Bagavad Gita

 Gandhari chose to blindfold herself because her husband was blind. Why did she marry him in the first place?

Bhishma played a significant role in this. He was acutely aware of the need to continue the Kuru dynasty though he had sacrificed his claim and chose bachelorhood to foreclose future claims from his descendants. Bhishma wanted to ensure that Dhritharashtra would have a male progeny. He set about solving this problem in a scientific way. Define the goal, constraints and alternatives and arrive at an optimal solution.

Bhishma worked out his problem as follows:

 Objective: to find a life partner for Dhritharashtra.

Constraints: 1) She must be a princess.

2)She must not know his blindness before marriage

3) She must deliver a male progeny without fail.

The constraints were daunting. Bhishma did not give up. He came up with a solution that satisfied all the constraints. After considering many princesses, he zeroed in on Gandhari in a way any problem-solver would admire.

Gandhari was a princess of a kingdom called Gandhar. It was a place in present day Afghanistan. Every place has a unique feature. The feature may not be praiseworthy. Afghanistan was and is a place where women do not enjoy equal freedom with men. Those were the days when, in other parts of Bharat, women chose their husbands through Swayamwara. Elopement was not unknown. (Rukmini and Krishna.) How to ensure that the would-be wife would not know the groom's blindness? Afghanistan provided the answer.

Gandhari was a stoic lady who discovered her husband's blindness only after marriage. The epic brings out all human qualities. We may not admire all qualities. But knowing about them is educative. How to satisfy the third constraint? This is where Bhishma's knowledge stood out. He knew that Gandhari had obtained a boon from Lord Shiva that she would beget 100 sons. Bhishma was confident that this was enough of a guarantee to ensure continuation of the Kuru dynasty.

Gandhari was totally devoted to her husband. This gave her enormous spiritual powers. Whoever she looked at with affection would become enormously powerful. She wanted to have one look at her eldest son, Duryodana. Krishna knew this and arranged for this exceptional meet between mother and son. He also made sure that Duryodana had a large loinscloth when the fleeting meeting took place. The consequence was that Duryodana became very strong ; his body could withstand any attack in warfare; his thighs were covered and so his thighs became his Achilles heel. This was exploited by Krishna and he advised the Pandavas at the right time how to get rid of Duryodana.

Bagavad Gita (contd)

 In the sixth verse, Duryodana completes his enumeration of warriors on the Pandava side. He ends with reference to "Draupadi's" five sons. Just like the first reference namely 'Saatyaki', this last one also is significant. The mention of 'Saatyaki' was supposed to kindle hatred for Arjuna in Drona's mind. Reference to Draupadi's sons is the outcome of Duryodana's obsessive thought about her. It is an exposure of his revengeful thought.

Duryodana was insulted by Draupadi on an earlier occasion. (This is supposed by some to be a later day addition to Mahabharata and not in the original. The original itself is too voluminous for our comprehension!)

Duryodana was visiting the place of Pandavas. The assembly hall was astoundingly resplendent. As Duryodana was taking in its luxury, he mistook a lake of water for crystal floor, slipped and got wet. Bhima saw this and laughed aloud. Draupadi was not there. But Duryodana imagined she was there and that she also made fun of him. He took it as an insult. (Some of us have a need to feel insulted.) Duryodana wanted to avenge this insult. What better way than to kill her sons! So he specifically mentioned their names so that Drona would remember to do away with them. During the war, Aswatthama, Drona's son, killed them while they were asleep.

In life, we come across many imaginary situations perceived as insults misleading us to adharmic acts.

Bagavad Gita (contd)

Sanjaya continues to inform Dhritharashtra what  Duryodana is haranguing / pleading with Drona. Duryodana is intent on defeating the Pandava forces by hook or by crook. He has not realised that for every hook of his, Krishna has a more effective hook. He is under the delusion that he is up against Arjuna. The fact is that he is pitted against Krishna, the invincible. Earlier we discussed the metaphorical interpretation of Sanjaya's ability to see what is invisible to others. There is also an episode to continue the non-metaphorical narrative.

Vyasa offers to provide his son, Dhritharashtra the Divya Dhrishti (Divine Vision) to enable him to see what is happening in the battlefield. The son spontaneously rejects the offer but requests that it be provided to Sanjaya. Why is it that the blind Dhritharashtra does not want to see the battle? If he was confident about his son's victory, he would have seized the divine opportunity. Did something tell him that things would not go his son's way? The father's scepticism was matched by the son's anxiety. Yet, they would continue the war. Such is the misleading power of greed and spite.

Could Vyasa not persuade his son to advise his son to give up the suicidal path? There is a clue available in the literal meaning of the word , Vyasa. Vyasa means 'classifier' or 'divider' or analyst. He classified the Vedas in to 4 parts and thus earned the name Veda Vyasa. For good decisions, one has to analyse and then synthesise to arrive at an optimal solution. Vyasa could only analyse and then leave the decision to the other party.

Vyasa is gifted with Divya Dhrishti permanently. (He is also immortal, a Chiranjeevi.) He could also provide this gift to others, but for only a limited time. Is it not ironic that a person endowed with such a grand vision fathered a son who was born blind? (This gives rise to a Tamil proverb, "A teacher's son is a fool",)

Divya Dhristi can also see what is happening in people's minds, the present and also the past events. Thus Vyasa was able to bring before him the past events so that he could chronicle them correctly.

Dhritharashtra's wife, Gandhari, blindfolded herself after her marriage as she did not want to witness what her husband could not see. If Dhritharashtra had accepted the Divine Vision, Gandhari would have removed her blindfold and she too would have been told about the carnage involving the deaths of their sons, then and there. Did the husband want to protect the wife from this worst tragedy that could ever visit a mother?

Bagavad Gita (contd.)

 Why did Duryodana mention the name of Drupada's son while addressing Drona? This is a lesson in the art of advocacy! Duryodana wanted to arouse the base instincts of hostility in Drona's mind. What is a more effective tool for this than to invite attention to past enmity? Drona and Drupada were once classmates and thick friends. The friendship was so strong that Drupada promised Drona that he would give one half of his kingdom to Drona in future. Drona forgot all this till an occasion arose. Drona was satisfied with a penurious life. His son, Aswatthama was a friend of Duryodana; they were playmates too. One day, Duryodana told Aswatthama that he liked milk which he drank every day. Aswatthama had not seen milk till then and so he asked his parents to give him milk. Love for one's children changes the direction of many lives. Drona was now caught in this spiral. He remembered Drupada's promise. He went to Drupada who was now king. When Drona reminded Drupada his assurance, Drupada was upset. "We are not equals now and therefore we are not friends now. A king that I am cannot share his wealth with a commoner that you are. Don't live in the past." Thus Drupada repudiated his own promise. Had Drona asked for milk or for a cow, Drupada would have readily obliged. But the eagerness to satisfy one's child's desire blinds some people to reality. Drona returned home disappointed. Later on, Drona avenged Drupada's letdown by capturing his kingdom through Arjuna and went on to ensure his death in the Kurukshetra battle. Drona's animosity to Drupada was leveraged by Duryodana to remind him of the past when reference was made to Dhrishtadumna, Drupada's son. Duryodana was an intelligent administrator but bitterness towards cousins and resultant greed (or was it vice versa?) caused his downfall.

Bhima and Arjuna are among the Pandavas. There is no surprise they are in the battle field. Duryodana names Yuyudhana alias Saatyaki first; this is with a view to poison Drona's mind a little more. Yuyudhana was in Krishna's forces. As Krishna had agreed, he must be in the Kaurava army. But he is not. Why? Has Krishna violated his own word? No. There is a rule that a disciple should not fight one's guru. Yuyudhana  was trained in warfare by Arjuna. So there was nothing wrong in his supporting Arjuna. Here we find one dharmic principle (fulfilment of Krishna's promise) in contradiction to another (disciple standing by the guru). There are many such tradeoffs in Mahabharata. The subtle way in which such quandaries are resolved in this epic makes interesting reading. Duryodana seems to tell Drona, "Your disciple Arjuna is battling you; contrarily Arjuna's disciple is with him. You are wronged." This is to create malice and hatred in Drona's mind against Arjuna.

There is a saying that there is nothing that happens in the world that is not in the Mahabharata.

Bagavad Gita

 Sarvam SriKrishnarpanam!

There is a metaphorical explanation for a blind person asking his aide to tell him what happens in a place that the latter also does not see. Sanjaya means a person who has conquered himself / his senses. So if we are self-controlled, we can do what normal people cannot.

The meanings of most verses are recondite and multiple. One can dig as much as one has either patience or interest for. Time and temperament to understand will be the constraints. Sometimes reading a couple or more verses together will be more meaningful. For example, the second verse and the third make a unified pair.

Prima-facie, the third verse reads like a bland statement from Duryodana to Drona. If we relate this statement to some past events, more meanings emerge. After Krishna's mediation efforts ended, Krishna was taking rest, pretending to be asleep. Duryodana goes to Krishna to probe his mind and seats himself near Krishna's face. Arjuna comes later and stands near Krishna's feet. One person's hubris and the other's humility are demonstrated by these acts. Krishna 'wakes up' and looks at Arjuna first and enquires what he wants. Duryodana interrupts and tells Krishna that he came first and therefore he is entitled to be heard first. Krishna now poses a question to Duryodana. "Now that the war is certain, do you want me or my armed forces with you?" This appears to be a no-brainer to Duryodana who settles for the armed forces. This is why Krishna unhesitatingly came on the Pandava side. Now back to Duryodana's bland statement. This betrays envy, taunt, anger and trepidation. Drona was the Acharya to both Pandavas and Kauravas. His favourite student was Arjuna. Duryodana calls the Pandava army mighty. Actually it was much smaller than his own because Krishna's forces were with him as he had already arranged with Krishna. Despite his superiority in numbers, Duryodana develops cold feet and becomes fearful. This is what happens when one is unjust. Duryodana taunts Drona pointing out his partiality towards Arjuna. Duryodana is envious that Drona had perhaps taught better skills to Arjuna against whom he has to fight. So Duryodana refers to 'your wise disciple'.

Rahul Gandhi's shibboleth

Rahul Gandhi who will be our next prime minister, if we are 'lucky', has expounded a new theory. "If I get married and if I get children, I will only be a status-quoist. I will only try to make my children take my position. Therefore, I will not get married." He is clairvoyant enough to foresee that his children will be the next generation of congress netas.

With just a few sentences, Rahulji has demolished the institution of marriage. He says he does not want to give up the task of reforming the party and hence no marriage for him. Have you ever come across a married person who is also a reformer? Atleast our leader has not.

Sadly, he does not want to be prime minister also. He has started talking about 'nishkama karma' and Bagavad Gita also. The essence of the Gita is that one need not renounce family in order to be of service to society. A leader should set up a good example because a lot of people will follow what he does. There should be consistency among what one thinks, says and does. Vagabondism and hypocritical altruism are not desirable qualities.

Supreme Court on arrogance

As widely reported in the media, a Bench of Justices Dalveer Bhandari and A.K.Patnaik of the Supreme Court has spoken against arrogance in official duty. The Court said, "People in power and authority should not easily lose equanimity, composure and appreciation of the problems of the lesser mortals."

Every culture of every age condemns arrogance. An Arabian proverb says, "Arrogance diminishes wisdom." Mark Twain calls arrogance, pride, vanity and ostentation as the offspring of riches.

Nietzsche was his usual enigmatic self when he opined that "arrogance on the part of the meritorious is even more offensive to us than the arrogance of those without nerit as merit itself is offensive". Frank Lloyd Wright had to choose between honest arrogance and hypocritical humility and he chose the former.

Bhagavad Gita enumerates in Chapter XII, slokas 13 to 19 the qualities necessary for practitioners of Karma Yoga. They are : absence of hatred, freedom from egotism, even-mindedness towards pleasures and pain, contentment, mind-control, freedom from exultation, intolerance, consternation and repulsion, non-abhorrence of people, purity and efficiency, absence of grief and longings, desirelessness for home and lands, equanimity of mind etc.

If only we were able to follow such noble ideas !

Public arguments

Public arguments among the well-known are becoming more frequent. For example, a sitting judge of the Karnataka High Court, Mr.Shailendra Kumar recently openly contested the authority of the Chief Justice of India to represent the views of all judges. CJI in turn snubbed him as publicity-crazy. Open discussions are welcome, but the bitterness evident in some arguments is eminently avoidable.
Now comes Mr.Homi Sethna's outburst against Mr.Kalam, former President who had earlier endorsed the success of Pokhran atomic test. This debate has been triggered by Mr.K.Santhanam, a former DRDO scientist who once again questioned the success of the test. While endorsing Mr.Santhanam's views, Mr.Sethna argued, "Mr.Kalam was not a scientist and Mr.Santhanam is a phycisist and he knew what he was talking. What does Mr.Kalam understand about physics? What did he know about extracting, making explosive grade? He did not know a thing. By being a President, he appeared to wear the stature. He relied on atomic energy to gain additional stature."
Mr.Sethna may be correct in his views regarding the atomic test. The tenor of arguments reminds us of what Krishna says in the Bagavad Gita, chapter 10, stanza 33. He says,"Among those who debate, I am Vaada i.e. the open-minded discussion for determining the truth." It is said that there are three types of debates -- jalpa, vitandaa and vaada. Jalpa is a kind of debate in which both parties seek to establish their own view point and ignore the merits of the counter-view. In vitandaa, one party understands his view is demolished and yet takes up extraneous arguments, draws red herrings and insults the counter-view. Vaada is open-minded discussion wherein the only objective of the participants is to grasp the truth. Vaada is welcome; the other two formats are dysfunctional.

Misinterpretation of Bhagavad Gita {II}

That Mr.BS Raghavan's interpretation is skewed becomes more evident if we read Swami Ranganadananda's explanation. Says the Swami: "Everyone has his or her own dharma, or way of life and work and human relations. According to one's psychological disposition, a person has a particular bent of mind and work capacities. That is one's dharma. Sri Krishna says, better to die in one's own dharma, than to live in somebody else's dharma. That dharma is good for that person, this is good for you. Find out your own dharma based on your own mental disposition. Sreyaan svadharmo vigunah {this is how the 35th sloka begins}, 'even though one's own dharma is not of high quality, still it is the best for oneself'. This is a teaching based on the individual identity of every human being, like the individuality of one's thumb impression. Similarly, there is a psychic individuality. Let one respect it and not imitate somebody else."

It is obvious that the sloka contains excellent psychological insight and to say that it lends itself to devious interpretations betrays one's spiritual ignorance.

Misinterpretation of the Bhagavad Gita

Mr.B.S.Raghavan otherwise known for his erudite writings wrote as under in the Business Line dated 25th March:

"The Election Commission (EC) has decreed that he did. His political opponents have no doubt that he did. Even his cousin, Ms Priyanka Gandhi, seems to have assumed that he did, and even helpfully showed him a way out of the mess by asking him to read the Bhagavad Gita.
Incidentally, right here, I am obliged to point out that the advice can boomerang . In the Gita,as in most Hindu scriptures, one can find support for mutually contradicting precepts.

There is a sloka in the Gita, svadharme nidhanam shreyah pradharma bhayavaha, which can be roughly translated as “One had better perish by defending one’s own faith, because of the frightening nature of other faiths”! What other faiths, or ways of life, Lord Krishna had in view is unclear but a Hindu hardliner may well find in it sufficient inspiration for plugging Hindutva for all it is worth."
The author was referring to Varun Gandhi's hate speech against a community.The sloka from the Gita is the 35th in Chapter III. This chapter deals with Karma Yoga or The Path of Action. Dr.Jack Hawley in his book "The Bhagavad Gita : A Walkthrough for Westerners" interprets as follows:
" Krishna tells Arjuna :'You are a warrior-prince by birth and training.If you now try to avoid your duty and mutate into a sanyasi {spiritual ascetic} merely because you face doing some things that you imagine are painful, you will be violating your inner Truth {your conscience, your dharma}, which is the root basis of your life. It is even better to die doing one's own duty than attempt to do the duty of another.' " The western scholar has summarised the meaning rationally. For a similar but deeper understanding, reference to commentary by Shri Nampayal A.S.Iyengar is rewarding. Noting that the verse occurs in the chapter relating to Karma Yoga, his translation goes as follows:
"Better one's own dharma {karma yoga} without excellence {in non-essentials} than another's dharma well practised for some time.In one's own dharma {karma yoga} death is preferable. Another's dharma brings danger." Another's dharma here refers to jnana yoga for a warrior on the battle field.

The Gita, properly interpreted, is uplifting.Our ability to misinterpret is not Krishna's fault. It is better to follow a correct interpretation than to be a creative misinterpreter.

Manmohan Singh and Bhagavad Gita

Justifying India's vote on the Iran issue at theInternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),ManmohanSingh has sought to draw support from the BhagavadGita.He is supposed to have said "One has to do one'sduty unmindful of the consequences" as reported in TheHindu dated 2nd October.Has the prime ministermisinterpreted the 47th stanza of second chapter ofthe Gita? "Karmanyevaadhikaaraste maa phalesu kadaachana" isprobably the most quoted phrase of Bhagavad Gita.Itmeans:"Your right is to work only;but never to thefruits thereof."This does not mean that one must beblind to consequences of one's actions.This stanzaonly exhorts us not to be disappointed in case theexpected results fail to materialise.The Gita does notnegate the Newtonian logic that every action has anequal and opposite reaction.If one desires to preventa particular reaction,one should avoid the action thatleads to that reaction. The next stanza further elaborates the theme ofnon-attachment to rewards (as against'non-consideration of consequences').It says,"Performactions,abandoning attachment,remaining unconcerned asregards success or failure.This evenness of mind isknown as yoga.'Samatvam yoga ucyate'"(2.48)The Gitadoes not preclude consideration of possibleconsequences before commitment of action. The 50th stanza shows how misconceived Manmohan'sinterpretation is."Yogah karmasu kausalam."Thatis,"Yoga is efficiency in action."We can improveefficiency by increasing output or improving outcomefor the same level of input.Our action is theinput.Consequence or outcome is the output.The Gita'smessage is that through yoga,one can maximise outputor rather the expected output.In case the actualoutput is less than the expected output,we should notfeel disheartened,but should carry onnevertheless.Unless we make an upfront appraisal ofpossible outcomes of our various options regardingaction,we cannot improve ourefficiency.Therefore,Bhagavad Gita certainly enjoinsus to weigh,in advance,the consequences of our actionor 'look before we leap'.There is also the ethicalimperative that in case the consequences of our actionare harmful or unwelcome,we are not supposed toindulge in that action.The Gita does not advocatereckless action unmindful of consequences.Through yogawhich is defined as 'equanimity of mind' and'efficiency in action',we can ensure that ourbehaviour is positive and conducive to growth. Unless we are mindful of the likelyconsequences,our actions are likely to bevitiated.Acting unmindful of the consequences isirresponsible;on the other hand,acting without an eyeon the rewards is yogic.The two are worlds apart.Howcan one be mistaken for the other? Performance of duty oblivious of its consequencesis oxymoronic.Voluntary action that heraldsdeleterious consequences cannot be glorified asduty.Such an action is anarchic and cannot attract anyscriptural approval.It is foolhardy to suppose thatdisregard for consequences will result in righteousaction.One only hopes that Manmohan Singh did not meanwhat he said.The prime minister is expected to explainthe justification for our stand in IAEA instead ofdrawing a red herring through a sophisticmisinterpretation of Lord Krishna's utterances.