Gita Saar - A Muslim Perspective Part 1-B: Chapter-I - The Dialectical Conflict of Arjuna (Arjuna-Vishada-Yoga)

Chapter - I

THE DIALECTICAL CONFLICT OF ARJUNA

(Arjuna-Vishada-Yoga)

Some scholars of Gita are of the opinion that the first chapter of Gita is of less significance, as it does not impart any teaching. We are of the opinion that this chapter is extremely important part of the Gita, as it enables us to understand the actual setting, the real cause of the war and the socio-religious situation of the time when the battle of Mahabharata was fought. Contrary to the general belief, our view is that this chapter contains the key to proper understanding of the teachings present in the rest of Gita. 

Arjuna is a fighter and not afraid of death. However, he is curious to know whether he is fighting for the right cause or not. Opposite camp not only comprise his cousins and friends, the king and his army but also the revered Gurus of the time, who have even been Arjuna’s teachers in his childhood. Yet Krishna has brought Arjuna to fight with them. This statement of ours is very crucial, as we will prove later that it was Krishna who had brought the Pandava into this war. This is contrary to the generally prevailing belief that Pandava had sought the help of Krishna so as to win back the kingdom. This view of ours is represented in Gita by portraying Krishna as holding the reins of the chariot and Arjuna dropping the bow and arrow due to his state of confused mind. 

The view that the war between Kaurava and Pandava was fought for the control of kingdom or a part of it is in fact the view presented by the poem Mahabharata. We have been repeatedly emphasizing that Mahabharata and Gita have been written with different purposes; Mahabharata is only a poem based on an incident and is written either with vested interest or by someone who himself was not spiritually elevated enough to understand the real cause of the fight. It is Mahabharata that goes on to prove that the battle was fought for the control of the kingdom. Not only this, the poem Mahabharata also goes on to belittle the great personality of Krishna. We invite you to read the poem again as you will find that on several occasions Mahabharata shows Krishna acting contrary to principals of ethics and religion. Scholars unnecessarily try to justify Krishna’s actions mentioned in Mahabharata. What none has done is to try to find whether the poem itself could have been written with vested interests or by somebody who himself couldn’t understand the purpose of Krishna’s fight. As a consequence Krishna is shown as breaking on his promises; he is portrayed as taking use of deceit to kill opponents and also helping the Pandava fight for the capture of kingdom. How is it that the same person who denounces materialistic pursuits with such intensity in Gita, who tells Arjuna that it does not matter whether he died or lived but the cause that they were fighting for was more important and who talks of doing all actions only for God, is portrayed as helping the Pandava in a war that was ostensibly fought for material gains? Clearly, we do not know the cause of the war of Mahabharata!

Even Pandavas and several of their actions have been portrayed negatively in the poem. Bhima is shown akin to a ferocious beast with an insatiable desire for food and anger akin to a wild animal. Even marital relationships and the very concept of five husbands seem to be formulated to portray their character negatively. It is unfortunate that Hindus started attempting to give justifications for those acts when in mind they knew that the acts couldn’t be followed in practice. For instance when, as per Mahabharata, Draupadi was spending one night with each of the five brothers, how can Mahabharata say with precision that so and so was Arjuna’s son, so and so were the sons of other brothers. Fact is that none has tried to explore the truth about the intentions of the writer of poem Mahabharata itself. Thus, this is to be kept in mind that while Krishna is the highest of beings ever to take birth on Indian soil, the writer of Mahabharata was a common man like you and me and there is every possibility that he could have written the epic either with vested interests or in a confused mind.

While it belittles the personality of Krishna and Pandava, the Mahabharata also goes on to portray the Kaurava in higher esteem. Drona and Bhishma are praised upon. If they were so praiseworthy, why were they in the opposite camp to Krishna? Evil can fight with evil; evil can fight with truth; but can truth come to fight with truth? Particularly when Krishna represented the Highest Truth, and talked of the true path to God. If Drona and Bhishma came to fight, then it is evident that they were those who had strayed from that true path. 

Another instance that proves that Mahabharata may have been written with vested interest can be noted towards the end of the poem when the writer gives a shock to the readers by telling that Pandava had gone to the hell while the Kaurava were in heaven. Those in the business of writing copies for advertisements know well the kind of impact such treatment would have even if the writer retreats from this stand or gives interpretations to counter the statement.

These are just a few of the instances. In the course of this commentary, we will also show how the wordings of Gita too are in conflict with the accepted notions about the cause of the war. Our view is that any person who puts his reason to work - a subject that too has been dealt in great detail in Gita - will surely come to conclusion that the poem Mahabharata should not be given as much weight as it is being given now. At the same time, we should remember that Gita is truly a divine scripture, which is inviting all of us to follow the true path of God.

It is the poem Mahabharata that tries to portray that it were Pandava who had sought the help of Krishna. Gita’s view is totally in contradiction to this. Fact is that time and again it is clear from the text of Gita that it is Krishna who brought Arjuna to fight. And Krishna has also emphasized upon Arjuna that all the men on the other side are just men of the world, who are on the wrong, as they have immersed themselves in materialism. What I am unable to comprehend is why all the commentators have not said so clearly. Instead they give vague interpretations, which unfortunately lead to suggest that Arjuna was either fighting for the cause of throne or possession of an area of land or wanted to avenge the treatment meted to them by Kaurava. Some other commentators, misled by the presence of personalities like Dronacharya and Bhishma, make us believe that the two fighting groups ascribed to different schools of thought. And comedy of errors is that in their attempt to make both sides look equally respectful, they have made it appear that Krishna, an emissary of God, is encouraging Arjuna to fight for the capture of throne. Even when Arjuna is not willing to fight and has thrown his bow and arrow, Krishna convinces that it is his duty to fight. Was it just for the throne, or possession of a few villages? Don’t you agree that all the commentators have been groping in the dark and there has to be some serious reason why one who is accepted as an Avatar of God would make men fight with one another?

And this purpose is so high and lofty in nature that even death is seen as positive. Only a fool would advise a person to seek material benefits when there are greater chances of death in doing so. Material benefits are for the material life and when life is not there, what’s the use of all those. Fighting ordained in Gita is neither for the worldly benefits nor for material things as Swami Vivekananda and others have made it appear. It is only for a cause that is more important than life and death. Hence it is said:

All these bodies pertaining to the imperishable, undefinable and eternal soul are spoken of as perishable; therefore, fight, O Arjuna. 

(II.8)

That the reason for war was far loftier than we believe it to be should have been evident to the scholars from the very fact that Krishna and Arjuna spent a long time discussing the subject, that too in the middle of the two armies (I,21) and as the arrows fly (I,20) past.  This has often confused the commentators so much so that many believe that Sage Vyasa has given an artificial setting to the conversation and the Gita is primarily concerned with contemplation rather than with the actual events of the battlefield. Others claim that there was a small discussion between Arjuna and Krishna, which was at a later stage extended into eighteen chapters by Sage Vyasa.

Again, this means that they are casting aspersions at the authenticity of divine nature of Gita. Are they not belittling Krishna and his cause? If they have doubts about Gita being God’s word or Krishna’s word, how could they be expected to give it the treatment it deserves!

Since the battle between Pandava and Kaurava enjoy a historical status and we are aware that Krishna and Arjuna did actually fight the Kaurava at Kurukshetra, there is no reason to believe that this discussion, in its entirety, may not have taken place. On the contrary, you will find as you progress reading, there exists a valid reason for Krishna and Arjuna to engage in conversation right in the midst of flying arrows. In fact, you will see that the matter being discussed is far more important than life and death of an individual. Unless the subsequent chapters are studied in detail, we will never know the significance of their stance. Then we will realize that they were fighting for a cause, which was so important that they were ready to sacrifice their lives for the attainment of that cause. Only when we read the subsequent chapters will we realize the importance of Krishna’s wordings as he repeatedly asks Arjuna to “stand up and fight”. 

The same is mentioned by Nataraj Guru (henceforth, we will call him NG), one of the revered commentators of Gita, when he describes Arjuna’s condition in these words: “Arjuna’s condition worsens in I, 29-30 when he sees friends not only on his side but on the side that faces him. He is a thoroughly confused man there, unable even to hold up his bow Gandiva. He recovers some sort of firmness or certitude of outlook by the end of the chapter, when he sits down, throwing away his bow and arrow. By II, 9 he has finished philosophizing on the situation as ably perhaps as Krishna himself is able to do.  The latter is only able, for the time being, to smile at Arjuna and mock him in the name of honour, etc. To be stated in its completeness, Krishna’s answer needs all the remaining chapters.”

This is a very interesting description! Experts on Gita maintain that the ill-treatment meted out to the Pandava became the chief cause of Mahabharata. If that was the reason, Arjuna should have been boiling with rage and Krishna should have tried to calm him down. But Arjuna sees friends on both sides and is not willing to fight. This shows that the ill-treatment and other reasons that poem Mahabharata goes on to give were not the true reasons for the fight. Krishna’s teachings were the reason and there were two groups, one that had accepted his teachings and the other that was firm in their religion based on wrong understanding of the Vedas.

There is one more point that is brought into focus by Lal. “We are quite familiar with such terms as Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga, Raja Yoga and Hatha Yoga, but this new variety of Yoga – the Yoga of sorrow (Vishada Yoga) – looks altogether strange and incomprehensible. 

“In the Gita, the word yoga and its derivatives occur very frequently. Yoga has been used in its original sense of union or to unite (with God); in an extended sense it has also been used so as to include any means or method of attaining union with God as well as any condition or circumstance, that turns a man towards God. It is in this last sense that the title Arjuna’s Vishada Yoga for this chapter is seen to be very appropriate and meaningful.” 

In spite of raising the point, Lal is unable to explain what the Yoga of sorrow actually means. If somebody is of opinion that it means grief at the death of mortal human beings, then he is surely on the wrong because in Chapter II.13, grief is mentioned in the negative sense: 

Just as the dweller in the body experiences in the body childhood, youth, old age, so passeth he on to another body; the steadfast one does not grieve there at.

In the light of our study of the Vedas, the Upanishads and the Puranas, it is easier for us to understand what Vishada Yoga actually means. We have seen in the BOOK how Vedic Aryans were waiting for the Devatas to arrive. The incidents from the lives of Devatas, when they would come to live in this earth, were foretold by the divine books that were the Vedas. We have also seen that Agni Devata is given maximum space in the Vedas and his sacrifice for the cause of upholding the true religion of God has been foretold again and again in various hymns. All the ritual sacrifices were to remember the sacrifice of Agni alone and the pains that he would have to bear while staying on the path of God. The sorrow that was consequent to hearing the narrations of death was a tool to lead people closer to God and hence that has been described as yoga. People were so sorrowful that they used to pray through the Vedic hymns for being present at that time of Agni’s arrival on earth, so they could sacrifice their lives. Upanishads have also recounted the incidents of people remembering these incidents at deathbed and making a dying will to their sons to assist AgniDeva and rest of the Devatas, in case they came in their lifetime. People continued to wait but with time allowed vices to creep in their own personalities. So much so that they got immersed in rituals and forgot that the true purpose of this sorrow was to keep reminding them of the true path to God and tread on that path.

Sorrow, as per Krishna, too is the yoga that leads to God. Had the people of that time taken lessons from the mention of details of Agni’s sacrifice in the Vedas, they would have fought injustice and oppression at all times. This is so because sorrow or grief has two remarkable effects on the person: while on one hand it creates a link with God and makes him sympathize with the victims, it also creates a feeling of anger or hatred against the oppressors.

The situation of the people during Krishna’s time seems similar to that of Shia sect of Muslims of today, who keep mourning the sacrifice of Husain but seldom follow the path shown by Husain. Husain sacrificed the lives of his entire family and friends for a cause. Husain’s followers are supposed to take the worship of the Creator to the highest level; they are supposed to work to raise their selfs to the desired level of purity, which is necessary for attaining salvation. Once they would do it, its after-effects will become visible in this world as well. A true follower of AgniDeva (Husain) is supposed to be the active force of resistance against evil, something that Krishna and Husain - both want from all of us. Had the Shias taken lessons from Husain’s sacrifice, they would have been the most active opposition against all kinds of vices and acts of injustice. Instead, they became just like others and forgot the true purpose why the sorrow was initiated. 

The same happened much earlier during the time of Krishna. It is evident from the chapter on sorrow and Krishna’s criticism of the rituals that were in vogue that there was a time when sorrow was linked with these sacrifices. With time, the entire exercise became ritualistic, as it has already begun to happen in the case of sorrow practiced by Shia Muslims during Moharram. The real purpose why remembrance of AgniDeva’s sacrifice was initiated was forgotten. Deviations reached the stage that Krishna himself had to say that people spend their lives either in seeking entertainment or performing rituals in love of gaining a place in heaven. They forgot that instead of performing a few predefined acts, the entire life has to be led in the desired manner so as to guarantee a permanent place in heaven.  

Krishna was not against the Vedic teachings. Fact is that the very first chapter is upholding the true teachings of Vedas. But he was against the deviations that had penetrated the society in the name of religion. Bhishma and Drona were revered priests of that deviated religion where the Devatas of Vedas had been given the status of demi-gods, while all piety, all rightful living and things considered sacred had been obliterated. So much so that they sacrificed animals to keep the remembrance of the sacrifice of Agni, but themselves perpetrated acts of cruelty and oppression, some of the evils against which AgniDeva was to fight and sacrifice his life in future. Agni was to hold on to the path of God, unmindful of losing his life, while they held on to AgniDeva, while forsaking the true path. Materialism was high on their mind even when they remembered AgniDeva, who sacrificed the most cherished worldly possessions, including the lives of his friends, children and family members fighting those who were epitome of material living, that too in the name of Islam.

Not that the people of Krishna’s period had scant respect for the Devatas. In fact they knew that salvation could be obtained only through their path. The word Aum, we have proved in the BOOK, indicates the path of fourteen Devatas that leads to God. Initially, the Vedic Aryans were very much aware of this, but with time this too was forgotten. Around the time of Krishna, people were not aware why Aum or Gayatri Mantra were so auspicious, yet they continued to recite them several times over in a day. Once the true purpose of these activities was forgotten, they ceased to imbibe lessons from these in their lives. Instead, these mantras were being recited several times over so as to gain more worldly benefits. 

Is it not true with the Hindus of present, many of whom go to temple once in a while to perform certain pre-set ritualistic acts, that too with a desire to gain more wealth in this life? The only difference between now and then is that the people of yore knew a bit about the identity of Devatas like AgniDeva while the society of present has deviated even further and know nothing about the true identity of the Devatas who are subject of entire discussion in the Vedas. Instead, they have started worshipping ordinary fakirs and queue up to shower offerings on them. They have forgotten that the Devatas who, in scriptures like Upanishads and Vedas, have been described as the true rulers of our organs of action and senses and hence need to be followed, but not to be worshipped. Only the Absolute God need to be worshipped and none else! 

In short, while the people at the time of Mahabharata had forgotten the One and Only Absolute God and performed the rituals to keep alive the remembrance of Devatas, who were being worshipped as gods, the people of today have forgotten the Devatas as well as the Absolute God. Moreover, people of yore remembered the Devatas but had forgotten that their path was to be treaded, people of today are aware of no path at all.

This shows why starting Gita with Vishada Yoga is very significant. It is aimed at reminding all that the fight has to continue and sacrifices have to be given, irrespective of whether Agni (Husain) is there to lead us physically or not. Again and again, the present state of Shias in general remind of Duryodhana and his cronies, who considered themselves as the rightful inheritors of true teachings but were so deviated that the true representative of God had to wage a war on them. Keep it in mind as this, we are going to prove, is the true reason for the fight between Kaurava and Pandava.

Krishna explicitly states that God is to be reached through the path shown by the Devatas. Kaurava are the blind followers of the religion of their forefathers, who had failed to allow reason to play a part in their religious beliefs. Bhishma and Drona were those who knew the truth but did not want Kaurava to come to the teachings being preached by Krishna, as this would have devoid them of all the riches and power that they were used to. They were in fact propagators of a pseudo religion against the true representative of God’s teachings. Arjuna and the rest of Pandava too had grown up practicing the same ritualistic religion but had accepted the truthful path about which Krishna was preaching. Bhishma and Drona were aware that Krishna’s teachings were of no benefit to them as they talked of One God to be reached through the path shown by the Devatas. They were aware that acceptance of Krishna’s teachings on large scale would sound a death knell to their authority, their power and their wealth. They started planning for ways to vanquish Krishna’s teachings when still in their infancy. Duryodhana perfectly suited them as he was blind to reason and followed them without bringing his intelligence into play. He was used by them to wage a war on Krishna while the Pandava, who had accepted Krishna’s teachings, rallied behind him in support. Krishna had no choice but to gather all those who had accepted his teachings to fight against Kaurava. However there were many on Krishna’s side who had recognized him as Prophet or Avatar but were unsure about the reason for the war. Particularly Arjuna, the greatest of the warriors of his time, was not keen to fight those who were either his relatives or revered figures of the time. Krishna told him that all this was immaterial in front of the divine cause, which was to uphold the true teachings of God. Thus the war!

Is it not the fact that we want religion to bend as per our wish instead of trying to mould ourselves in accordance with the teachings of religion? When the same happened and this deviation reached a stage when there was danger of the true path to God getting obliterated and when darkness prevailed, Krishna was sent as an Avatar to fight against the forces of evil and to show the true path once again. His teachings were so clear and transparent that in spite of all attempts to camouflage them, they keep reminding us that the true path that led to God was not the one that Bhishma and Drona followed. Truth is finally coming out after remaining hidden for centuries.

Read the various verses of Gita from now through translation done by Nataraj Guru (NG):

[1]

Dhritarashtra said:

In the righteousness-field, the field of Kurus, gathered together, intent on battle, what did my people and also the sons of Pandu do, O Samjaya?

Nataraja Guru (NG) says: “Dhritarashtra is the ‘holder of the kingdom’ who is to decide whether he is to maintain the status quo or let things happen to shape themselves according to truth or justice. In this case he is a conservative who sticks obstinately to fixed custom. He refuses to allow any revaluation or readjustment to take place. To that extent he is a blind statesman. His party, led by Duryodhana, is also to be considered diehards who will not let the old order change to give place to the new. The latter is therefore aptly compared to a whirlpool in the Gita-Dhyana.”

We more or less do not differ with the NG’s explanation till here. But what is the status quo that Dhritarashtra wishes to maintain. Even NG agrees that Duryodhana is a die-hard who does not want the old order to change. What is this old order that is being replaced by a new order? Is it not clear that the old order is nothing but blind adherence to the religion of the forefathers? This religion, even though having its roots in the Vedas and Upanishads, was but a distorted version where deviations were so enormous that the real face of religion had been obliterated. The new order being mentioned is the Krishna’s teachings, which had begun to make a foothold among the common men.

Is it not a proof of our claim till now? Vedas had tried to show us the path that would prevent us from getting astray. Unfortunately, by the time Mahabharata was staged, the teachings of the Vedas had become corrupted and meaningless rituals had become a part of life. If we study the Upanishads carefully, we will find that several sages (most probably Prophets) tried to rectify the situation by giving explanations of the Vedic mantras or tell the gist of what was being said. In this regard, the name of Sage Yajnavalkya comes foremost to our mind. He is seen as going from court to court and in the gatherings of the priests to impart the true teachings. We know that Yajnavalkya was also a contemporary of Krishna. That Yajnavalkya had to impart his teachings among the priests show clearly that that the priests themselves had deviated to such an extent that they knew nothing about the true teachings of the Vedas. Moreover, the fact that Yajnavalkya always found priests in the courtrooms prove that the priests of the time were to be found only in the company of aristocracy, from where all their wealth and power came from. 

It is clear from these accounts that rituals had crept into life to such an extent that people were unwilling to listen to anything else. There were rituals for every occasion. So much so that Krishna himself says in Gita that people were only observing the religion of their forefathers and the God was no longer remembered during these rituals. Further, Krishna says that most rituals were being performed to obtain an exalted place in heaven. This situation was naturally of benefit to the priests who were remembered at every ritual, and hence never wanted the prevailing order to change. In fact, it was because of the priests’ own vested interests that the situation had worsened to such an extent. When Krishna offered a different set of teachings, which said goodbye to all rituals and meaningless sacrifices that had become part of religion, the greatest losers were the priests, who were set to lose immensely, including their hold over people, and in particular their hold over the kings and aristocracy, who showered them with gifts and held them in high esteem.

By the time of Mahabharata, the core of Vedic and Upanishadic teachings had changed so much so that their followers, willingly (in case of priests who knew the truth but did not accept it for their own benefits) or unwillingly (in case of several diehard supporters who remained staunch supporters of Bhishma and Drona out of ignorance), seemed to be following an altogether different religion. Stress, as said earlier, was on rituals. Several attributes that had been initially described to show the qualities of the One and Almighty God had become gods themselves. Devatas, around whom the Vedas revolved, too were venerated to such an extent that they were being placed at par with God. In fact, the God had been forgotten and these Devatas had risen to the level of gods. There were several pseudo-gods also from their illustrious ancestors, demons and things that the people were afraid of. Innumerable stories had been ascribed to these gods and hawans and pujas were organized where they were worshiped. Himalayas and the Ganga and several other similar creations of God were also regarded as gods. The Varna or caste system had made inroads, also courtesy the priests, who were thus able to keep the sacred books to themselves, and interpret them as per their wish. People followed this blindly, considering this to be the true religion, where as priests like Bhishma and Drona were reaping the rewards. 

At this point the Manifest Self (Paramatma) realized that it was time to send another emissary or Avatar. Noor (Light) of any of the Devatas descended again in a pious body on earth and Krishna was born. Krishna, reflected as black in all paintings, perhaps belonged to the non-Aryans or the original inhabitants, though Aryans had already entered India long time back and had gained control over North India. This must have proved to be another roadblock for Krishna’s teachings from getting accepted. Krishna started telling the people to forego the old ways as they had become corrupt with time, and told them to start believing in the One and only God. Priests like Drona and Bhishma emerged as vehement opponents of this thought, as this meant they would be bereft of all the power that they had got used to enjoy. Arjuna, who too was initially critical of Krishna, later became his devout follower. Duryodhana still revered his teachers, Drona and Bhishma (who are symbolic representations in Gita of a larger mass of priests). He always felt he was on the right path and that Krishna was misleading Arjuna and several others. Therefore, in order to do good to his religion and in his view that he would go to heavens if he stuck to his religious duties, Duryodhana emerged as the staunch supporter of Bhishma and Drona, referred to as diehard. This led to a conflict that culminated in the battle of Mahabharata.

NG says: “Krishna’s way of thinking or his spirituality has its greatest obstruction in Duryodhana, just as Rama, in the Ramayana, has his in Ravana. Duryodhana goes to heaven in the end, but heaven is not the ideal of the absolutist spirituality of Krishna. Going to heaven is not a credit as far as the Gita is concerned. The Gita stands for pure Absolutism – i.e. for no benefits or fruits of action, whether here or hereafter, thus conforming to the requirements tacitly understood within the discipline of the Vedanta (as for example, found in Sankara’s Vivekachudamani, v.19 “non-attachment to benefits of this world or the world to come”.

See how the commentators have tried to explain the misguiding passages of the poem Mahabharata, without thinking for a while that it could have been written with wrong intentions. If Krishna had said in the Gita that Duryodhana would go to heavens then we would have no choice but to believe his words. But how did the writer of the poem Mahabharata, an ordinary man like us, get to know about the fate of Duryodhana?

Also, it is wrong to say that Krishna was against the concept of heaven. What Krishna is saying has not been properly understood. Fact is that throughout Gita, he is talking of a way of living that is loftier than doing acts merely in love for heaven or in fear of hell. But the heaven and hell do exist for the good and bad doers. And to endorse this view, Krishna himself has referred to heaven on several occasions and has at one point even referred to Indra’s heaven. As you read, you will find that Krishna even talks of a reward far better than heaven and it is that reward that we all should aspire to achieve. If Krishna was against those who performed actions for a stay in heaven, it was because he wanted his followers to gain salvation that would ensure a permanent stay in heaven, rather than a temporary stay followed by coming back to earth, once the merits of the good deeds get exhausted. Moreover, instead of righteousness and good deeds, people of the time were performing acts like offering fire sacrifice or animal sacrifice or several other rituals for a place in heaven. As you read, you will find clear words of Krishna in this regard.

This writer disagrees with NG’s view that “going to heaven is not a credit as far as the Gita is concerned” and that the Gita stands “for no benefits or fruits of action, whether here or hereafter”. This material world and our stay here is a test for our spirit. But the test will not continue in heaven. Rather heaven is the reward for the test given while we are here in this material world. It is true that Krishna has laid great emphasis on non-attachment and has in v.19 talked of “non-attachment to benefits of this world or the world to come,” the meaning that he wanted to convey is far different from what we have understood. Krishna’s intended meaning will be distinctly clear once we read the chapters.

If we believe for a moment that Duryodhana went to heaven because he was not aware of the truth and was misguided by Bhishma and Drona, then it would mean that Krishna killed somebody who was destined for heaven. Does it not belittle the personality of Krishna? Moreover, there are several words of Krishna as per which Duryodhana, Bhishma and Drona were on the wrong. For instance, at one occasion he tells Arjuna that they are already dead in the eyes of God (owing to their deeds) and if he would kill them, it would merely be a formality.

Krishna’s ideal of an Absolute Man is one whose every act is performed for God, including acts like eating, sleeping, making love, or all mundane acts of life. Such a person is naturally not tempted by the charm of heaven or fear of hell, as the love for God and living a life preferred by Him is far superior to all these temptations and threats. Vedas, in their original form, still are valuable to Krishna, but he is not willing to accept the distortions that have entered while adhering to Vedic teachings.

There is one more point. It is evident from the wordings of Gita itself that Mahabharata was not a war for a piece of land. Words like “Dharmakshetre kurukshetre” meaning ‘Field of righteousness, Kurukshetre’ prove further that it was a battle in which both sides considered themselves to be on the right path. Otherwise, what was the reason to start Gita with these words? This proves that the very first word of Gita has not been understood till date; leave aside the remaining portion of it.

Since various commentators have been unable to understand the difference in the stands of Krishna versus Duryodhana, they are unable to explain the very first sentence of Gita. NG says: “Why these apparently redundant epithets? This is characteristic of the style of the Gita throughout. Being part of a Purana, an epic-legend or saga, it has to be correct in historical details and at the same time it has to fulfil the need for guiding people in the appreciation of ethical and spiritual values.” 

We agree with NG that being part of a Purana, or rather being a message from the God, it has to be correct as well as it has to fulfil the need for guiding people in the appreciation of ethical and spiritual values. We are of the opinion that each of the word in Gita, including these inaugural words, which are seen as redundant by others, is relevant but if viewed keeping our theories in mind. We will try to explain this and the rest of the seemingly ambiguous statements of Gita, from our point of view. We are sure the readers are going to agree to our inferences, and unless prompted by the very same reasons, which did not allow Dronacharya or Duryodhana to accept Krishna’s teachings, this commentary is going to be accepted as based on facts. 

We accept the second argument by NG that it (Gita) has to fulfill the need for guiding people in the appreciation of ethical and spiritual values. And Gita does guide surely, presenting as we have maintained, a complete approach to life. It does speak of the Absolute Man, yet that man also emerges from amongst us and it is possible to become so. Some such personalities who reached the zenith of virtues in human life are already described in detail in the Vedas and Gita wants us to become like them. 

As regards to the phrase “Dharmakshetre kurukshetre”, which has been regarded as redundant by various commentators, we are of the opinion that you need not be told now as to what it means if you agree to our theory of Mahabharata being a fight between right on one side, and wrong (perceived as right by the adherents) on the other. That is why Dhritarashtra started with talking about the battlefield where both sides (at least the majority of the people on both sides) believed they were on the true path and the other was misguided. 

This is just the beginning and we have to keep in mind that this is a fight between two parties, each claiming to be right, right through this commentary of Gita.

Another point worth noting is that Dhritarashtra is not neutral as is believed by several commentators. The very fact that he refers to Kaurava as ‘my people’ is a clear-cut proof. Being not on the battleground, and also due to the fact that he is unable to see, he is asking Sanjaya to give the account of what all is happening in the two camps prior to the war. In actuality, he is also the proponent of the false religion that Krishna has come to fight.

All this argument endorses our view that the first chapter of Gita is extremely crucial for understanding the background of the war of Mahabharata. Those who belittle this chapter are in fact belittling truth. The very first verse has talked of righteousness and says that it was a war where both the groups were claiming to be on the right path. Centuries later, the same is about to happen again. Righteousness has again been forgotten and several claimants of the righteous path are there in the market. If we read Gita carefully, we will see that it has given a solution to this problem as well. We invite you to read very carefully from now on, as you too will have to make a choice soon about which side being the right side.

[2]

Samjaya said:

On seeing the army of the Pandavas in (battle) array, Prince Duryodhana, having approached his teacher, then gave utterance to the following speech:

There are three people who enjoy the rank of spiritual teachers or acharyas on the side of the Kaurava, namely Drona, Bhishma and Kripa. The last is related to Drona himself as brother-in-law. On the other hand, Bhishma is a brahmchari or strict bachelor who is a patriarch (pitamaha) rather than a priest. On the Pandava’s side, there is one Guru only – Krishna - who teaches Brahmavidya, the Science of the Absolute - as against many pseudo gurus and their numerous followers on the side of the Kaurava.

Point is that it were the priests who had led the people astray through making them indulge in rituals, forbidding the real teachings of the Upanishads and Vedas and altering them, and thereby enjoying elevated positions in society. It were they who wanted the status quo to remain; it were they who were benefiting the most from the masses blindly following them. Message is clear even to present generations: don’t believe in truth seeing the weight or status of the people, but use your wisdom (to which an entire chapter is devoted in Gita) to find the right path. Even if you die in the attempt or reach the wrong conclusion through your sincere search or out of your ignorance, you will be rewarded for your pursuits. But if you know the truth and hide it for any reason, or do not endeavour to make a sincere pursuit, then strictest of punishment will be in store for you.

The fact that society had become ritualistic can be understood by several examples. Caste system was so firmly rooted among people that a man of lower birth had to give his thumb, when he shot an arrow deftly. This had been done to ensure that no person of low birth could at any time think of rebelling against the higher castes. Only Kshatriyas were militarily trained. Kshatriyas were controlled by the priests and these priests even made them fight for their selfish interests, as is evident here. They lived in luxury and riches, as they were teachers to all Kshatriyas. They supervised all the prayers and naturally kept all the offerings to themselves. The lofty religious principle of giving sacrifices had come to mean giving costly gifts to the priests, something that unfortunately continues to pervade our society. There was a pitamah, who remained a strict bachelor, if only superficially, and was revered. Otherwise, the poem Mahabharata has attributed children to him as well. There were high ranks given to all priests; the fear of losing all these worldly benefits made these priests refrain from accepting teachings of Krishna which negated all worldly things, including the physical sacrifices, the rituals that were source of earning, the gatherings and subsequent enhancement of value and prestige when people thronged to visit temples where idols were kept, the concept of high and low castes, etc. and only dwelt on performing action for God, working for human good; and, treating all humans as equal creations irrespective of caste, creed or faith. 

[3]

O Teacher, look at this grand army of the sons of Pandu, marshalled by your talented pupil, the son of Drupada.

The son of Drupada is Dhrishtadyumna. He was killed at the hands of Ashvatthaman - the son of Drona – although Drona was his teacher. Clearly from this, Dhrishtadyumna was marshalling the army of the Pandava. Drona himself had taught him the finer qualities of archery. This shows that the division had not happened only among the Pandava and Kaurava but the entire society had got divided on the basis of ideological lines; there were those who considered Krishna as the Apostle and were on his side, whereas there was another group that considered the religion that they had inherited from their forefathers as the true one. They were the ones who were present in the camp of the Kaurava. There was another group that remained neutral and has been criticized severally by none other than Krishna himself. As per Krishna, they were shirking their duties towards their selfs. Is it not enough proof that Mahabharata was not a fight for territory, as is generally believed to be? Why is Krishna criticizing those who are neutral? It is possible that they could have come to join the opposite camp, thereby increasing their number. But that is more acceptable to Krishna than they being neutral. Can this war be for the capture of kingdom? However, if the capture of the kingdom facilitated the objectives, so let it be.

[4]

Here are heroes, mighty archers, equal in battle to Bhima and Arjuna, Yuyodhana, Virata and Drupada on the great chariot.

In these lines, Duryodhana is praising the army on Krishna’s side. His words show that several eminent warriors were either on Krishna’s side or on Duryodhana’s.

[5]

Dhrishtaketu, Chekitana and the valiant King of Kasi, Purujit and Kuntibhoja, and that bull among men, Saibya.

This shows that there were kings like the King of Kashi too who had accepted the teachings of Krishna, besides others.

[6]

The heroic Yudhamanyu and the brave Uttamaujas; the son of Subhadra and the sons of Draupadi, all of great chariots.

From this it is evident that not just the Pandava, Krishna’s teachings had already been accepted by a huge number of people, that included a prince named Virata, Dhrishtaketu, a king of the Chedis, Purujit, a king and brother of Kuntibhoja who too was there, Saibya, king of the Shibis and several more.

Nataraja Guru says that despite so many names being mentioned and epithets like “lion of men” etc. Gita remains a spiritual message. We agree with him that Gita is a spiritual message. We only go a step further to claim that the war of Mahabharata was fought only for upholding these spiritual teachings from being trampled at the hands of pseudo-priests like Bhishma and Drona. If you accept this, you won’t face any difficulty in understanding Krishna’s stance who, after collecting such a mighty army to fight against the Kaurava, goes in between the two standing armies and starts imparting the loftiest of spiritual teachings. Fact is that most commentators have been groping in the dark till date and therefore have found difficulty in explaining such actions by Krishna. Krishna’s spirituality is not about select rituals performed at pre-fixed places and times but it is actually a way of life, which is to be led even when fighting. When the battle lines are drawn, Krishna says his message loud and clear to give one more chance to those who had still not understood his true teachings. Killing or getting killed for a cause is of more value to Krishna and not if the person is not adhering to the path of true worship and supplication. And he makes it amply clear that it is the duty of all of us to fight against the evil, even if it presents itself in any garb, and irrespective of the fact that it is the greatest of material power or the highest of spiritual leaders. 

[7]

But know who are the most distinguished among us, O best of the twice-born, the leaders of my army; these I tell you, for you to recognize by name. 

After enumerating some of the leaders of the opposite army, Duryodhana, who is here speaking to Drona, now turns his attention to his own army. Like Dhritrashtra, he also refers to “my army” thus proving that both father and son subscribed to the same belief. Though Krishna and Arjuna’s dialogue occupy most of the space in Gita, nowhere has Krishna called the army on his side as “my army”. This further highlights the difference in the thinking of the two sides. There is materialism in the garb of religiosity on one side and true spirituality on the other. 

Elaborating on this verse, NG says: “What Vyasa wants to accomplish here is quite evident. He wants the reader of the Gita to avoid confusing the actual with the spiritual values implied”. We feel the narration is simple enough to understand. NG, like many others, has got confused upon reading Gita in the light of the poem Mahabharata. Fact is that the depth of spirituality and philosophy talked about by Gita has never been understood. In the light of facts presented by us, there remains no doubt that neither Krishna nor his views have been truly understood till date. 

[8]

You and Bhishma, and Karna, and also Kripa, the victor in war, Ashvatthaman and Vikarna and also the son of Somadatta.

Addressed to Drona - a teacher of the Vedic context who also taught archery - it gives the names of various people on Duryodhana’s side, including Bhishma - a patriarch who was reputed for his celibacy and high purity of life. However, the very fact that Krishna found it perfectly fit to fight and kill Bhishma shows that he did not deserve all the respect that he got. He was in fact an epitome of a misrepresented path to God that talked of rituals and pseudo-beliefs. 

There was also Karna in the camp of Kaurava – said to be born of the Sun-god and Kunti - mother of the Pandava - when she was still young. He was a great fighter and archer and it is said invincible because of an armour given by the Sun-god himself. Kripa was the brother of Kripi - the wife of Drona - but sympathetic to the Pandava. Ashvatthaman was son of Drona by Kripi. Vikarna was a ruthless fighter like Ashvatthaman. There was also Saumadatti – son of Somadatta – who was the King of the Bahikas.

Those who have read the spread of Islam in its initial days know fully well how the teachings of Mohammad had divided the families. There are several instances mentioned where father and son, husband and wife and also brothers got divided because of their different beliefs. So much so that one of Prophet’s own uncles too remained in the camp of disbelievers all his life. Can there be any doubt if the same happened earlier, when Krishna represented the true path to God?

Also, one must read the early history of Islam, for first couple of hundred years after Prophet Mohammad, to see how there were a lot many worldly people who, through deceit and deft handling, made people believe they were the best adherents of Islam. In fact, Islam got much of the bad name because of the conduct of these Muslims, but even today there are a lot many Muslims who consider these ancestors as pious and their conduct as Islamic. In this light, it is not difficult to understand how the gurus like Bhishma and Drona came to be respected and revered.

Digression had permeated beyond the levels that we see in society today. So much so that God’s very creations like the sun and moon were called gods. Though we do not disbelief in God’s power to get a child born to a mother, without a male interference, there were innumerable cases where sun-gods and moon-gods (who were not supposed to be considered gods in the first place), were fathering the children of many a young maidens. The extent to which this digression had permeated can be imagined not only by the fact that the unwed mothers used to tell this as proof of their chastity but by the fact that the people, in general, believed and accepted this. Just imagine, would anybody accept it now if an unmarried young lady says that her child has been fathered by the sun-god. But people were so blindfolded that they never allowed their reason to play a part. So much so that when Draupadi said in a court (the incident is mentioned in the poem Mahabharata) that nymphs were guarding her, the king, his wife and several others accepted this as true. 

Not just the poem Mahabharata, but even the Puranas give several incidents of Sun and Moon gods descending to have relationships with young maidens and bearing children. This shows it was a common practice in those days for ascribing the ill-gotten children to sun-gods and moon-gods. Moreover, Puranas aso mention how canards were spread all through the kingdom and in the vicinity that the king enjoyed protection of the Devatas or certain special arms had been sent to the king by the Devatas. Kings were even lauded for getting gifts or their special association with the Devatas. How sad that when the same views reach us in the backdrop of the verses of the poem Mahabharata, we too go on to accept them blindly without even bothering to check whether it could be the handiwork of materialistic powers, bent upon leading us away from truth. 

[9]

And many other heroes who are willing to die for me, who have various missiles and weapons, and all skilled in warfare.

NG says: “It should be understood that “willing to die for me” shows the defence of precious values dear to human beings. Fanatics will die for their faith in a holy war. Faith becomes at least as precious as life. Duryodhana here represents a life-value connected with kingship and power in this world. This is held precious by his followers.”

NG is close when he says that “willing to die for me” shows the defence of precious values dear to human beings. Which is true as per our explanation, though at a later stage he digresses to connect it with kingship. Second error on his part is that he believes that only the fanatics would die for their faith in a holy war. Perhaps he is still to see people who cherish their values or their relation to God to such an extent that they are willing to sacrifice their life. We invite you to read more on Husain. Krishna, throughout Gita, is telling of an ideal way where even death becomes secondary if it collides with the interests of the path of God or the well-being of His creations.

This was a war where there were many, on either side, who were willing to die fighting. This is so because both sides considered themselves to be on the right path. Duryodhana was a blind-follower who was not willing to listen to reason in the face of his inherited beliefs. Is this not the case with several of us in the present society who hold on to our beliefs as sacred without attempting to give it a test of reason?

[10]

This army of ours which is under the care of Bhishma is insufficient but that army of theirs which is under the care of Bhima is adequate.

NG says: “Duryodhana himself has an inkling of the poverty of this type of spirituality here represented in the Kaurava side, when he feels diffident about the army led by Bhishma.” This is perhaps due to the fact that most of the people who had come to believe Krishna’s teachings were initially adherents of the faith that Duryodhana adhered to. Since materialism has no limit, those who were on Kaurava’s side lacked contentment, while those who had accepted the teachings of Krishna appeared contented even to Duryodhana, both in life and death. Doesn’t it prove our viewpoint that those on Krishna’s side were so contented because of their being on the true path that even death didn’t waver them or make them appear emotional or disturbed?

[11]

And let all of you, standing in your respective positions at the entrance to every formation, keep guard even on Bhishma.

NG says: “The word sarva (all, implying many) occurs twice. This is evidently to emphasize the fact that unitive command is lacking, as contrasted with the other army, as we shall notice presently.” This is so because there were people with diverse beliefs, who had strayed in various directions from the original teachings of the previous Avatars (Prophets), but had united because of common differences against Krishna, or rather his teachings, which negated all that the various people had wrongly associated with their religious practice.

Bhishma, revered as the grand old man, had come to symbolize the faith of their forefathers. He was perhaps the most respected man and stood at the centre of all formations or rather people of diverse beliefs. Duryodhana’s call to protect Bhishma is actually a call for protection of their dogmas and faith, which had come under attack because of Krishna’s teachings. It also symbolizes Bhishma was the chief opponent of war, who led Duryodhana and the rest to fight against Krishna.

[12]

So as to cheer him, the mighty old Kuru patriarch roared loudly like a lion and blew a conch.

Duryodhana’s premonitions of defeat are banished by the blowing of the conch-shell by Bhishma. The conch-shell is the sound of a battle cry. As soon as Duryodhana started to voice his thoughts, Bhishma blew the conch, so that the fight should start. This clearly suggests that people like Bhishma did not encourage introspection or allowed the thought process to carry forward. They wanted blind faith in people, so they could (mis)guide the people in their chosen direction, and remain at the helm of all attention. 

Here is one justification why the poem Mahabharata may have talked of Duryodhana going to heaven. Despite being on the wrong path, he considered it to be the right path from the core of his heart, unlike those like Bhishma who never wanted people to return to true path, and were thus truly on the wrong.

NG himself says: “Note by contrast that an epithet suggesting divinity (divyou) is applied to the conches of Krishna and Arjuna in verse 14.” 

Even the battle cry from Krishna’s side has been related to a divine cause. This is quite unfortunate that despite so many hints to make us reach the true conclusions, the commentators have not understood the true cause for the war of Mahabharata. 

[13]

Then conches and drums and gongs, (other) drums, horns, were played together suddenly, and that sound made a confused clang.

NG says: “Note here the variety of instruments which are sounded together, and the gentle disparagement implied when it says that the sound was tumula which means “excited, confused sound” – a chaotic condition, something like the confusion of tongues of the Tower of Babel seeming to be suggested. This is a natural prerequisite for the orderly unitive teaching of Brahmvidya (Science of the Absolute) which is to follow.”

Is there any doubt it is another suggestion that those on Kaurava’s side were from diverse thoughts, united together in opposition to Krishna’s teaching of Brahmvidya?

[14]

Then (both) standing in their great chariot, to which white horses were yoked, Madhava (Krishna) and the son of Pandu (Arjuna) blew (the two together) their divine conches.

NG says in his explanation of this verse: “Patterns of spirituality of different contexts are revealed by such epithets.” This is again so because NG and various other commentators, perhaps enamoured by the likes of revered figures like Bhishma and others in the Kaurava camp, could not think they could be on the wrong. Hence it was said that both the groups espoused different kinds of spirituality. Spirituality it might have been to those on the Kaurava side but the fact that Krishna decided to fight and kill them proves that they were just following a ritualistic and dogmatic version of religion.

However, NG is right when he says: “Here we must notice the magic circle round the two personalities of Krishna and Arjuna, as if they were bracketed together, and having equal status in the context of something superior to merely human values. Both their conches have the coupling epithet divyou sankhau (a pair of divine conches). Further they are in the same chariot – the charioteer as we know turns out to be the teacher of Brahmvidya (the Science of the Absolute) and Arjuna accepts discipleship (II, 7). The epithet mahati (great) is allied to brihat from which the word brahma is derived. The white horses are also symbolic of the neutrality of Brahmavidya in the same way as the white raiment (shubravastra) and white lotus (sveta-padma) are symbolic of the same neutrality in descriptions of the goddess Saraswati.” 

[15]

Hrishikesa (Krishna) blew Panchajanya, and Arjuna blew Devadutta. He of wolf-like appetite and deeds of enormity (Bhima) blew his great conch, Paundra.

It is apparent that ritualism was prevalent to such an extent that even the horses, the conches, the bow and arrows had a name. People were referred to by several names. No wonder, special religious ceremonies were also conducted at the time of giving the names (naamkaran), where too priests like Bhishma and Drona were required to conduct the ceremonies.

We invite you to keep a track on the number of names by which Krishna is addressed by Arjuna and likewise, the number of names by which Arjuna is addressed by Krishna. It seems this was a common trend in those times. We should not doubt then when we see the Devatas being addressed by various names in the Vedas and Upanishads. Commentators of later time got confused because of this and thought the various names to be different people. Confusion once created continued to mislead them further. 

[16]

Prince Yudhishthira, son of Kunti, blew Anantavijaya and Nakula and Sahadeva blew (together) the Sughosha and Manipushpaka.

[17]

And the King of Kasi, excellent bowman; Sikhandin, great charioteer Dhrishtadyumna and Virata and the unconquered Satyaki;

[18]

Drupada and the sons of Draupadi, O Lord of the Earth, and the son of Subhadra, of mighty arms, from all sides each blew his conch separately.

NG says: “The words sarvasah (on all sides) and prithak-prithak (distinct, separate) show that individual conch-blowings were not completely lost in the general din which came from all sides. This suggests the meeting of the one and the many without contradiction, itself a secret of dialectics.”

[19]

That loud blast, filling earth and sky with sound, pierced the hearts of Dhritarashtra’s sons.

This blast from the Pandava side filled “earth and sky” and “pierced the hearts of the Kauravas” - another symbolic representation of Krishna’s teachings reaching loud and clear, to all and sundry.

[20]

Then, beholding the sons of Dhritarashtra standing marshalled in order; while the flight of arrows (was) beginning, the son of Pandu (Arjuna) of monkey-ensign, took up his bow;

[21]

And O King, (said Sanjaya), he (Arjuna) spoke thus to Hrishikesa (Krishna): Arjuna said: O Achyuta! Stop my chariot right in the middle between the two armies.

True Arjuna was not a coward or afraid, as some commentators have expressed. He was a valiant fighter who would fight till his last breath, without turning away from the battlefield. Already, his deftness in archery was well famous. Then why did Arjuna want to stop in the midst of the two fighting armies? The very fact that it was he who asked Krishna to lead him in the midst of two armies - that too at a time when arrows had begun to fly - shows clearly that Arjuna was still a confused man at this stage. Till some time back, he and the rest of Pandava followed the same type of religious beliefs as the Kaurava. Later in Gita, Arjuna has himself confessed that there was a time when he too mocked at Krishna’s teachings. Yet, God had mercy on him and he was shown the true path. However, some doubts still remained… particularly in regard to the true identity of Krishna and the validity of the war. For the first time, he was not being asked to fight because, being Kshatriya, it was his duty to fight. Krishna was asking him to fight for a cause; for upholding truth and justice and kill even the Brahmin gurus on other side. Moreover, he might have expected that a God’s emissary would lead him to a life of renunciation, wherein he would be asked to go to a secluded place and chant God’s name. Instead, this emissary of God wanted Arjuna to take part in the affairs of the world by fighting the disbelievers (or the pseudo-believers) but keeping the remembrance of God all the time. He even wanted Arjuna to fight in the name of God. Thoroughly confused, Arjuna wanted to reflect, when he was equidistant from the two armies.

It is sad that most commentators have not understood this and said that from here Gita talks about philosophical or abstract values, which are altogether different from the warfare being discussed till this stage. As NG says: “Actual circumstances belonging to this first part should not be mixed up with considerations pertaining to the part that follows. This latter takes a more abstract or philosophical turn, though only of a first degree for the present.”

Unfortunate indeed! Right in the midst of the battle, when arrows had started flying, Krishna and Arjuna go in the middle of the battlefield, to discuss a subject that has no relevance to the situation in which they were. Can this be expected of somebody of the level of Krishna, who as charioteer, brought Arjuna face to face with death, only to talk of issues that were of least concern to him at that point of time?

We will understand from the text that follows that Krishna never wanted Arjuna to refrain from fight. But he wanted Arjuna to refrain from a fight that was meant to accomplish worldly desires, fame or wealth. Instead what we will find later is that he will lead Arjuna to God, he will talk of the true path of reaching God, tell Arjuna of the traits that God likes in the Absolute Men, and thereby, after making him understand God and the purpose of our creation, he will ask Arjuna to kill everybody in the opposite camp. No doubt this was a fight between right and wrong, and in the following verses, Krishna tells Arjuna of the desired path viz. the true path that led to God.

[22-23]

So that I may behold these standing eager to fight by my side in the present battle-undertaking;

And might observe these here gathered together who desire to please in war the evil-minded son of Dhritarashtra.

NG says: “These verses (22 and 23) are meant to be taken together. This is significant. For the first time the two sides of the army tend to be thought of together – not in the usual way of looking only at the enemy.” 

Not exactly! Fact is that Arjuna wants to have another look at the two armies by being equidistant from both. His consciousness has arisen. He wishes to apply his reason in his attempt to search the true path. That is why contrary to the warring habits taught to him as a Kshatriya, he is even prepared to forsake arms and start living in a hermitage. Fact is that Arjuna is also confused about the true identity of Krishna and the path that Krishna was propagating. 

Another significant point to be noted (which unfortunately escaped the eyes of most commentators) is the description of those on Dhritarashtra’s side. Several of the people who were there on Dhritarashtra’s side were with the objective of pleasing Dhritarashtra, a powerful prince. How people converge to please the rulers can be seen from our description of Karbala in the BOOK, where the entire army had gathered to please Yazid. In fact, they were committing one atrocity over the other against Husain and his family, just because they wanted to please the king Yazid. Unfortunately, Karbala was a more severe case, because apart from awakening desire among the people so that they come to their side, Yazid and his father Muawiya had even used propaganda extensively to malign the personalities of those who stood as true champions of the Prophet’s teachings and had in the past tortured and killed all those who were remotely seen as their friends or followers.

[24]

Samjaya said:

Thus addressed by Gudakesa (Arjuna), Hrishikesa (Krishna), O Bharata (Dhritarashtra), having stationed that excellent chariot right in the middle between the two armies, 

[25]

Facing Bhishma and Drona and all the rulers of the earth, (Krishna) said: O Partha (Arjuna)! Behold these Kurus gathered (here).

Bhishma and Drona are referred as “the rulers of the earth”. Remember there were kings on the side of Krishna as well. The same is not said of the kings on Krishna’s side. But Krishna is making Arjuna face Bhishma and Drona and all the rulers of the earth, signifying that all of these, including Bhishma and Drona, were people who had immersed themselves in the world and its pleasures.

[26]

Then Partha (Arjuna) saw standing, fathers as well as grandfathers, teachers, maternal uncles, brothers, sons, grandsons, and companions too.

Even though Arjuna had accepted the teachings of Krishna, certain degree of doubt was still there. True remembrance of God makes a person forsake all affiliations to the world. War fought while also remembering God would always be fought for a just cause. No atrocity would ever be committed in such a war. In fact, a person who truly remembers God would always take the side of the oppressed and the weak. In no way would such a person be seen on the side of evil, even so if he loses all that he has. This is the teaching of Krishna. This indeed is also the teaching of Islam.

The fact that there were relatives and friends on the other side truly suggests that it was an ideological war. On one side were those who had accepted Krishna’s teachings about the need to recognize one’s self, become one with God and serve His people, that too with just the remembrance of God in mind. On the other side there were those who adhered to the religion of their forefathers and followed the deviated version of Vedas, while considering themselves to be on the true Vedic path. They had shut themselves to reason and were against accepting any fresh teachings. Duryodhana was a blind follower like many others on his side while Drona and Bhishma knew that Krishna’s teachings were the right ones but did not acknowledge it as they wanted people to remain on their side so that they could continue clinging to the powers and associated material charms of the world. 

This is not the only case where the true religion has been forsaken and instead a pseudo-path chosen. It happened with the teachings of Jesus and it happened with the teachings of Mohammad. It is not easy for those at the top of the hierarchy or caste, who are used to enjoying the benefits that such an arrangement gives, to accept teachings that tell all humans to be equal in the eyes of the Creator.

[27]

And the son of Kunti (Arjuna), also seeing these relatives, fathers-in-laws and friends, all standing, in both the armies – 

[28]

Filled by a supreme pity, in mental distress (Arjuna) said: Beholding my own people, O Krishna, standing together, wanting to fight,

Arjuna’s plight at the sight of his relatives tells that in spite of accepting Krishna’s teachings and coming to fight at his command, he was still in love with the people on the other side, also referred to as ‘my people’ here. The lines here mention Arjuna’s state of mind. He is filled with pity at the sight that those who were close to him will get killed and this distresses him. Instead of accepting the teachings of the divine messenger Krishna, they have come to stand in opposition to him. Thus, Arjuna is left with no option but to fight them.

This also proves that Arjuna had no ill will towards those in the opposite camp other than that he was following the orders of Krishna to do so. This negates the views as per which Arjuna and the rest of Pandava wanted to avenge the ill-treatment meted to Draupadi and themselves. 

[29]

My limbs fail and my mouth dries up, my body trembles and my hair stands on end;

Truly he did not like what he was going to do, but he had no option left in hand. On one side was his love for his kith and kin and on the other side was his commitment to the cause of truth that he represented, by the virtue of being on Krishna’s side. 

[30]

(the bow) Gandiva slips from my hand, and my skin feels as if burning all over, and I am unable to stand and my mind is whirling round as it were:

The fact that the bow was slipping from his hand shows his grief over the fact that he would have to kill all the people whom he had remained closely associated with from childhood. In no way was Arjuna afraid. Yet, he couldn’t understand why he was left with no choice but to kill his opponents. This turmoil in his mind reached a stage that he made up his mind to throw away his bow and the arrows. Once this confusion appeared, Krishna had to present his teachings all over again, particularly in the context of the war that was about to begin. 

[31]

And I see conflicting portents, O Kesava (Krishna), nor do I foresee good from killing one’s own people in the battle.

[32]

I do not wish for victory, O Krishna, nor kingdom nor pleasures; what is kingdom to us, O Govinda (Krishna), what enjoyment, or even life!

I do not agree with NG’s description here when he says: “Arjuna’s stand is further finalized here. He has what is known as vairagya or detachment from the usual attractions or lures of life. This vairagya is not different in essence from what is required of a brahmchari as a seeker of wisdom who is to have nitya-anitya-viveka (discrimination between eternal and non-eternal).”

There was a brahmchari – Bhishma - even in the camp of Kaurava. And he was the most revered brahmchari of the times. But Krishna asks Arjuna to fight and kill him. Being a brahmchari too had become ritualistic as in the case of Bhishma, who clung to his seat of power all through. Brahmachari ought to be one who dedicates his life for God as his true servant. If Bhishma was a true brahmchari then there was no cause for war as Krishna’s teachings were only centred on dedicating one’s life for God. But a person who does all acts for pursuit of power, wealth or fame, forgets God, and then calls himself a brahmchari only because he has refrained from certain acts or not committed them in public knowledge, he is truly an imposter. This was the case of Bhishma.

There is one more point to be discussed. Arjuna has categorically stated that he was not wishing for victory, neither kingdom nor pleasures. This is again a proof that the war was not for the conquest of the throne of Hastinapur, as is generally believed, but for loftier purposes.

[33]

They for whose sake kingdoms, enjoyments and pleasures are desired by us, are standing here in the battle, having renounced their interests in life and wealth.

This verse again clarifies that this was a fight for a cause that was higher than all ‘interests in life and wealth’. Naturally, a person desires ‘interests in life and wealth’ for near and dear ones only. But all of them were standing in the battle, facing each other. Then for whom would one have desired these benefits? Isn’t it clear that this battle was not for material or worldly benefits?

[34]

Teachers, fathers, sons and also grandfathers; maternal uncles, fathers-in-law, grandsons, brothers-in-law as well as (other) kinsmen:

[35]

These I do not want to kill, though (they kill me), O Madhusudana (Krishna), not even for the sake of dominion over the three worlds – how then for the sake of the earth?

Unfortunately Arjuna’s stand is not described correctly even by those who claim to have understood it correctly. NG says: “Those who find fault with Arjuna too easily do not put their finger precisely on any objectionable part of his stand here. The inference should be that Arjuna’s stand remains valid. At least there is nothing weak in his position. Only someone capable of advancing a better reason than Arjuna would be justified in criticizing him, which is the privilege reserved in the Gita only for Krishna who is the teacher of thoroughgoing absolutism, as we see him teaching later. Politicians or patriots and partisans of closed religious groups even when they might be speaking in the name of values understood in any relativist sense, should be considered as being outside the privilege of laughing at Arjuna here, which is that of Krishna as Guru alone, or else of a teacher of outright absolutism.” 

Better reason is given in Verse II, 5 itself where Arjuna says: 

Desisting from the killing of the Gurus who are highly honourable, it would be more meritorious in this world even to have to eat of a beggar’s pittance. Choosing (on the other hand) to kill these Gurus as fortune-seekers, I should be feasting even here on bloodstained benefits of life.

Describing the Gurus as being honourable yet fortune-seekers show that Arjuna is first speaking about the general perception of these Gurus and later is talking about his own perception or the one given by Krishna. 

In the succeeding verses too, you will find Arjuna giving the perception of the general public, some of whom even went to the extent of saying that Arjuna was “killing his own people through greed for the pleasures of kingdom”, even though he clearly stated his opinion earlier, “I do not wish for victory, O Krishna, nor kingdom nor pleasures; what is kingdom to us, O Govinda (Krishna), what enjoyment, or even life!” (I,32) or here when he says, “not even for the sake of dominion over three worlds”.

Don’t you agree that Arjuna’s stance as well as the cause for the war of Mahabharata has been misunderstood till date?

[36]

Having killed the sons of Dhritarashtra, what delight can there be for us, O Janardana (Krishna)? Only sin would come to us after killing this marauding rabble.

As we can see, Arjuna is making his position clear in these verses. He refers to Dhritarashtra and those on his side as ‘marauding rabble’. This is in spite of the fact that Arjuna himself subscribed to the same type of faith till sometime back. But upon hearing from Krishna of the true path to God, he understood how their type of religion was totally misguided. In spite of coming to the fold of Krishna’s teachings, he still did not want to kill those in the other camps. It confused him why Krishna would ask him to kill those in the opposite camp. There were only two paths known to the people till that time. One was the path of performing ritual worship by the fire and the second was of those who left all this and went to live in solitude, away from the society. Krishna was showing the third path that was against ritual worship but instead of leading the adherents to lead a forest life, he very much wanted them to live as active members of the society, wherein they keep the remembrance of God alive at all times, tread the path of righteousness and when needed even fight the evils plaguing the society. He makes it compulsory on all to continue their attempt to make this society a better place to live, even if the person has to take on the evil head on and fight those perpetuating it face to face. 

The word atatayinah, used for the army in the opposite camp also signifies Arjuna’s stand as even the Manusmriti has talked of killing the atatayinah. Some commentators believe that it does not only mean desperadoes. Some say it means greedy opportunists, persons infatuated with wrong or exaggerated notions of worldly values who readily resort to premature aggression. These could not be the meaning of the term atatayinah as there are a lot many greedy opportunists and persons immersed in worldly values. All these people cannot be killed. Surely, the term atatayinah stands for someone who commits higher crime - a crime against God. If you have already read the BOOK - Part IV, we have already elaborated the meaning of this term. 

[37]

And so we ought not to kill the sons of Dhritarashtra our relations; for how, indeed, can we be happy after killing our own people, O Madhava (Krishna)?

This further explains our point. Arjuna is of the opinion that it is not possible to wipe out the evil from the face of this world and now that he has come to the fold of Krishna’s teachings, he should lead a good life and stop caring about those on the wrong path. Krishna’s view is contrary to this. He makes it obligatory for all to continue the struggle to make this world a better place to live. This struggle is in our own good, as per Krishna, who even says at a later stage that the evil acts perpetuated by us are leading to the decay of the world. In case we wish to elongate the life of this world, we will have to perform righteous deeds and also stop others from performing acts of evil. 

Arjuna has also made it amply clear that he would not have fought at any cost, unless being compelled by Krishna. In fact, ‘compelled’ is a wrong word. Krishna had given Arjuna a choice. But the choice was of accepting or rejecting the true path. If he chose the true path, then he had no choice but to fight the evil around him. This, as per Krishna, was the path that was shown by God and His emissaries. This is something that commentators have not understood.

In fact, all the emissaries of God showed in practice how to live life on this earth. Be it Krishna or Rama, Moses or Jesus, and all the rest of the Messengers, they all represented the voice of truth. They all had to face severe hardships, but never desisted or abstained from siding with truth and fighting the evil. Neither did they go to lead a forest life. We have proved in the BOOK that all these Messengers represented the Manifest Self of God or Paramatma, who’s Noor was fourteen-folded. These were the 14 Devatas who kept descending as Avatars at various parts of the world but were to later take birth one after another in human form. These Devatas, upon taking birth as human beings, further carried this struggle to zenith and showed how we ought to live in this world. They faced such hardships that nobody ever faced before or after them. Yet, they never refrained from complete adherence to truth. These fourteen Devatas, we have proved on several occasions, are none but Mohammad, his daughter Fatima, Mohammad’s cousin and Fatima’s husband - Ali - and the eleven more Imams or pure ones in Ali’s progeny. The fourteen are also called the Ahlulbayt (People of the House) of God.

It is indeed sad that those who claim to be the true followers of these Ahlulbayt in present time continue paying their respects to these fourteen, but are seldom seen following their footsteps in principle. There is no doubt that they all are misguided. These Devatas, when they came on earth in human bodies, have elaborately told us the path to attain salvation; Krishna’s views on the subject too make it amply clear the kind of lifestyle emissaries of God demand from us.  

[38]

Even if they whose minds are overpowered by greed see no wrong in the destruction of family (and) no crime in treachery to friends, 

This again makes the stand of the two warring parties clear. Those in the opposite camp, out of their greed for worldly pleasures, had forsaken all relations, and were ready to fight Krishna and those adhering to Krishna’s teachings. For them, destruction of family or treachery to friends were immaterial. 

[39]

Yet why should we not learn to turn away from the sin, we who do see wrong in the destruction of family, O Janardana (Krishna)?

It is evident that Arjuna became a follower of Krishna at least sometime before they all had to converge at Kurukshetra. He has imbibed the teachings well, which call of reaching to the God, devoting each and every action to God, and working for the benefit of His Creations. Yet there is another stage of teaching, which perhaps has not been told till Arjuna and Krishna came to Kurukshetra. This teaching calls upon the adherents to devote everything, including their lives, to God. They should even be prepared to sacrifice their lives in a mortal combat, in case the need arise. There are times when war becomes inevitable and even the strict proponents of peace have to fight in self-defence. We have seen lately that wars have been waged to maintain peace. Gita is a strong proponent of humanity’s welfare and talks only of dharma (righteousness). Dharma enjoins a person to raise himself to God and think only of the welfare of His creations. There is stress on non-violence and love for all, irrespective of caste, creed, thought, colour, etc. But if the humanity’s welfare is in fighting a physical fight, then the person should not refrain from doing so. 

This is exactly similar to the concept of Jehad, where Jehad-e-Akbar (or the grand or bigger Jehad) means reaching God through purifying one’s soul and throwing out all undesired traits, working for the benefit of mankind and rest of God’s creations, and upholding the truth to the extent that if there be a need, one should be willing to get into a physical fight. This physical resistance to evil and untruth is called Jehad-e-Asghar (or the smaller Jehad). However, there are rules, extremely strict rules, to be followed, and most people today fighting in the name of Jehad may be killers or murderers or anything but truly not Jehadis.

A little later we will see Krishna’s view too is exactly the same.

[40]

In destruction of family, the immemorial clan traditions perish, and on the loss of tradition the whole clan comes under the sway of lawlessness.

Arjuna is aware of the havocs that war could bring. War is certainly not going to bring good results for his family. It is easy to concede that the killing of some important men in a family would lead to disruption of their normal life, which is being described here.

[41]

When wrong (ways) prevail, O Krishna, the women of the family become corrupt and when women become corrupt, O Varshneya (Krishna), mixing of clan arises.

[42]

This mixing (of clans) leads (both the) family and the destroyers of the family to hell, for their ancestors fall when deprived of their offerings of rice-balls and water rites.

Arjuna is talking of the various sacrifices and offerings that were prevalent. He had grown up seeing the offerings of rice-balls and water rites, traditions of the darker skinned non-Aryans of India, and is referring to them getting corrupted. We must remember that till sometime back, he too subscribed to a faith wherein rituals held the most esteemed place. In fact, entire religion revolved around these rituals. People had forgotten that the entire life was to be lived in the desired manner and not just a few select moments of our lives. Through talking of these rituals here, he again refers to those habits. Krishna was a religious head and would have surely abstained Arjuna from killing his family, if that was rightful. But it was Krishna who made Arjuna kill several members of his family. This is so because Krishna was against a religion based on rituals and set principles. More importantly, those who were worshipping the Devatas were creating a great sin as they were denying the presence of One God and the need to worship Him alone. How could Krishna, in whom Noor of a Devata was working, could have remained silent on this? That is why he commanded Arjuna to fight and kill.

[43]

By these misdeeds of the destroyers of families (causing intermixture of clans), the immemorial traditions of clan and family are destroyed.

Since Arjuna is talking of these immemorial traditions of clan and family, the commentators are generally led into believing that Arjuna was a person who wanted these traditions to be kept alive, purvapakshin, as they call it. However, if they read this entire discussion carefully, they will notice that Arjuna is not speaking his point of view but is speaking from the point of view of the people in general. He is trying to bring home a point that he is not going to gain much from this fight and they could eventually be the losers. However, what he knows of Krishna’s teachings is that they are meant for the welfare of the creations of God. And is unable to fathom the need to kill the near and dear ones. This is where Krishna’s next stage of teachings - that of the Absolute Man - come into play. Yet, he believes in Krishna to an extent that he is following him blindly and has come to fight, kill and get killed, despite not knowing answers to all the questions. Answers will be given by Krishna in the following chapters. 

[44]

Men of families whose clan traditions are destroyed, O Janardana (Krishna) are destined to live in hell – thus we have heard.

Naturally no living being has seen hell or heaven. What all we know of them is through hearsay or from the words of the Prophets of God. Those who say that Krishna was against the notions of heaven and hell should note this verse and the subsequent response that Krishna gave. He did not deny the existence of heaven or hell but says that the Absolute Man does not perform duties in the love of heaven or fear of hell but because it is his duty to do so. He raises his self to the level that ultimately it gets united with the Divine Self or Paramatma.

[45]

Alas! A great sin are we engaged in committing in endeavouring to kill our own people through greed for the pleasures of kingdom!

It is here that we come to know that despite the fact that Arjuna accepted Krishna as the emissary of God, and was blindly following him, there are certain aspects that he has been unable to understand. He has seen that Krishna taught of the welfare of the God’s creations. In that light, won’t the endeavour to kill ‘own people’ amount to sin? Religious believes may have been the reason for the fight but now, with the armies standing on both sides, it was evident that the victor would also become the possessor of the kingdom. It was this very fact that was highlighted by the commentators to conclude that it was a war for the capture of kingdom.

[46]

It would be better for me, if the sons of Dhritarashtra, arms in hand, should kill me, unarmed and unresisting in the battle.

[47]

Samjaya said:

Thus having spoken in the midst of the battle, Arjuna sat down in his chariot seat, casting aside his bow and arrow, his mind overwhelmed with sorrow.

As we had said earlier, commentators wrongly give little weight to this Chapter. In fact, this Chapter is extremely crucial to understand the viewpoints of the two warring parties. The entire reason for the fight of Mahabharata lay hidden in the verses of this preliminary chapter of Gita. All through the rest of Gita, you will find that Krishna’s answers only justify the view being inferred by us. See for yourself!

Thus ends in the Upanishads of the Songs of God, in the Science of the Wisdom of the Absolute, in the Dialogue between Sri Krishna and Arjuna, the First Chapter entitled The Unitive or Contemplative Despondency of Arjuna.