GITA AND MAHABHARATA WRITTEN WITH DIFFERENT INTENT
We all know that Bhagavada Gita and Mahabharata do not have the same authorship. This is in spite of the fact that Gita occupies a portion of the epic, Mahabharata. While Gita is surely a divine text, Mahabharata is a grand poem written by a human being like you and us. The poem Mahabharata was separate from Gita till several centuries and it was only later that Gita was inserted into the text of Mahabharata. Several scholars and historians agree on this. Whether this was done to increase the value of the epic Mahabharata or to decrease the value of Gita cannot be said with certainty. However, both the ends were achieved. Today, Hindus regards the myths and legends talked about in the epic Mahabharata as true while Gita has lost the importance that it ought to have. Does this not speak of vested interests or the evil forces having their say in the affairs of religion?
Another point that gives credence to this view is the quote from the Vishnu Purana, which says that Vyasa, after writing the Puranas, sat down to write the Mahabharata so as to add to the bulk of the scriptures. Doesn’t this raise eyebrows? Why would somebody write a long narrative just to add to the bulk of the overall literature? Why didn’t the author of the Vishnu Purana give another reason for Vyasa writing the Mahabharata? Doesn’t the wording of the Purana reveal an ulterior design? Another point that gives weight to our view that Puranas are not the same is the very fact that while it is being said that the Mahabharata was written later than the Puranas, the very incident talking of Vyasa writing the Mahabharata after the Puranas form part of narration of one of the Puranas. Clearly, somebody at some time in history sat down to add this line in the text of the Puranas. How can you explain this unless you accept our view that at least some portions of the Puranas got altered at a later date?
Another point is that the content of Gita is altogether different from the rest of Mahabharata. Whereas Gita preaches spiritualism of the loftiest nature, the rest of the pages only belittle that spiritual view and preach materialism. Our view is that there is also an attempt to degrade the personality of Krishna in Mahabharata. We would perhaps never know whether this was done by design or was just the consequence of foolish interpretation of Krishna’s actions. A study of the manner in which the teachings of the Prophet Mohammad have been changed by those calling themselves Muslims is necessary to show how vested interests take control of the situation and alter it at their will. The Caliphs post-Prophet Mohammad who ruled in the name of Islam had realized that since Islamic teachings do not support the material life that they would have liked to live, they would either have to bring the teachings down to support their way of living or raise their character to the level of true Islam if they wanted to continue ruling over the masses. The former was the easiest thing to do!
This is also the reason why the true inheritors of Prophet Mohammad’s legacy were not recognized by the selfish people of the period and all attempts were made to kill the Prophet’s progeny and to dilute his teachings. All these acts were committed in the name of Islam and several ignorant men, to this day, have been unable to see through their designs. Truly, Islamic teachings had nearly been hijacked and changed and those with vested interests nearly succeeded, until Husain rose up to draw a clear divisive line between true teachings and those propagated by Yazid in the name of Islam.
We will see in this BOOK how the Forces of Darkness [Zulmat] (represented by Satan and others) use the same time-tested methods again and again. Show the glamours of the world to some and make them fall to the capricious invites of the pleasures of the senses. Corrupt the religious beliefs, literature, etc. in case of those who are devout but do not apply their mind. Make the people raise the status of individuals who brought the teachings so that they are given loftier positions, by their followers, than God whose Avatars/Messengers they were. Change the essence of religion through incorporating rites and rituals, and dogmatic beliefs. If that is not all, make some of your trusted lieutenant’s raise a war on the true followers, so as to subdue them or kill them.
This explains why those who called themselves Muslims killed members of Prophet Mohammad’s household. Once all other tactics got exhausted, they finally decided to eliminate the true champions of Mohammad’s legacy. We will see that had it not been for Husain’s sacrifice, the Islamic teachings had been corrupted beyond recognition within 50 years of the Prophet’s death. All the time-tested tortures and hardships that satanic mind could have conjured together through its centuries of experience in this world were inflicted on Husain and his followers. The hatred against those who truly followed Mohammad’s teachings was present to such an extent among the so-called Muslims of the time that even women and children in Husain’s family were not spared. Yet, all this failed. Karbala thwarted their designs, so much so that the very teachings they were trying to suppress erupted like a volcano, which took the true teachings of Islam not only across the Islamic world but also beyond its frontiers.
The imposed war against Krishna too was a design to kill the teachings right when they were being delivered. Today, an attempt is made by some to portray that those on the Krishna’s side as well as on Kaurava’s side were equally religious but had differences of opinion in regard to the mode of worship. They say this perhaps because there are still a large number of people whose religion is the same as that of the Kauravas – blind and full of rites and rituals. Was it religion governing the likes of Drona, Bhishma and Duryodhana that the Pandava’s tent was burnt while they were inside? Was it religion that all possible attempts were made to torture them and usurp their kingdom? Drona and Bhishma knew that consequent to Pandavas becoming believers of Krishna’s teachings, which propagated One God and nothing else, their own lofty positions in the people’s mind were at stake. They told the blind followers like Duryodhana that Krishna and his followers were corrupting their faith.
Their worldly levels could be seen from the manner in which Duryodhana treated Draupadi; she was disrobed in public view. That Duryodhana did it can be believed! But how would you explain the entire audience including the sages who occupied lofty positions in the court remaining mute spectators? Clearly, their religion too was false, something that neither they nor their like-minded descendants today would be willing to accept.
The Gita has more than 20 verses (distributed in seven Chapters) wherein Renunciation of the Fruits of Action has been talked about but even the commentators of Gita believe that Krishna sided with one of the warring factions, fighting for the possession of territory. Gita talks of strict adherence to righteousness and truth, even if it is at the cost of life, yet the epic Mahabharata portrays Krishna as someone who had no respect for the rules of the battlefield and shows that Karna and Bhishma were both killed by deceit. There are countless such incidents in Mahabharata that show Krishna acting contrary to the very teachings in Gita. Our view is that all through the epic Mahabharata, its writer has tried to restore some respect to those fighting against Krishna whereas Krishna has minced no words in Gita to pronounce them evil, deviated, unrighteous and worthy of being killed. No, Mahabharata was not a war between princes, as the epic Mahabharata would like us to believe. It was truly a war between right and wrong, between forces of justice and injustice, virtuous and evil. (you will know more when you read our commentary of Gita).
All through, Mahabharata portrays Drona, Bhishma and Duryodhana as heroes, even if they are the side-heroes, and Krishna is the main hero. Fact is that if you read the Mahabharata carefully, you will find that it only attempts to restore some of the lost respect for the Kauravas. At the same time, it tries to bring down the position of Krishna by showing him as one who backs out from his promises, one who flaunts all the rules of battleship thereby revealing the wickedness behind the acts, one who gives false advice so as to win and one who supports the Pandavas for the great fight for the throne. Towards the end, Mahabharata shows Kauravas in heaven and for a moment even goes on to say that Pandavas were being burnt in the hell. Bhima is portrayed as a ferocious eater and one who was savage in deeds. Five husbands are assigned to Draupadi and it is mentioned that she used to live in the houses of all brothers, one by one, each succeeding day. Yet, one son each is assigned to all the brothers. How did they know who was whose son?
It is unfortunate that we are yet to see through these designs and accept all literature as equally sacred and divine, even if it is Kamasutra and even if it is the poem - Mahabharata.
The same would have been the fate of Islamic teachings without Karbala. With no Karbala after Krishna, it can well be assumed how the evil forces must have succeeded in eliminating the distinction between the true and false teachings, how all literature became sacred when it came out of nearly 1000 years of oblivion during the period of Buddhist supremacy and how the evil minds largely succeeded in their designs.
In contrast to the view of most commentators who view Gita and Vedas talking of dissimilar and even contradictory subjects, our view is that Gita upholds the true teachings of Vedas to the maximum; if it criticizes anything, it is the misinterpretations that had been done by the time of Krishna and the deviations that had occurred from the pure Vedic teachings. People had digressed from the teachings of the Vedas, so much so they had become ritualistic and had started worshipping several forms of God; a bit of further deviation lead to a stage where there were various different gods and goddesses. Then came Gita - an attempt to return to the Almighty One God - asking the followers to ‘stand up and fight’ against the evil practices and deviations that had crept in their lives. The fact that Krishna had to indulge in a fight against a mighty army is another evidence that his teachings were not accepted easily and he had to labour hard to impart them.
We must remember that in those times, the nobility, the kings and the priests were chiefly responsible for an idea or thought to pervade through the masses who mostly followed it as a rule. Several history books recount how the priests had confined religious rituals to a few and the masses were not supposed to attend them. They stood far away, watching the king and priests perform the ritual, grasping whatever fragments of religion they could grasp, from that distance.
From this viewpoint, the fight between Kauravas and Pandavas gains significance. Krishna was able to influence Arjuna and the rest of Pandavas, who had become champions of his cause. The fact that Arjuna himself talks of a time when he used to make fun of Krishna’s teachings is a proof of this. Kauravas continued to adhere to the religion of their forefathers, who were mightily influenced by several leading priests of the time. These priests never wanted the power that they had gained over the masses slipped from their hands. Arjuna had been a favourite disciple of these gurus; the guru had even seen to it that there was none to comepte Arjuna. This is the reason why Arjuna was reluctant to fight those revered gurus, who were feared even by the kings for their respect among the masses.
Nothing can be said with certainty though as that was the period when writing had not developed and historical accounts were not kept. What is most certain, however, is that Krishna’s teachings too were disobeyed which lead to another revolution, centuries later, by Lord Buddha, which was to sweep the entire territory of India and up to Ceylon (present day Sri Lanka).
We have said earlier that the views of the nobility were generally accepted as views of the majority. You might not digest this easily. But the fact is that Buddhism was struggling to find roots until King Ashoka embraced the religion. Thereafter, it spread much faster, that too till Sri Lanka and Burma. However, this is not the desired way as it brings people of all type of thinking into the religious fold.
Since Buddha too was confronted with materialism all around, his teachings naturally practiced simple living. Unable to understand this, Buddhists went to the other extreme of renouncing the world and leading a monastic life. In general, it was against the human tendency to lead a life of renunciation of this kind. A silent and gradual backlash led to the decline of Buddhism and people returned to the old customs and manners.
The original Mahabharata had been composed in and around third century B.C. But its relevance grew with time and, as Nataraj Guru writes, it was brought to its present form by some follower of the Vedanta in the second century A.D., when the decline of Buddhism had begun. Later, the commentaries by Sankara (788-826 A.D) followed by Ramanuja (1017-1137 A.D.) and Madhava (1199-1317 A.D.), led to the building of what is known as the Gita literature of today.
Nataraj Guru writes: “About the period when the Guptas ruled, when Buddhism was in decline in India, largely owing to political reasons, there was a spiritual vacuum in the land. The monastic life of the Buddhists had to give way to a revalued and readjusted form of spiritual life. The heterodox rationalism of the Buddhists had come to be discredited and there was no valid philosophy to displace it. In its latest form, the Gita was itself a fulfilment of the spiritual need of the times and Sankara’s commentary on the Gita came just at that period when there was a certain anarchy and confusion of spiritual values in the mind of the ordinary people. Vedic ritualism also tended to be discredited among the masses and the regulating influence so necessary to keep people from falling into an era of decadence of norms and standards of a just or truthful life was absent. By his comments Sankara was able to give stability and continuity to the flow of righteous teaching down through the succeeding generations. His importance as a commentator of the Gita is thus unique, representative and comprehensive.”
It can easily be fathomed why Vyasa felt the need to compose Mahabharata, after writing the Puranas, so as to add to the bulk of the scriptures. Unless there were other reasons for it, it can be argued that this was done to fill the spiritual vacuum that had come after the decline of Buddhism and in the dearth of any philosophy to replace the Buddhist teachings. It is during the succeeding period, which continued right until the 10th and 11th century A.D., that we find the first commentaries of Gita and Vedas. We also find the Puranas being rewritten and Gita being inserted inside the pages of epic Mahabharata.
It is a period of more than 1000 years between the Mahabharata being composed and attempts made to write its commentary. And there is still greater gap between the actual event of Mahabharata and composition of Gita. If there are certain missing links, this is the reason for it.
This long period made the people forget certain vital links as regards to comprehension of Gita and when attempts were made at a later stage to replace Buddhism with another philosophy, Krishna was picked up, but unfortunately, along with all the myths and wrong notions that had penetrated during the long centuries of neglect and ill-use.
Isn’t it unfortunate that, unable to clearly comprehend several passages of the Gita or find examples that can be put into practice, Sankara and later Nataraj Guru, both came to the conclusion that “Gita is far from the category of Smartha (obligatory religious) literature? It is this notion that we wish to discard in this BOOK. If Gita is not a book of obligatory conduct then what book is? Whether those books are Smarthas which are filled with rituals, talking about innumerable gods and how to please them or those which touch just a few aspects of human life alone? Gita teaches Brahma Vidya (Science of the Absolute) and following it to its entirety will only make Absolute or Complete Men emerge.
It is extremely unfortunate that in order to prove this theory, the commentators of Gita have even gone to point of calling the writer of Gita as influenced by other school of thoughts, without realizing that the writer of Mahabharata may have been Vyasa or anybody, Gita is the utterance of Paramatma Itself, through the mouth of Krishna. If you are to believe what various commentators have written then you will have to either conclude that Gita is not the utterance of Krishna and it is all fiction created by another writer, or be prepared to accept that Krishna said something and the writer later changed it as per the needs of time, or say that Krishna’s thoughts were governed by the thinking of the time – all things that this writer refuses to accept.
In the introduction to his commentary on Gita, Nataraj Guru has devoted a chapter “The Reason for Mistake of Treating the Gita as a Work of Obligatory Nature” in which he says: “If we ask why the contents of the eighteen chapters and the 700 verses of the Gita have been so puzzling that most commentators have tended to treat it as a book on obligatory, religious or traditional lore, instead of treating it, as it highly deserves to be, on par with the most authoritative writings pertaining to pure contemplative wisdom, the reasonable answer is that the author of Gita was faced with taking cognizance of the existing schools of spiritual thought and practice of his own time, like any writer.”
Most unfortunate indeed! Nataraj Guru agrees his inability to understand the content of Gita by saying that the 700 verses of the Gita are puzzling. This is perhaps due to his inability to find men who could befit Gita’s description; we will be showing such people who befit the teachings of Gita during the course of this BOOK. It is quite amusing that “the most authoritative writing pertaining to pure contemplative wisdom” is not obligatory. Was Krishna just doing plain rhetoric or ‘big talk’, that too in the midst of the clamour of swords and arrows flying nearby, and there was no obligation for Arjuna to follow? Or was the obligation merely for Arjuna, and not for us? Or is Krishna meant only for being put up as idol to be worshipped, that too an idol of his childhood days, when he may not have been in position to give such conclusive and authoritative statements “pertaining to pure contemplative wisdom”.
No comments:
Post a Comment