Guest guest Posted February 4, 2000 Report Share Posted February 4, 2000 Madhava wrote: > It is a divine war that took place with in a Sadhaka (seeker). Greetings Madhava, I would like to take issue with the allegorical interpretation of the Mahabharata war but first let me explain what I am doing here in this list seeing as my posts seem to be a source of consternation to many of you. One of the most attractive features of Hinduism as a religion is the way it co-opts all other religions but it does this by deftly ignoring all aspects of other religions which *it* deems to be culturally conditioned mumbo-jumbo: Christ was an avatar just like Krishna and that is the only thing that matters and all of the doctrinal absurdities that Christians have been quarreling about for the past 2000 years are irrelevant. I like to think that I am approaching your tradition in the same spirit as you embrace other traditions and that it might even be of some use to you to know which aspects of Advaita are useful to a sympathetic outsider and which aspects are not. I sincerely believe that India's spiritual tradition is richer and deeper than any other and that you could do the rest of us a great service by making it more accessible to outsiders but to do this you would have to take a long hard look at your own mumbo-jumbo! As for the allegorical interpretation of the Mahabharata war as the war of Good against Evil, I don't believe that there is any internal evidence in the Gita to suggest that the field of the Kurus is anything other than a real honest-to-goodness battlefield. My guess is that the allegorical interpretation is due to a well-meaning, pious squeamishness that shrinks from the fact that Krishna, God incarnate, is actually urging war and slaughter on Arjuna. How could it possible for Krishna to tell Arjuna over and over again that there is one self in all beings as a means of steeling his nerves for battle as in verse III.30: With your mind on the supreme self Surrendering all action to me And being free of desire and selfishness Your (mental) fever vanished, fight. Arjuna is being told to fight *with his mind on the supreme self*. He is to see the supreme self in all beings not merely in all beings in general while he is sitting at home in an armchair but in his kinsmen and comrades 'rushing to enter your mouths of dreadful tusks .... their heads crushed' (XI.27). So my objection to the allegorical interpretation is that it undermines the force of Krishna's teaching. Regards, Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2000 Report Share Posted February 4, 2000 On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Patrick Kenny wrote: > Patrick Kenny <pkenny > > Madhava wrote: > > > It is a divine war that took place with in a Sadhaka (seeker). > > Greetings Madhava, > > I would like to take issue with the > allegorical interpretation of the > Mahabharata war but first let me explain > what I am > doing here in this list seeing as my > posts seem to be a source of > consternation to many of you. namaste. On the contrary, Patrick, I find your posts to be very refreshing and present an outlook which, for me as one not knowledgeable about western philosophy, something to think about. As an example, your posts on Spinoza are an eye-opener for me, and I recently got hold of a book "Spinoza and the upanishads" on which I hope to present a brief sample soon to the List. As shri Madhava said in an earlier post, please keep your viewpoints coming. Regards Gummuluru Murthy -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2000 Report Share Posted February 4, 2000 Thanks, Gummuluru. As you can imagine I would be very keen to know more about this. Regards, Patrick Gummuluru Murthy wrote: > On the contrary, Patrick, I find your > posts to be very refreshing > and present an outlook which, for me > as one not knowledgeable > about western philosophy, something to > think about. As an example, > your posts on Spinoza are an > eye-opener for me, and I recently > got hold of a book "Spinoza and the > upanishads" on which I hope > to present a brief sample soon to the > List. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2000 Report Share Posted February 4, 2000 Greetings Patrick: I enjoyed reading your heartfelt thoughts on Hinduism. Especially, I like your statement - "I like to think that I am approaching your tradition in the same spirit as you embrace other traditions." But I don't believe that your views on Gita will create a source of fear or confusion in the minds of the members of the list. Just like Hinduism, Gita's most attractive feature is that it caters to the needs of people with different levels of understanding. Mathematics and Gita do not need examples for illustration and the facts remain true without examples. But examples are given only to benefit the students who can't understand such facts without illustrations. This is the fact of human life. It is also true that for a mathematical genius, examples and illustrations become too trivial and are potential distractions. The "Good" and "Evil" were created by the society to maintain law and order. Both ‘religion' and ‘politics' became vital parts of the society to achieve its goals. Ethical and moral values are beyond the scope of pure religion and teachings of Gita is pure and beyond the social norms and ethics. When our mind becomes pure, we can (will) go beyond ‘good' and ‘evil.' At that time, we don't require to interpret Gita because Gita will be our way of life. regards, Ram Chandran Note: Please don't be apologistic while stating your view points and I want to second Gummuluru's statement - 'your posts are refreshing.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2000 Report Share Posted February 4, 2000 Gummuluru Murthy [gmurthy] Friday, February 04, 2000 12:08 PM advaitin Re: Bhagawad Gita - Ch.1 - Verses 15-22 Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Patrick Kenny wrote: > Patrick Kenny <pkenny > > Madhava wrote: > > > It is a divine war that took place with in a Sadhaka (seeker). > > Greetings Madhava, > > I would like to take issue with the > allegorical interpretation of the > Mahabharata war but first let me explain > what I am > doing here in this list seeing as my > posts seem to be a source of > consternation to many of you. namaste. On the contrary, Patrick, I find your posts to be very refreshing and present an outlook which, for me as one not knowledgeable about western philosophy, something to think about. As an example, your posts on Spinoza are an eye-opener for me, and I recently got hold of a book "Spinoza and the upanishads" on which I hope to present a brief sample soon to the List. As shri Madhava said in an earlier post, please keep your viewpoints coming. Regards Gummuluru Murthy Agreed. A pure mind is a fresh mind. Flowing in stillness towards Self-Knowledge. Scriptures are many and interpretations conflicting and numerous and so perhaps each reads into them what is needed or acceptable from their point of view. The following dialogue may be of interest. Devotee: Is it any use reading books for those who long for release? Sri Ramana: All the texts say that in order to gain release one should render the mind quiescent; therefore their conclusive teaching is that the mind should be rendered quiescent; once this has been understood there is no need for endless reading. In order to quieten the mind one has only to inquire within oneself what one's Self is; how could this search be done in books? One should know one's Self with one's own eye of wisdom. The Self is within the five sheaths; but books are outside them. Since the Self has to be inquired into by discarding the five sheaths, it is futile to search for it in books. There will come a time when one will have to forget all that one has learned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2000 Report Share Posted February 5, 2000 Harih Om Advaitins: Madhavaji should be pleased to see more active participation from the members. This trend will continue and there will be more opportunities for everybody when we go to chapter 2. There are many stories behind the story of Mahabharat and these verses introduce the warriors from the Pandava Side. Sanjaya's special emphasis on the names of the personalities and their conches is quite significant. Sanjaya wants to convey King Dhrtarastra that the sounds of the conches from the Pandavas army demonstrated their strength and eagerness to face enemy. King Dhrtarastra was hoping for a resolution without war and he was fearful to lose his sons in the war. I have requested ProfVK to post summary of the Gita Satsang Discussions at the end of everyweek and I am hoping he will agree to do that. Regards, Ram Chandran =============================================== Notes compiled from Bhagavdgita - Multimedia CD (permission is obtained from the publisher for conducting Gita Sang Discussion) ============================================== `Hrsika', means a sense, and the Lord (Controller or Propeller) of the senses is called `Hrsikesa' *. The term also denotes a repository of joy, happiness and power accompanied with amenities of life. The Lord is not only the controller of the senses, but a repository of joy, happiness and power accompanied by amenities of life. Therefore one of the names of Bhagavan Sri Krsna is `Hrsikesa.' Having killed a demon, Pancajanya by name, who possessed the form of a conch, Bhagavan Sri Krishna took him for His conch. That is why His Conch got the name of `Pancajanya' (Harivamsa II.xxxiii.17). At the time of the Rajasuya sacrifice, Arjuna conquered a large number of kingdoms and brought untold riches to the Pandava capital; that is how he got the epithet of `Dhananjaya'. And he obtained the conch named ` Devadatta' from Indra, the King of Heaven, when Arjuna went there to fight the Nivatakavacas and other demons (Maha., Vana., 174,5). The sound of this conch was so loud and terrible that it used to terrify the soldiers in the enemy's ranks. The second Pandava, Bhima, was a man possessing exceptional physical strength terror in the heart of those who either saw, or heard of, them. That is how he came to be known as Bhima, of terrible deeds. He was a great eater and possessed extraordinary power to digest a large quantity of food; that is how he got the name of `Vrkodara' (having the appetite of a wolf). He possessed a conch of very large size, whose sound reverberated to a long distance; hence it has been called a `mighty conch. Of the five sons of Pandu, Yudhisthira, Bhima and Arjuna were born of his first wife Kunti, and Nakula and Sahadeva, of Madri, the second wife. In the present verse, the names of Nakula and Sahadeva also appear; and in order to show that Yudhisthira, Nakula and Sahadeva were not children of the same mother, Yudhisthira has been referred to in the verse as the `son of Kunti.' Though at the time of the War Yudhisthira possessed no kingdom, he had conquered all the kings at the time of the Rajasuya sacrifice, and assumed the position of the Emperor. Moreover, Sanjaya believed that after the War he would again assume sovereignty. Even at the time when Sanjaya spoke these words, all the marks of a king were present in Yudhisthira's body. These were the reasons why Sanjaya added the title of `King' to Yudhisthira's name. Sikhandi and Dhrstadyumna both were sons of King Drupada. Sikhandi was the elder, and Dhrstadyumna the younger brother. In the beginning; King Drupada had no issue; he, therefore, resorted to the worship of Bhagavan Siva with the motive of obtaining a successor. When Lord Siva pleased with his worship asked Drupada to take a boon, King Drupada submitted his prayer for a child. Bhagavan Siva said he would get a daughter; but Drupada replied that he sought a son, and not a daughter. There upon Bhagavan Siva said that the girl would subsequently be transformed into a son. As the result of this boon, a daughter was born to King Drupada in course of time; but possessed as he was of full faith in the words of Bhagavan Siva, he announced it as the birth of a son. The queen also took precaution to suppress the truth about the child's sex. The daughter was given a boy's name `Sikhandi, and, dressed as a boy, was given all the requisite education and training of a Prince. In due time, that so-called `Prince' was married to the daughter of Hiranyavarma, king of the Dasarnas. Coming to alive with her husband the daughter of Hiranyavarma discovered that Sikhandi was a woman, and sad at heart sent word to her father to that effect. King Hiranyavarma got so enraged at the news that he immediately declared war on King Drupada, and made a resolve to avenge the wrong by taking Drupada's life. Desiring to avoid the fight, King Drupada took recourse to the worship of the Deity. And Sikhandi, for his part, terribly cast down at the unfortunate turn of events, quietly left the palace determined to put an end to his life in the forest. There he happened to meet a Yaksa, Sthunakarna by name, possessed of supernatural power, who out of pity gave his manhood to Sikhandi for a stipulated period, accepting for himself Sikhandi femininity in exchange. This is the story of how Sikhandi turned a man from a woman. Returning thereafter to his kingdom, Sikhandi gave assurance to his parents that he was no longer a woman, and pacified his father-in-law, Hiranyavarma, by furnishing proof of his manhood. By a curse of Kubera, Sthunakarna remained a woman all his life; therefore Sikhandi had not to return his manhood, and remained a man for the rest of his life. Bhisma was aware of this history of Sikhandi, and, therefore, always refused to strike him as an adversary. Sikhandi was a great hero and fighter, and a Maharathi among warriors. Placing him in front as a screen, Arjuna struck at Bhisma on the last day of Bhisma's fight, and put an end to the career of that old warrior. The other heroes mentioned in these two verses have already been introduced to the reader. By the use of the word `Sarvasah' in this verse, Sanjaya intends to convey that besides Sri Krsna the five Pandavas, the King of Kasi and other heroes whose names are mentioned in the above verses, the other Rathis, Maharathis and Atirathis in the Pandava army also blew their respective conches. When the conches of all the heroes in the Pandava army were sounded all at a time, the sound produced by them was so voluminous, loud, deep and dreadful that it filled all the regions of heaven and earth. Widely spreading over those regions, it produced echoes, which resounded throughout the earth and sky and caused such a terror and fright in the sons of Dhrtarastra and the other fighters on their side that they felt a sudden oppression in their hearts as if they had been rent asunder. In accordance with his promise to Bhimsena (Maha., Vana. 151, 17-18) the great hero Hanuman always occupied the huge flag of Arjuna, and from time to time, during the war, used to give loud and dreadful roars (Maha., Bhisma., 52. 18). Sanjaya employs the attribute "Kapidhvaja' for Arjuna, in this verse, to remind Dhrtarastra of this fact. Observing that Duryodhana and his brothers, and all other Kaurava warriors, in their full battle-uniform, were completely ready with their weapons to start the battle, the heroic sentiment was awakened in Arjuna's mind as well, and he immediately took up the Gandiva bow in his hand. This is what Sanjaya tries to convey by verse 20. Referring, again, to Bhagavan Sri Krsna as "Hrsikesa' in verse 21 above, Sanjaya is pointing out to King Dhrtarastra that God Himself, the Knower of all hearts. Was it, therefore, not the height of ignorance and folly to expect victory in that fight in which Lord Himself was helping the other side? "Acyuta' means one who is never vanquished, or who never suffers a fall. The word also means he who ever remains established in his self, and is never dissociated from his power and glory. Addressing Sri Krsna by this name, Arjuna reveals his knowledge about the glory and reality of Sri Krsna. In other words, Arjuna means to say that though engaged in the servile role of driving his chariot, He is nevertheless, and for ever, God Himself. Arjuna says to Bhagavan Krsna that taking the chariot between the two armies it should be placed at such a convenient point, and for such a length of time, that he could see and closely examine all the warriors arrayed for battle-dress. The object of his making this request was to know definitely who were the heroes on the other side with whom he would be required personally to come to grips in that dreadful business of War. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2000 Report Share Posted February 5, 2000 - Patrick Kenny <pkenny > Patrick Kenny <pkenny > > > Greetings Madhava, > > I sincerely > believe that India's spiritual tradition > is richer and deeper than any other and > that you could do the rest of us a great > service by making it more accessible to > outsiders but to do this you would have > to take a long hard look at your own > mumbo-jumbo! :-) :-) I liked the word mumbo-jumbo :-) Is this your understanding towards our Mythology or our allegorical interpretation? :-) Any way, please feel comfortable in stating your opinion. > > As for the allegorical interpretation of > the Mahabharata war as the war of Good > against Evil, I don't believe that there > is any internal evidence in the Gita to > suggest that the field of the Kurus is > anything other than a real > honest-to-goodness battlefield. Gita can be understood in many ways! There are more than 800 interpretations available. I feel that the subtler lesson is always allegorical. By the way, that is the beauty of our mythology. For some commentators, Bhagawad Gita is nothing but a teaching that conveys "tat tvam asi" (that thou art), the first 6 chapters describe the "tat" part of it; from Chapter 7-12 it conveys the "tvam" part of it; and from Chapter 13th to 18th it conveys the "asi". For some other commentators ---Gita is a book in which Krishna the God is conveying the divine knowledge to his disciple. All the characters in Mahabharata convey their traits, look at the way the names start right from Duryodhana to all his brothers. "du" stands for DusTa (wicked). Isn't this an allegorical information! I would prefer myself open to all viewpoints. Krishna says that he is in all. In that case he must he in Arjuna also. That is why we have to look *into* Arjuna. Regards, Madhava Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.