Question on Sri Krishna's action

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

I wish to know (if possible), the reasons why Bhagavan Krishna did

the following.

 

1. He did not fight the Mahabharatha war whereas almost every other king in

Bharatha fought on either of the two sides. Sri Krishna could have still given

the Bhagavad Gita as a warrior. Why did he make this choice?

 

2. Why did he give his army to the side of Kauravas. Is that not aiding the

forces of adharma ? Even looking from the point of view of the soldiers of

Dwaraka , that must seem a strange order, that they have to fight against their

Lord.

 

I dont find explanations to these questions anywhere. Could someone give some

reasons ?

 

Regards,

Anand

 

 

 

A FREE web-based e-mail service brought to you by the PC World Technology

Network.

Get your FREE account today at http://www.myworldmail.com

[Guest guest]

namaste,

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi's invariable answer to questions of "Why" was to

guide the seeker towards search for the Self, and the question would be

answered! One does not look for causes for events one experiences in one's

dreams, he used to say! Every effort that did not meet that test of 'aatma -

anaatma - viveka' is destined to failure. This 'maayaa'/illusion is

"anirvachaniiya", beyond the grasp of intellect. If this discussion serves

that purpose, then it is worth it.

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>advaitin

>advaitin

>Re: Question on Sri Krishna's action

>Fri, 11 Feb 2000 09:16:43 -0330 (NST)

>

>

>On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Anand Natarajan wrote:

>

> > "Anand Natarajan" <anandn

> >

>namaste.

>

>Regards

>Gummuluru Murthy

>------

>

>

>

>

 

____

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Both arjuna/yudhistra (i don't know who) and duryodhana went to Shri

Krishna for help in war.

 

I guess duryodhana knew very well that none can stand before Shri Krishna.

If Shi Krishna would have said that he will take active part in the war

then i guess Duryodhana for sure would have taken Shri Krishna rather then

his army.

 

 

Sometimes the words are more powerful then active part in war. N i guess

the enemy was not that of that standard that lord had to fight actively.

Just think Shri krishna fighting a war. Everything would have been over in

frations of second and i guess all would have gained Moksha at that very

instant.

 

By fighting against their they were following the order of thier lord.

So i think even by fighting on the side of Adharma they were still

following dharma.

 

 

On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Anand Natarajan wrote:

> "Anand Natarajan" <anandn

>

>

> Namaste,

>

> I wish to know (if possible), the reasons why Bhagavan Krishna

did the following.

>

> 1. He did not fight the Mahabharatha war whereas almost every other king in

Bharatha fought on either of the two sides. Sri Krishna could have still given

the Bhagavad Gita as a warrior. Why did he make this choice?

>

> 2. Why did he give his army to the side of Kauravas. Is that not aiding the

forces of adharma ? Even looking from the point of view of the soldiers of

Dwaraka , that must seem a strange order, that they have to fight against

their Lord.

>

> I dont find explanations to these questions anywhere. Could someone give

some reasons ?

>

> Regards,

> Anand

>

[Guest guest]

namaste,

 

Please give one example of his answer to a question 'Why'.

 

Even Arjuna asks in the Gita: 11:31

 

aakhyaahi me ko bhavanugraruupo

namo.astu te devavara prasiida .

vij~naatumichchhaami bhavantamaadyam.h

na hi prajaanaami tava pravR^ittim.h ..

 

Tell me who Thou art with form so terrible.

Salutation to Thee, O Thou Great Godhead, have mercy.

I wish to know who Thou art, the Primal One,

For I know not Thy working. [Tr. S. Radhakrishnan.]

 

Krishna's answer is in the very next verse: 11:32.

 

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

>"Anand Natarajan" <anandn

>advaitin

>advaitin

>Re: Question on Sri Krishna's action

>Fri, 11 Feb 2000 06:41:49 -0800

>

>

>On the contrary , if Sri Ramana was asked a question based on something

>said in a scripture he had read, he would definitely try to give a reply in

>accordance with the question. You can find instances like this in Day by

>Day or Talks with Ramana Maharshi .

>There is nothing wrong in discussions pertaining to the Lord, for it helps

>you think of Him.

>

>Regards,

> Anand

>

>

>On Fri, 11 Feb 2000 05:21:04 Sunder Hattangadi wrote:

>

> >Sri Ramana Maharshi's invariable answer to questions of "Why" was to

> >guide the seeker towards search for the Self, and the question would be

> >answered! One does not look for causes for events one experiences in

>one's

> >dreams, he used to say! Every effort that did not meet that test of

>'aatma -

> >anaatma - viveka' is destined to failure. This 'maayaa'/illusion is

> >"anirvachaniiya", beyond the grasp of intellect. If this discussion

>serves

> >that purpose, then it is worth it.

>

>

>

>

>A FREE web-based e-mail service brought to you by the PC World Technology

>Network.

>Get your FREE account today at http://www.myworldmail.com

 

____

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

namaste,

 

I shall NEVER presume anybody to make false claims. The two episodes

you mention are in the book Talks with Maharshi.

 

The first question is by Maj.Chadwick (who later became a foremost

resident 'disciple'). The answer appears quite uncharacteristic of Maharshi,

when he says 'possible'; it was only to assuage the questioner's curiosity.

Maharshi's statements were characterised by certainty ALWAYS.

 

The second episode does not even involve a question from anybody. He

was reading an anecdote from Shiva Purana, to illustrate Shiva's respect for

Rama, and its spiritual meaning to explain to Parvati.

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

>"Anand Natarajan" <anandn

>advaitin

>advaitin

>Re: Question on Sri Krishna's action

>Fri, 11 Feb 2000 08:47:06 -0800

>

>

>Ok. Here are two. I am not making false claims if that is the purpose of

>your question.

>

>A Western devotee asks Why did Christ cry out from the cross to his Father

>as to why He had left Him .

>Sri Bhagavan replied "It is possible he was talking on behalf of the two

>theives who were crucified with Him ".

>

>On Sri Ramachandra crying out "O Sita , O Sita " when Mata Sita was

>abducted ,

>Sri Ramana quotes a story from the Siva puranam in which Parvati Devi tests

>Sri Rama and proves to Herself that He is a Jnani.

>

>The answers of saints always depends on the person who was making the

>question. If the purpose was just for the sake of argument or literary

>knowledge , then Sri Ramana would direct the seeker to the Self.

>

>Anand

>

>

>On Fri, 11 Feb 2000 07:01:51 Sunder Hattangadi wrote:

>

> >Please give one example of his answer to a question 'Why'.

>

>

>A FREE web-based e-mail service brought to you by the PC World Technology

>Network.

>Get your FREE account today at http://www.myworldmail.com

 

____

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Anand Natarajan wrote:

> "Anand Natarajan" <anandn

>

>

> Namaste,

>

> I wish to know (if possible), the reasons why Bhagavan Krishna

did the following.

>

> 1. He did not fight the Mahabharatha war whereas almost every other king in

Bharatha fought on either of the two sides. Sri Krishna could have still given

the Bhagavad Gita as a warrior. Why did he make this choice?

>

> 2. Why did he give his army to the side of Kauravas. Is that not aiding the

forces of adharma ? Even looking from the point of view of the soldiers of

Dwaraka , that must seem a strange order, that they have to fight against their

Lord.

>

> I dont find explanations to these questions anywhere. Could someone give some

reasons ?

>

> Regards,

> Anand

>

>

 

 

namaste.

 

Although I have not seen this question answered anywhere, I think

I will have a go at it.

 

I think in the whole itihAsa called 'mahAbhArata', bhagavadgItA (BG)

is the main topic or subject and the rest of the story before BG and

after BG is only a setting to make the narration of BG more interesting.

In that scenario, Krishna is not to involve in the actual war. If He is

a participant in the war, the message of BG will be diluted and the

message would not last on the masses for so long as it did. Let us

look at the alternatives:

 

1. Krishna will not participate in the war (the thing that happened

as per the story). Krishna narrates BG message to the world,

the message lasts for eternity coming from a non-participant

in the war.

 

2. Krishna will participate on the pANDava side. While the people

on the justice side will emerge victorious, Krishna will not

have the great moral setting of the actual BG and the message

will not be as emphatic as in case 1

 

3. Krishna participates on the kaurava side. This is unthinkable

and sends a wrong message. There will be no BG.

 

As for Krishna's army, it is only natural that they participate

on the kaurava side. There has to be a semblance of impartiality

to be exhibited (not to the war participants) but to the readers

of the itihAsa. Krishna, even though He does not participate in

the war, is on the pANDava side. For show of equilibrium, he

has to donate his army to the kaurava side.

 

That is the only way in which the message of the bhagavadgItA

can be delivered.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

On the contrary , if Sri Ramana was asked a question based on something said in

a scripture he had read, he would definitely try to give a reply in accordance

with the question. You can find instances like this in Day by Day or Talks with

Ramana Maharshi .

There is nothing wrong in discussions pertaining to the Lord, for it helps you

think of Him.

 

Regards,

Anand

 

 

On Fri, 11 Feb 2000 05:21:04 Sunder Hattangadi wrote:

>Sri Ramana Maharshi's invariable answer to questions of "Why" was to

>guide the seeker towards search for the Self, and the question would be

>answered! One does not look for causes for events one experiences in one's

>dreams, he used to say! Every effort that did not meet that test of 'aatma -

>anaatma - viveka' is destined to failure. This 'maayaa'/illusion is

>"anirvachaniiya", beyond the grasp of intellect. If this discussion serves

>that purpose, then it is worth it.

 

 

 

 

A FREE web-based e-mail service brought to you by the PC World Technology

Network.

Get your FREE account today at http://www.myworldmail.com

[Guest guest]

Namaskar:

 

Characters and events in epics such as Ramayan and Mahabharath are

symbolic. The epics contain beautiful stories to teach Hindu Dharma and

philosophy through the characters and events. If we explore the

characters and events of these epics carefully, we can discover the

hidden treasures that are not visible to the naked eyes.

 

Similar questions have been raised about Rama's actions in several

incidents:

Why did Rama kill Vali by hiding behind the tree? Was he coward?

Why did Rama send Sita to the forest when she was pregnant? Was he

cruel?

 

The best person who can answer these questions is Rama himself! If I

want to answer this question, I should have a very clear comprehension

of the virtues and limitations of Rama. Most of the time, we seem to

understand the actions and incidents related to others from our point of

view. As Gummuluru said in his excellent article, we need to transfer

our personality before making our judgment. Dharma is not constant and

is subject to a change by Time, Knowledge and Circumstances

(beliefs). If we believe that Rama represents the ‘Man of

Perfection,' then our questions should be as follows:

What Adharma did Vali commit that resulted in his killing by Rama?

What Circumstances were responsible for Rama to send his beloved wife

Sita to forest?

The story of Ramayana explains beautifully that Rama is the embodiment

of "unselfishness."

The man of perfection has no choice but to act appropriately without any

selfish desire!

 

In Mahabharat, Krishna, the knower of the Truth has only one choice!

The rest of us live in the world of duality and we want to analyze His

character using multiple choice. Any answer that we derive is not likely

unique! That shows our limitation. Both Dhryodhana and Arjuna had a

choice between - entire army of Krishna and the unarmed Krishna.

According to the story, both the parties were pleased with their

choices. This again reminds the puzzle between fate and free-will.

> Krishna's point of view there was no choice because he knew the

outcome! Both Arjuna and Dhryodhana had the illusion of the free-will

and they exercised it! Did they really!!

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

Ramji,

 

Granted that the epics are full of treasures. However I prefer to think of them

as actual historical happening rather than allegorical or symbolic. I look upon

the Mahabharatha as something that happened and Sri Krishna as some one who

actually lived.

 

Anand

 

 

On Fri, 11 Feb 2000 11:02:21 Ram Chandran wrote:

>Characters and events in epics such as Ramayan and Mahabharath are

>symbolic. The epics contain beautiful stories to teach Hindu Dharma and

>philosophy through the characters and events. If we explore the

>characters and events of these epics carefully, we can discover the

>hidden treasures that are not visible to the naked eyes.

 

 

A FREE web-based e-mail service brought to you by the PC World Technology

Network.

Get your FREE account today at http://www.myworldmail.com

[Guest guest]

Ok. Here are two. I am not making false claims if that is the purpose of your

question.

 

A Western devotee asks Why did Christ cry out from the cross to his Father as to

why He had left Him .

Sri Bhagavan replied "It is possible he was talking on behalf of the two theives

who were crucified with Him ".

 

On Sri Ramachandra crying out "O Sita , O Sita " when Mata Sita was abducted ,

Sri Ramana quotes a story from the Siva puranam in which Parvati Devi tests Sri

Rama and proves to Herself that He is a Jnani.

 

The answers of saints always depends on the person who was making the question.

If the purpose was just for the sake of argument or literary knowledge , then

Sri Ramana would direct the seeker to the Self.

 

Anand

 

 

On Fri, 11 Feb 2000 07:01:51 Sunder Hattangadi wrote:

>Please give one example of his answer to a question 'Why'.

 

 

A FREE web-based e-mail service brought to you by the PC World Technology

Network.

Get your FREE account today at http://www.myworldmail.com

[Guest guest]

At 08:34 AM 2/11/00 -0800, you wrote:

>"Anand Natarajan" <anandn

>

>

>Ramji,

>

>Granted that the epics are full of treasures. However I prefer to think of

them as actual historical happening rather than allegorical or symbolic. I

look upon the Mahabharatha as something that happened and Sri Krishna as

some one who actually lived.

>

>Anand

>

Dear Anand,

 

Let us analyze the possibilities. Let us see what are the strengths before

Krishna and his yadavasena (krishna's army) entered and joined either side:-

 

Kauravas:

Objective of the War: Grab the kingdom by what ever means

Strengths: Large number of army, commendered by great warriors like

Bhishma, Drona and others.

 

Pandavas:

Objective of the War: Kill the wicked. Get back what is rightfully belong

to them. (dharma)

Strengths: Rightuosness. Limited number of warriors, though valarous.

 

 

DURYODHANA'S MIND: Duryodhana never considered Krishna as a warrior. He

always tried to demean Krishna when ever he got a chance. Actually,

approaching Krishna for help is also not his choice, he went to see Krishna

just to pacify Drona, Bhishma and other elders of his family. He is sure,

that with the Strength of the army that he already possess he could crush

Pandavas beyond defeat!...

 

KRISHNA's MIND: He always was there to save Pandavas. There to save the

rightuous. He knows that Pandavas are cheated. He felt that they should

fight the war so that Pandavas can win back their land. He also knows that

before the war, both parties would approach him for help. As a personal

choice, he wanted to be with Pandavas. He is confident that even though he

doesnt fight, Pandavas can win the war... He has to find a POLITICAL

excuse, which will not hurt Kauravas mind. So he did choose to set a

boobytrap! And invited Duryodhana in to it... He offered his 10,000 army

who are equal to him in *Physical* fighting skills at one side, and he

offered himself to be on the other side with out fighting. There is

another reason for doing this, he wanted to show that he is equal to both

sides! If he didn't offer his Army then Duryodhana would have asked for

him... If he refused to go with Kaurava army, then Bhishma,Drona and other

great warriars would have excused themselves saying that --- "if Krishna

didn't want to fight then we don't want to fight. He is always right in

his thinking." In that case, the war couldn't have taken place at all.

Which means, prolonged suffering for Pandavas... Obviously, this is not

what Krishna wants, he wants to finalize the issue through war. That is

why he did it this way.

 

As expected by Krishna, Duryodhana fell flat for this. He thought, if

Krishna doesn't fight then there is no use in asking for him. He thought,

Quantity is always important in winning a war! So he did choose Krishna's

army, in stead of Krishna.

 

You know the outcome :-)

 

-Madhava "There is a lot to learn from Krishna's politics" Turumella

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

>On Fri, 11 Feb 2000 11:02:21 Ram Chandran wrote:

>

>>Characters and events in epics such as Ramayan and Mahabharath are

>>symbolic. The epics contain beautiful stories to teach Hindu Dharma and

>>philosophy through the characters and events. If we explore the

>>characters and events of these epics carefully, we can discover the

>>hidden treasures that are not visible to the naked eyes.

>

>

>A FREE web-based e-mail service brought to you by the PC World Technology

Network.

>Get your FREE account today at http://www.myworldmail.com

>

>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>

>Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa. ZERO. Rates as low as 0

>percent Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR, online balance transfers,

>Rewards Points, no hidden fees, and much more! Get NextCard today and

>get the credit you deserve. Apply now. Get your NextCard Visa at

><a href=" http://clickme./ad/NextcardCreative3 ">Click Here</a>

>

>------

>

>Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. Searchable List Archives

are available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ Contact Email

Address: advaitins

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

namaste,

 

Well said , indeed!

 

This is in fact the essence of the very last verse of the Gita!!

 

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

 

>"Ruben" <rubenn

>advaitin

>advaitin

> Re: Question on Sri Krishna's action

>Sat, 12 Feb 2000 09:51:36 +0800

 

>

>We needn't protect the dharmic folk. We only need to protect dharma

>and dharma will protect both us and the dharmic folk.

>

>

>--

>Warmest regards,

>Ruben

>rubenn

>_____________

>StudyCircle: Mailing List on multifaith religion & spirituality

>see http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/9261/studycircle/

 

____

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Dear Anand:

 

I do not deny the historical relevance of Ramayana and Mahabharat. The context

of history arises due to intellectual curiosity. The spiritual seekers want to

go beyond the intellect to find the answers. However, I do not want to undermine

your valid question and let me try to answer from what I understood from

Mahabharat. Each warrior in Mahabharat possessed a specialized weapon. Lord

Krishna's weapon is the famous "Chakra - actually it is known as DharmaChakra."

When Lord Krishna releases the Chakra, it has the capacity to destroy all those

who supported Adharma. When Krishna went to see Dhryodhana as a messenger of

Pandavas, he insulted Krishna and at that time he was angry and about to release

the Chakra. However, he wanted to maintain the Dharma of the messenger and

controlled his anger. After that incident, Krishna decided not use the Chakra

against Dhryodhana. Krishna also knew that the Pandavas had taken a oath to

kill the Kauravas for the injustice committed to Panchali (Dharupadi).

 

The preservation of Hindu Dharma was also part of the history especially at the

time of Ramayana and Mahabharat. Avatars (reincarnations) of Vishnu happened at

different points of time if look at it from the historical point of view. The

purpose of Krishna Avatar and the role of Krishna in Mahabharath is mainly to

destroy the evil (dharma) to restore good (dharma). Every action that Krishna

undertakes should meet the higher standards of Dharma and consequently Krishna

has to treat Kauravas and Pandavas equal since they are blood related. Also,

Balarama (Krishna's elder brother) was very particular that the Yadavas should

be neutral. This may explain why Balarama never participated in the Mahabharat

war.

 

In conclusion, Krishna gave the two options - the spiritual support of Krishna

and the material support of Yadava's Army belonging to Balarama and Krishna.

The spiritual seeker Arjuna chose the spiritual support and the material seeker

took the army. Interestingly, both of them were extremely satisfied by their

choices! The Vedic history of India constantly reminds us that we have freedom

to choose how we want to lead our life; but there are inevitable consequences to

our choice! When we penetrate our thinking beyond the historical point of view,

we can liberate from choices and also consequences!

regards,

 

Ram chandran

>"Anand Natarajan" <anandn

>Ramji,

>

>Granted that the epics are full of treasures. However I prefer to think of them

as actual historical happening rather than allegorical or symbolic. I look upon

the Mahabharatha as something that happened and Sri Krishna as some one who

actually lived.

>

>Anand

[Guest guest]

Once My Pujya Gurudev showed some of his disciples Shri Krishna preaching

Bhagvad Gita to Arjuna. They were just spell bound. Energy can neither be

created nor be destroyed.

 

 

On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Anand Natarajan wrote:

> "Anand Natarajan" <anandn

>

>

> Ramji,

>

> Granted that the epics are full of treasures. However I prefer to think of

them as actual historical happening rather than allegorical or symbolic. I look

upon the Mahabharatha as something that happened and Sri Krishna as some one who

actually lived.

>

> Anand

>

>

> On Fri, 11 Feb 2000 11:02:21 Ram Chandran wrote:

>

> >Characters and events in epics such as Ramayan and Mahabharath are

> >symbolic. The epics contain beautiful stories to teach Hindu Dharma and

> >philosophy through the characters and events. If we explore the

> >characters and events of these epics carefully, we can discover the

> >hidden treasures that are not visible to the naked eyes.

>

>

> A FREE web-based e-mail service brought to you by the PC World Technology

Network.

> Get your FREE account today at http://www.myworldmail.com

>

> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>

> Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa. ZERO. Rates as low as 0

> percent Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR, online balance transfers,

> Rewards Points, no hidden fees, and much more! Get NextCard today and

> get the credit you deserve. Apply now. Get your NextCard Visa at

> <a href=" http://clickme./ad/NextcardCreative3 ">Click Here</a>

>

> ------

>

> Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. Searchable List Archives are

available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ Contact Email Address:

advaitins

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thank you for all the answers that you gave me. Swami Ramkrishnananda in

his book Sri Krishna , pastoral and kingmaker says that when the playful Sri

Krishna of Brindavan jumped into the river Yamuna (on his way to Mathura) he

rose up no more. But in His place rose the Sri Krishna, politician and kingmaker

, the protector of the righteous and one of the greatest orators the world has

known. Madhavji brought out all these qualities of Sri Krishna.

Swami Vivekananda commented that each prophet was a living embodiment of His own

teachings. So I guess to understand the Gita , one must understand the actions

of Sri Krishna.

 

Sincerely,

Anand

 

 

 

A FREE web-based e-mail service brought to you by the PC World Technology

Network.

Get your FREE account today at http://www.myworldmail.com

[Guest guest]

Anand Natarajan wrote:

> 1. He did not fight the Mahabharatha war whereas almost every other king

> in Bharatha fought on either of the two sides. Sri Krishna could have

> still given the Bhagavad Gita as a warrior. Why did he make this choice?

 

It is very difficult to understand the actions of the Lord.

 

Firstly, those who got killed by the Lord attained moksha, therefore,

not all deserved moksha. (e.g. Sishupala was killed by Krishna)

Warrior heavan and moksha are different. Warrior heavan is temporary

(See BG 9.20-21).

 

Secondly, it is unfair if the Lord fought for either side as we all know He

would be very victorious, if he were to fight His best knowing the

prowess of Krishna as a fighter. He also wanted to teach the world that

the dharmic forces eventhough small in number and lacking the Lord

as a fighter on their side could still win due to the adherance to dharma.

 

Thirdly, only due to Arjuna's weakness of the mind and his surrender of

will to the Lord, Krishna gave the Bhagavad Gita. Krishna as his

charioteer, strategically drove him to his relatives, friends and gurus

amongst the enemies' army at the start of the war instead of taking

him elsewhere. This was His tactic to make Arjuna experience mental

frailty due to attachments, which eventually brought the Bhagavad Gita

to the world. He could not of done this if He was not Arjuna's charioteer

and a charioteer doesn't fight. If He never drove Arjuna to his relatives

and gurus, surely, Arjuna wouldn't of experienced weakness of the

mind!

 

Fourthly, He was strong in His stand as a mediator of peace earlier

and not participating in the war reflects this.

> 2. Why did he give his army to the side of Kauravas. Is that not aiding

> the forces of adharma ? Even looking from the point of view of the

> soldiers of Dwaraka , that must seem a strange order, that they have to

> fight against their Lord.

 

Bheeshma, Drona and Karna fought for the Kauravas, eventhough they

knew that the Kauravas were adharmic. This is because they were

practising their own dharma or svadharma of loyalty to the kingdom

and sovereignty that provided them food, shelter and power. This

especially applies to Karna's loyalty to Duryodhana considering the

fact that Karna knew that the Pandavas were his brothers. By

performing their own dharmas dutifully, they attained moksha.

 

Similarly, Krishna was not protected by either side and He needn't

show loyalty to either one. Since both asked Him for His favour at the

same time, He gave them a choice of choosing either Him or His army.

They actively made the choice. He did not make those choices.

Furthermore, it was Arjuna who got to make his choice first.

 

Krishna portrayed the fine example of being impartial since Arjuna was

His bosom friend and brother-in-law. Furthermore, the Kauravas once

tried to kill Krishna.

 

Also, through these, He portrayed some lessons to the world:

 

1) Dharma protects those who protect dharma. Pandavas although

small in number compared to the Kauravas could defeat them.

 

2) Even if the odds seem impossible, those who have the Lord on their

side (surrendered to the Lord) will definitely win.

 

3) Krishna's forces fought for the Kauravas with full force even if their

Lord was on their enemy's side showing the world that they were

dharmic and followed their Lord's commands.

 

4) Krishna did not show an emotion nor shed a tear when Arjuna killed

Krishna's own sons who fought against Arjuna. This was a tactic

employed by Duryodhana who purposely sent Krishna's sons against

Arjuna to weaken Krishna. Krishna earlier preached to Arjuna that the

AtmA can never die (in the Bhagavad Gita) and told Arjuna not to

mourn over the death of Arjuna's son, Abhimanyu due to this. Arjuna

had forgotten His Discourse, but He set an example.

 

Lastly, at the bare minimum, we need not think whether our actions

side the dharmic or the adharmic folk. All we need to think is whether

our own actions (thoughts, words and deeds) are themselves dharmic

or not. That is the only important thing. When the action is dharmic,

then we can think whether we are siding the dharmic.

 

Bheeshma, Drona and Karna were all dharmic eventhough they fought

for the adharmic side. That is the most important thing. The same

applies to Vikarna.

 

We needn't protect the dharmic folk. We only need to protect dharma

and dharma will protect both us and the dharmic folk.

 

 

--

Warmest regards,

Ruben

rubenn

_____________

StudyCircle: Mailing List on multifaith religion & spirituality

see http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/9261/studycircle/