The Mahabharatha

[g0500052]

Hi,
Ya, it is true,that being on God's side is more important than being simply dharmic. The highest dharma is being on God's side. According to vedas, anything that appears to be valuable, actually has no value if it is not connected to God.
Krsna tells to Brahma in Bhagavat Purana:
SB 2.3.45 : O Brahmā, whatever appears to be of any value, if it is without relation to Me, has no reality. Know it as my illusory energy(maya)...

Both Karna (Karan) and Arjuna were virtues. But they together teach us the lesson that being good alone is not as important as being with Krsna(implies being good also). The highest dharma is to simply follow Krsna's instruction.

This is Krsna's final instruction in Bhagavad Gita:
Bg 18.66: Abandon all DHARMA and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.

There is also another episode in Mahabharat which teaches this point. During the battle once krsna asked Yudhistra to tell a lie. But initially Yudisthira hesitated on the basis of dharma(being truthful). For that hesitation Yudhistra had to suffer a moment in hell - because following Krsna's instruction is the ultimate dharma -greater than being "truthful".

The logic is, anything that we percieve as dharma is relative. That which maybe dharmic to one person may cause pain to others.  Only God knows what is ultimately good for everyone.

[Priya J]

Fate here can also mean karma. Therefore, it can also be Karna's past life karma that has made him in such a character as he is. Probably the story is an indication that even if the person is very good and virtuous, IF he is in a bad company, then he would also be destroyed in the end like his bad company.

What do you guys think?

~Priya~

[adityab88]

I like very much the reply by g0500052. I did not know that about Hinduism before.

"The logic is, anything that we percieve as dharma is relative. That which maybe dharmic to one person may cause pain to others.  Only God knows what is ultimately good for everyone."


This is very interesting/controversial. So we can do "bad" things (for example, telling a lie in Yudistr's case), and it will still be okay as long as we did what God wanted us to. This is worth noting! I thought Hinduism taught us about Dharma and Karma and that these were above everything else. Apparently not!

"This is Krsna's final instruction in Bhagavad Gita:
Bg 18.66: Abandon all DHARMA and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear."

I should really read the Gita in whole. I think I've missed a huge point somewhere ...


Yes, Priya, if the post by g0500052 is correct then it is true that if Karna was in bad company, then he would also be destroyed in the end like his bad company... REGARDLESS of how good Karna himself was.

Seems a little unfair, doesn't it? But hey, I never knew that about Hinduism before! Again, very very interesting!!!!!

[g0500052]

there is a past life story regarding karna is puranas. But I am not very sure of the validity of the story, as i have never read it personally...i have only heard about it.
U can read from here:
[hinduwiki.com/index.php?title=Nara_Narayana#The_Legend]
[i have heard a slightly different version too. Personally I dont believe in anything unless read it from proper source].

To see the justice in Krsna's act in killing Karna, consider the following:
Though Karna was great person, he was unable to stop Duryodana's evil acts. For example, when Duryodana wanted to disrobe Draupadi in public, Karna could not stop even this most henious act.  So to save the world from evil Duryodana, there is no other option but to defeat Karna. As for karna personally, krsna awarded him the greatest benediction of liberation from all miseries (moksha). The pleasure of moksha is "million" times greater than being a wining a battle and being a king.
So even though krsna's acts seems apparently unjust..in reality it was for the ultimate benefit for everyone i.e. 1) world was saved from evil Duryodana, 2) karna was awarded liberation beffiting his purity and faith on Krsna.

Similarly, many of Krsna act in Mahabarat appear to be bewildering. But ulitimately they are all meant for the benefit of all.

[Priya J]

Yes, I agree with Bala! But one thing that I do not like about Mahabharatha is that the God Himself, does all kinds of foul play to defeat the enemies. The ends He is trying to achieve is something good, but the means he uses are not! Why is HE portrayed like that?

Seems controversial. So we can do anything if God tells us to do it? This shouldn't be the idea we should put across to people. Very dangerous. I think there is a different interpretation for this. I'm not sure..

Karna was in such a dilemma when he had to choose between his friend who saved him from being humiliated and his mother's affection. He didn't want to betray the trust of his true friend, Dhuryodhana. At the same time, he wanted to do his duty to his mum. So he had to give the two boons she asked for.

But like Aditya said, it is a very sad story when it comes to Karnan. I feel like he's the real hero of the epic and not the pancha pandavargal.

Btw, I want to raise another point here and ask a question. I am in doubt with this and so is my friend. Did everyone who died in the battle at the end of the Mahabharatham attain liberation? As in, is there such a thing in our scriptures which says that if people who have fought in a battle would go to heaven? I don't think so right? Just a doubt I heard from somewhere.. Need to clarify this. Thanks! =)

~Priya~

[adityab88]

Priya, I am not so sure about your last question. My Hinduism is not that strong.

However, I liked one of your previous remarks about God taking an "unjust" way to achieve something good in the end. This raises a big question. Do the ends justify the means? What does Hinduism say about this?

haha, more questions for all of you ...

- Aditya

[g0500052]

Hi,
I think this is not controversial.

Dharma/principles should be applied properly according to the circumstances. For example, let?s say there is a drunkard who is chasing to kill an innocent and the innocent have taken shelter in your house. The drunkard asks you whether you know where is the person is or not? In this situation, what is better - to fanatically follow the principle that ?i will never lie? or to tell a lie and save a live?

Similarly there are many such circumstances. There is a verse in Thirukural[tamil scripture] which says that a lie told for the overall benefit is not to be considered as lie [please tell me the verse if anyone knows]. So, there is no such thing as "improper mean" to achieve something good. A mean/method is considered to be good if it produces good results [not selfishly good, but for the overall benefit].

It is the definition of fanaticism/ sentimentalism to follow a so-called ?good mean? even after knowing that the result is going to be disastrous.

As for God, he knows what is actually good. So following God is always the safest. However, practically speaking we-unlike arjuna-do not have personal contact with god. So for us following GOD means - to follow the principles [dharma] with proper guidance from those who are expert and who knows the meaning behind the principles, and applying dharma with proper discretion and intelligently according to the circumstances.

In fact, it is indeed dangerous to follow dharma just for the sake of following. This is what happening in today?s world - holy books are followed blindly without knowing the purpose behind it. So, this is what krsna showed us by his action-- that religious principles should be practiced intelligently - with proper guidance - because what appears to be religious can be actually be irreligious and disastrous.

There are times, we have good intention, but end up making a mess, because of our lack of knowledge of the overall situation. God has good intention and complete knowledge. So his actions/results are always perfectly dharmic. If it appears Adharmic, it is simply due to our limited knowledge. And, since our knowledge IS limited, God's actions often bewilders.
[Can anyone please post the thirukural verse, thanks]

[g0500052]

Regarding dying in battle, this is my opinion...

In the Vedas, honest performance of ones occupation is considered to be religious. So for a warrior, his duty is to protect the nation/citizen such that the civilian can perform their duties peacefully. If it requires he may need to fight with others, and if he dies in that battle, he gains piety.
However, this battle is different from modern day war. Those wars are religious, based on the codes from the Vedas (Dhanur Veda). They are full of codes and principles?not that anyone can fight with anyone, kill somehow, at anytime. For a true warrior dying with principles is more glories than breaking the rule [it is considered coweredness to break the rules].
Battles are also held in a special place (battle fields) where civilians are not affected ? unlike modern day war where innocent women/children are killed. So the battle referred in scriptures do not refer to the modern day barbaric wars ?rather it is well structured and religious(based on Vedas).

This is krsna instruction to Arjuna in Gita:
Bhagavad Gita 2.31-35.
Considering your specific duty as a kṣatriya, you should know that there is no better engagement for you than fighting on religious principles; and so there is no need for hesitation. Pārtha, happy are the kṣatriyas to whom such fighting opportunities come unsought, opening for them the doors of the heavenly planets. If, however, you do not perform your religious duty of fighting, then you will certainly incur sins for neglecting your duties and thus lose your reputation as a fighter. People will always speak of your infamy, and for a respectable person, dishonor is worse than death. The great generals who have highly esteemed your name and fame will think that you have left the battlefield out of fear only, and thus they will consider you insignificant. Your enemies will describe you in many unkind words and scorn your ability. What could be more painful for you? O son of Kuntī, either you will be killed on the battlefield and attain the heavenly planets, or you will conquer and enjoy the earthly kingdom. Therefore, get up with determination and fight. Do thou fight for the sake of fighting, without considering happiness or distress, loss or gain, victory or defeat ? and by so doing you shall never incur sin.
[note: I am quoting this verses in isolation. To get the proper meaning, it should be understood in the proper context.]

[Susanth]

YouTube Mahabharatha Video, with English Subtitles can be viewed here..

http://nushindusociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=1042.0

[Priya J]

Regarding g0500052's post on the B.G. Verses, this is my reply.

What is the difference between being Dharmic and being on God's side? It is both the same. This is why.

Where is Dharma known? Where can we find out what to do and what not to do? We can use our common sense only to a certain extent. But what is right and what is wrong is said in our Vedas. Using the Vedas as the basis, the Epics and Puranas came about. Therefore, the dharma we find in the epics is basically the dharma revealed in the Vedas. Vedas are in turn revealed by God. Therefore, what is the difference between being Dharmic and being on God's side???

Discretion has to be used when following Dharma. In Mahabharatha, Bhishma says, "The ways of Dharma are subtle." It is very difficult to say for sure, what is right and what is wrong. Therefore, when following dharma, one must be very discriminating. The fact is that dharma has to be interpreted according to time, place and circumstances. For example, in the past when people followed the caste system, it was said that the Shudras are barred from studying the Vedas. But today, this dharma need not be followed because the caste system has become irrelevant today. Everyone and anyone can study the Vedas either academically, or for personal spiritual practice. Therefore, Dharma has to be interpretted accordingly. However, values like satyam (truth), ahimsa (non-injury), etc. are to be followed always.

Your quotation of verse 18.66, your translation and interpretation is mis-guiding. This is what it really is:

Sarvadharmaan parityajya maamekam sharanam vraja
aham tvaa sarvapaapebhyo mokshayishyaami maa shucah (18.66)

Abandoning all forms of rites and duties,take refuge in Me alone. I shall free you from all sins.(Therefore) do not grieve.

(Translation taken from Swami Gambhirananda's translation of Bhagavad Gita Bhashya by Sankaracarya)

Sarva-dharmaan -> all forms of rites and duties, here the word "dharma" means both righteousness and unrighteousness, meaning total renunciation of all actions, meaning the lord is asking you to take Sannyasa.

The final statement of the Gita tells one to take Sannyasa, meaning to renounce every actions and take Sannyasa to pursue the knowledge of Brahman. When Krishna says, "Me", it does not refer to Krishna, it refers to the Brahman without any form or name, which is pure, eternal, limitless, and all-pervading.

The final statement is like a summary statement. From here we come to know that Bhagavad Gita is a scripture that talks only about how we can go about achieving moksha. It is a scripture meant only for spiritual aspirants wanting moksha. Please quote the verses with full understanding of what is being said in the Gita. Thanks!

~Priya~