently empathized with to connect with the need for श्रीकृष्ण to give such a deep response. We now enter सांख्य योग, one of the longest chapter which actually sums up the entire Gita fully. But because अर्जुन struggled to grasp it, श्रीकृष्ण had to elaborate for several hundred श्लोक. Buckle up to receive Vedic Gyan and for long debates …
VB: Nice. Love this format. Also fun to apply what little Sanskrit I remember to decipher the meaning of the shloks
HB: Nice of you to upload shloka every day
UB: Thanks – this is not much परिश्रम for me but a simple cut and paste from a good Gita site. This work is for a personal selfish benefit really since I am hoping that good discussions will deepen my conviction (or otherwise) of the prescriptions of this fascinating text.
PA: Thanks a lot UB for the effort. What I really wonder is that Arjunas dilemma came up only on the fateful moment before the war started … Why not before the war ..? Obviously difficult to answer but surely being such advanced souls they must have realized what they are going to get into .. The enemy must have been clear for many months before. Finally it’s also Lord Sri Krishnas Lila (play) that this timeless knowledge had to be passed on to millions of generations and yes ofcourse it is in this context of war that it is narrated and perhaps was the ideal platform of transmitting the know. Knowledge of during a duty as a call of dharma and not shunning from it
UB: 👍 👍
PK: PA : I think of this as the best time to make a point – just before the start of a huge war is a dramatic point. One thing I wonder is – did this really happen – in real time ? I am not sure .. To me this is an very enlightened text from which to learn – and uses the art of story-telling to the best goal – do you all believe that all this actually happened
Adhyatma Writings 