Skip to content

A Few Questions on Krishna

July 12, 2010

Team This post has been published by me as a team member of Tiger Trails Team for the SUPER 3 round of Bloggers Premier League (BPL) – The first ever unique, elite team blogging event in the history of blogging world. To catch the BPL action and also be part of future editions and other contests, visit and register at Cafe GingerChai

I am the goal, the sustainer, the master, the witness, the refuge, the guardian, the well-wisher, the creation, the dissolution, the preservation, the reservoir and the imperishable cause – Bhagavad Gita 9.18

Since time immemorial, Lord Krishna, the eighth incarnation of Vishnu, a true friend, romantic lover, an ideal son, the learned philosopher, a shrewd politician and a diplomat, has remained one of the foremost holy being amongst all the Indian Gods and Goddesses. He is the supreme cultural icon of India who has spurned beautiful devotional songs by Meera and Surdas in the north, saint poets of the Varkari Sect in the west and Purandara Dasa and Kanakadasa in the south; landmark Sanskrit literature like Geeta Govinda by Jayadeva and Krishna-karnamritam by Bilvamangala; and different theological Schools founded by Nimbarka, Vallabhacharya and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu among others. The Krishna Bhakti movement has also travelled beyond national barriers and spread far and wide in the form of International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON).

However, in the epic of Mahabharata, his character comes across as any other fallible human being. A deeper probe into his actions would show that all was not what usually met the eye and what prevailed in the name of popular perceptions. Despite being an ardent admirer of all the cultural and theological ethos that Krishna stands for, I hereby raise a few questions about the role that he played in the epic of Mahabharata.

He was one of the chief architects of the great Kurukshetra war. When he took it upon himself to make a diplomatic visit to Hastinapur to attempt reconciliation between the two warring branches of the Kuru family, he employed all his persuasive skills to avoid the war. He displayed traits of a fine negotiator to avoid a feud which would have resulted in the annihilation of either side, to both of whom Krishna was related.

But what happened when he supposedly failed? What did he say when Duryodhana refused to give away even an inch of the kingdom without war? He told the ever hot-headed Duryodhana how the Pandavas were illustrious and superior in all skill sets both on and off the war field. In a way, he instigated and motivated Duryodhana more to take up arms and fight the war by manipulating his diplomatic and conciliatory words with jargons and comparisons.

Add to this, the instance of instigating Arjuna against his own family on the eve of the Kurukshetra war. Arjuna, the brave warrior yet an emotional human, refused to take up arms against the Kauravas. Krishna’s philosophical sermons to Arjuna in this context became the great text of Bhagavad Gita.

“O Partha, do not yield to unmanliness, this is not worthy of you. O chastiser of enemy, giving up this base weakness of heart, rise up.” – Bhagavad Gita 2.3

Here was a confused warrior in a precarious moral dilemma, standing face-to-face with his entire family in a battlefield. To facilitate Arjuna to take a decision, Krishna asked him to choose a cause over concern for his family members. Krishna told Arjun to rise over petty weakness of heart (namely love and respect for one’s own family) and chastise the enemy (the same people who have nurtured Arjuna e.g. Drona and Bhisma among others). It goes completely against what he says in another context.

You should perform your prescribed vedic activities since actions are better than renouncing actions; by ceasing activityeven your bodily maintenance will not be possible – Bhagavad Gita 3.8

He depicts this dynastic power struggle as a war between good and evil. While Pandavas cannot be termed as fully ‘good’,  Kauravas also can not be dubbed as fully ‘evil’. So what according to Krishna, was the actual justification?

“The embodied soul is eternal in existence, indestructible and infinite, only the material body is factually perishable; therefore, fight, O Arjuna”- Bhagavad Gita 2.18


Krishna was the supreme instigator of the Kurukshetra war. He never wanted to avoid it and thus never advised any of the warring parties for recourse of a different path. The differences could have been resolved through dialogues, mediation and all such methods. Duryodhana, who respected Krishna enough to have sought his advice before the war could have been persuaded by him. It’s a well-known fact that Krishna remained unbiased by offering something of himself to both the warring parties and vowed never to raise a weapon himself. On one hand, he placed himself and on the other hand, his own yadava army. In other words, he chose to fight against his own army – something which no king has ever done unless in a situation of rebellion. In a war to resolve family feuds and political gains, innocent yadavas had to participate, and that too against someone, to whom they owed their allegiance. How could Duryodhana benefit from such an army? So did Krishna actually offer Duryodhana anything at all? Was he actually unbiased?

War does not determine who is right – only who is left.  ~ Bertrand Russell

Balaram taught both Bhima and Duryodhona the art of fighting with a mace and was extremely fond of both. He always believed that Bhima possessed greater strength but Duryodhona possessed greater skills and had also desired to marry off his sister Subhadra to the latter. When Bhima killed Duryodhona during the war in a patently illegal way by striking him below the navel, Balaram was incensed and even threatened to kill Bhima. Krishna pacified Balaram by reminding him of Bhima’s vows to kill Duryodhona by crushing the very thigh which he exposed to Draupadi during her cheer haran. If one takes recourse to illegal method in a war, just to fulfill his vow, does it become a morally justifiable one? Moreover, Bhima resorted to such lowly means because Duryodhana’s whole body was invincible due to  the boon of Gandhari, except his groin.  When Bhima failed to strike Duryodhana fatally, Krishna indicated the Achilles heel of Duryodhana to Bhima.  In a way, Krishna was the brain behind Bhima’s illegal actions.

This was not the only instance when Krishna showed utter disregard for fair rules of war. There is the most well-known example of Arjuna killing Karna when the latter was unarmed. Krishna’s schemes here were two-fold. He first convinced Kunti to disclose to Karna that he was her firstborn and requested him to change sides. When he politely refused to betray the trust of Duryodhana, Kunti extracted a promise from Karna that he would not kill any of her sons, save Arjuna. During the war, when Arjuna agreed to Karna’s plea to wait while he tended to his chariot, Krishna instigated Arjuna to use the opportunity. Karna attained eternal glory as a warrior and tragic hero, while Arjuna is till date, condemned for his act. To kill an unarmed opponent is the most heinous crime that Arjuna committed, albeit at the instance of Krishna.

Krishna also prompted the lie by which Yudhishthira, the ever-truthful king, broke down the prowess of Dronacharya. Till date, Yudhisthira is blamed for this dishonourable act, but hardly anybody ever questions Krishna who suggested this course of action.

Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.  ~ Ernest Hemingway

Krishna’s schemes in the battlefield were instrumental in winning the war in favour of the Pandavas. But he had showed total indifference towards lives of others while strategizing to keep the Pandava brothers, especially Arjuna safe. Karna had been blessed with a divine weapon by Indra which he could use only once. He had been saving it for his arch-rival Arjuna since he had vowed that only one between the two could live. On the day Arjuna killed Jayadrath, again with the help of trickery from Krishna, the battle continued even after sun set.  Krishna advised Bhima to send his half-demonic son Ghatotkach to war since the magical powers of demons were said to be most effective at night time. Ghatotkach wreaked maximum havoc on the Kauravas and it seemed that he would singlehandedly destroy the whole army. Duryodhana desperately sought Karna’s help and asked him to stop Ghatotkach. Karma had no other option but to use the divine weapon upon Ghatotkach, thereby killing him and in the process, making himself vulnerable against Arjuna. Krishna’s tricks to weaken Karna had worked but at the expense of Ghatotkach’s life.

Then there is the famous instance of Abhimanyu’s death. Everyone always condemns the Kauravas for killing the young, brave warrior prince through tricks and treachery. However I firmly believe Krishna had a huge role to play in it. When I first read the episode, the one question that stuck me was why Krishna could not prevent Abhimanyu’s death. When the Kauravas challenged the Pandavas for penetrating the famous Chakravyuha, the idea behind it was always to lure Krishna and Arjuna away from the battlefield so that the only two people with the requisite knowledge could not participate. Krishna, with his foresight and shrewd nature could not have missed this fact. Despite that, he allowed the Kauravas to be successful in their plan. While they were busy battling some other kings, Pandavas were forced to send the young Abhimanyu to penetrate the Chakravyuha, despite the fact that he did not know how to come out of one. Pandavas’ attempts to guard Abhimanyu failed and he was left alone in the middle to fight it out by himself. While applauding the valour with which Abhimanyu fought, can one not question Krishna as to why he led Arjuna away? Was it a ploy to keep Arjuna safe from the hands of all the seasoned fighters of the Kauravas side present in the Chakravyuha? Did he, in a way, allow the sacrifice of Abhimanyu?

It’s true that death is an inevitable part of war, and tricks and schemes are often employed to win them. Kauravas themselves broke quite a number of rules of fair play on and off the battlefield. But the disturbing fact about Krishna is that he always disguised them in the garb of morality. As one delves more and more into the story of Mahabharata and the text of Bhagavad Gita, one cannot help but wonder the true purport of dharma, as preached by Krishna and as opposed to what practiced by him.

It would be wrong to judge Krishna’s role in the epic entirely from the Kurukshetra war. He was a great friend of Arjuna, so much so that he may be accused of blind affection in the same way Dhritarashtra is accused of blind love for his sons. At a time, when the whole of Kuru family, including the Pandavas and Kauravas brothers were guilty of one of the most shameful episodes of Mahabharata, it was Krishna who emerged as the only saviour of the Draupadi’s honour. He represented wealth, strength, beauty, knowledge and renunciation in all its glory throughout the epic.

But he was also the one to change the whole course of the epic in ways more than one, and not all of them were the most rightful  and fair.

Relinquishing all ideas of righteousness, surrender unto Me exclusively, I will deliver you from all sinful reactions, do not despair – Bhagavad Gita 18.62

——————————————-

This post does not intend to hurt the religious sentiments of anybody and is merely an objective exercise in analysing the character of Krishna, as depicted in Mahabharata. All images are from Google and their copyright vest with the respective authors. I sincerely thank my team members and friends whose feedback was instrumental in giving the final shape to this post .

This post was adjudged the best in its category 😀


GingerChai.com - Bloggers Premier League

Advertisements
163 Comments leave one →
  1. July 12, 2010 7:45 pm

    Debosmita does it again… Considering the awesome stuff you’ve been dishing out, it hard not to except something of this quality from you…

    And you know what… you outdid yourself again!

    I won’t say much here… Just want you to know that this piece makes me want to read both the epics in detail.

    • debosmita permalink*
      July 13, 2010 2:20 pm

      That’s so kind of you, Saurabh. I am happy that I sparked the interest in Mahabharats – its the greatest novel on India possible.

  2. Disha Shah permalink
    July 12, 2010 10:46 pm

    I am Saurabh’s frd… Well Ur blog is jst too good.. The instances are very well explained.. I could visualize the scenes.. Gr8 Job! Keep it Up… I hope u win 🙂

    • debosmita permalink*
      July 13, 2010 3:45 pm

      Hey, Disha, welcome and thank you so much for your appreciation. Keep visiting, dear…

  3. July 12, 2010 11:09 pm

    A delightful read Debs.. 🙂 Surely a great review on the character of Krishna.. 🙂

    Rocking 🙂

    • debosmita permalink*
      July 13, 2010 4:05 pm

      🙂 🙂 Thank you 🙂 🙂 It required too much of thinking and a lot of recalling from memory; after all I read the epic in school 🙂

  4. July 13, 2010 3:22 am

    Oh you write so well..I look forward to your posts 🙂
    Another fantastic write up…

    Am following you…

    Good luck for BPL..

    • debosmita permalink*
      July 13, 2010 4:09 pm

      Thanks 🙂 That’s a real honour 🙂

  5. semanti permalink
    July 13, 2010 1:20 pm

    This is one reason Mahabharata is still one of the most well read and interpreted epics and people are stil confused as to how to read it. Thats why when I found out that 5 books will be released about Mahabharata in a span of 1 year, and not all by Indians, I was pleasantly surprised but not amazed. I am myself reading an interpetation of Bhagwad Gita by M.K. Gandhi (whom I wont say I admire)but I want to read how he read it. I think the entire charm of Bhagwad Gita lies in the fact that it confuses you when you are clear and clarifies your thoughts when you are confused.

    • debosmita permalink*
      July 13, 2010 4:39 pm

      I know how much I have to cajole you to comment and this was a nice surprise 🙂 When you say that Gita confuses you when you are clear and clarifies when you are confused, you are absolutely correct. When I read the whole of Bhagvad Gita online for the purpose of this post, I also felt the same. Just see the last quote and you shall know 🙂

    • Sivakumar U M permalink
      April 22, 2014 4:29 pm

      semanti

      it is the fact, Both Mahabharat and Bhagavat Gita confuse you when you are clear and clarify your thoughts when you are confused.

  6. July 13, 2010 1:50 pm

    i agree to the points you raised…………..Krishna was baised towards pandavs and responsible for the war …….and that was the reason, Draupadi cursed him that his family will also face the same fate as her family did……

    One thing which, i didn’t notice while watching or reading Mahabharat was your view on …..Krishna giving away his army to Kaurav, then joining Pandavs and fighting against his own army………..this is one of its kind decision…………

    If shakuni was the master mind of Kauravs, then so was Krishna……especially, during the war…..don’t think Pandavs thought on their own after the war…… he laid out all the important strategies ……

    If it was only…..Arjun, karna has to fight against……..Arjun wouldn’t have lasted for single day…after Karna participated, which was after Bhishma’s fall on battle ground……… he tilted the chariot to save Arjun from one of Karna’s attack ……..

    urging Bhim to hit duryodhan below the belt…….and killing unarmed Karna…….two instances…..he at which he fell below…human grades…which we don’t expect from an avatar……… But likewise Ram…Krishna wasn’t also a perfect……….

    They were Avatar’s of Vishnu…….not Vishnu himself………..well i’m an atheist……so i don’t think of them as gods……….also they were pretty human……

    • July 13, 2010 1:53 pm

      PS:- I sent an FB req…to you….which is still pending….hope you not ignoring it……

    • debosmita permalink*
      July 13, 2010 4:41 pm

      I think Draupadi did not curse him; it was Gandhari. I agree with your points raised – must be result of the amount of research we both have done for this post :-)and good that you mentioned about the request – it was buried under lots of unknown ‘freidnship requests’.

      • July 15, 2010 4:21 pm

        yea….Gandhari….damn it…why m i so confused these days….?

        agree……….and loved your post……….precise and accurate….didn’t ramble like me…..

        and look at the comments from readers………you can make a new post out of them… 😀

      • Vikram permalink
        March 25, 2012 10:34 am

        The above blog makes sense because some of you are aethist. You should listen to discourse by Velukkudi Krishnan before coming to conclusion. He is a staunch believer just as I’m so his views will be different, good nonetheless.

        Just one line– we are but mortals, who are we to question the eternal?

    • Suhasini permalink
      November 2, 2012 4:37 pm

      The fact that they were ‘humans’ is the beauty of it. They lived amongst human, they went through pain just like humans did, they made mistakes like humans and they showed us the way. Kunti did curse Krishna accusing him of not doing anything to stop the war even though he was a God and Krishna accepts the curse. He did not need to, but he did because everyone including God must pay for their deeds. Everyone in the epic paid for their actions no matter which side they were on. Show me another religion where God applies the same rules to himself as he does to humans. I have several non Hindu American, British and French friends and trust me they find immense amount of wisdom in the words of Krishna and Mahabharat. Their philosophy and religions just don’t have the same idea of God as we do. Consider yourself very lucky to have been born in this culture. I am saying this after having lived in the US and UK for 34 years. Even if you are an atheist, Mahabharat still is a philosophy that stands on its own feet without needing God. Another thing, if Krishna had stopped the war from happening we would not have been discussing it right now. We live in an imperfect world and Mahabharat through various examples shows us how to know what is good and what is bad. The religious texts of other religions dangles the carrot of a perfect world or heaven after death, Mahabharat tells you that while you exists here on this planet in this life, you will forever have difficult choices to make and therefore it is a priceless guide. You are right when you point out that every single one of Kaurav generals was killed through unfair means but forget to mention that all of them had deserved their deaths in some way or the other. Bhishma died because he had abducted Amba, Karna dies because he called Draupadi a prostitute, Drona died because he had very cruelly snatched away the chance of being an archer from Eklavya similarly all others. Another thing about Krishna, when Krishna had killed Kansa and won over Mathura, Kansa’s in laws swore revenge on Krishna and repeatedly attacked Mathura. Krishna repeatedly defended Mathura without ever attacking Kansa’s in laws. Eventually he decided to relocate to Dwarka. He had every right to attack his enemies to defend himself but he does not, he chose peace over war even when his ministers advised him against this move, they told him that he would forever be called a deserter if he did not face his enemies to which he replied he did not care if people called him unflattering names as long as he could avoid an unjust war. For someone who did not fight for himself you should ask why did he let Mahabharat happen? This was not even his war. For 2 reasons, one, it had to happen, Draupadi was born to be the death of all Kshatriyas on the planet and two, eventually this war was not about a piece of land. This war was about rights and it was about the dignity of a woman. Even if they had settled the dispute over the land nothing changed the fact that their was nothing that would compensate Draupadi for what happened to her. When Krishna was in the battlefield summarising Gita to Arjun, he had very explicitly told him, “Arjun, a society that could not protect the honor of the illustrious Draupadi and stayed silent as she was stripped, how would such a society protect ordinary women or for that matter the rights of any one? A society such as this needs to be shown what can happen if people choose to stay silent and actionless. Therefore Arjun, arise and perform your duty (Dharma) and do your actions (Karma) for only through this will you leave an example for generations to come.”

      I think you have done a good job of gathering the facts but you have only picked up one side of the picture. Please find all the facts and then analyse them. I would be more than happy to help.

      • Sivakumar U M permalink
        April 22, 2014 6:25 pm

        Suhasini,

        This is a great message, which answers all the questions raised by ‘Debosmita’. Great job. really appreciate….

        I’d like to gather such knowledge. You can also guide me through some books those have the real meaning of Mahabharat.

        Because, recently I started watching ‘Mahabharat serial’ in Star plus channel, may convey only the message by Krishna. But it is only for entertainment.

        I’m looking for the meaning of Mahabharat. I believe you can help me…

        Hope you will reply 🙂

      • Jayakrishna permalink
        August 1, 2014 2:02 am

        Suhasini,
        That one was an excellent answer, I didn’t read the article but your answer, for that is what I was searching for……Please share me your knowledge or any works or information you have ……please email your id …..would really appreciate it….thanks

    • Aditya Das permalink
      May 25, 2016 6:47 pm

      Hi Hitesh, If You’re an atheist so i tell you as many times as possible you not believe. But i want to tell you that GOD means: Generator, Operator, Destroyer and GOD Is only Shree Krishna, Lord Vishnu is his an Expansion, In Vaikuntha Planets There are Many Lord Vishnus and they are all GOD Shree Krishna’s Expansions. Maha-Vishnu or Karanodakashayi Vishnu For Whose Exhaling Innumerable Material Universes Generated & For Inhaling Those Universes Merge into Him. Karanodokasayi Vishnu’s Expansion Garbhodokasayi Vishnu Enters Each & Every Material Universe And from him Navel Brahma The Secondary Creator of the each & every universe was Born. And Karanodokasayi Vishnu’s Third Expansion Kshirodokasayi Vishnu is Entered into each & every living being’s heart. It’s Kshirodokasayi Vishnu Who is called Paramatma. But All these Vishnus are Expansions of GOD Shree Krishna.

  7. July 13, 2010 3:56 pm

    This is BY FAR, the BESTEST review post I’ve seen in this round of BPL. It had a little mythology and LOTS of review, which is the essence of the round. Hats off, Debs. You’re a star!!

    • debosmita permalink*
      July 13, 2010 4:44 pm

      Coming from you, Pallavi, you know how much it means! and you have played a big role behind this post with your constant feedback.. Thanks 🙂

      • Sivakumar U M permalink
        April 22, 2014 6:27 pm

        Debosmita,

        I’d like to gather such knowledge. You can also guide me through some books those have the real meaning of Mahabharat.
        Because, recently I started watching ‘Mahabharat serial’ in Star plus channel, may convey only the message by Krishna. But it is only for entertainment.
        I’m looking for the meaning of Mahabharat. I believe you can help me…

        I asked the same to Suhasini, you may see it above.

        Hope you will reply 🙂

  8. Rashmi permalink
    July 13, 2010 8:46 pm

    You’ve taken up a big challenge and have completely gone through with it! Really admire all the hard work you’ve put into the research and analysis required for this piece. Brilliant as only you can be 🙂

    Now that you’ve mastered the Gita, will come to you for a religious discourse sometime 😀

    • debosmita permalink*
      July 14, 2010 3:51 pm

      Thanks 🙂 Hey, I have not ‘mastered’ the Gita but have read almost all of it online 😉 There is a difference! Please don’t start quizzing me on that 🙂 Yes, it was a huge challenge for me, mainly because I usually don’t do this kind of writing; BPL is making all of us stretch our limits!

  9. Sudhakar permalink
    July 13, 2010 10:18 pm

    I’ve told this to you during our reviews and I’ll tell you again. This was SUPER. Your post takes people who have zero interest in mythology and makes fans out of them. Very very well researched and beautifully compiled. Good enough to feature in a book. I actually felt like seeing a documentary on Discovery/History Channel. Brilliant. Way to go Tiger.

    • debosmita permalink*
      July 14, 2010 3:53 pm

      Thank you so much! I tell this to everyone – if you love reading, you should always attempt Mahabharata at least once. It is the ultimate story in Indian literature; there is also a debate whether its a fiction or a non-fiction.

  10. July 14, 2010 1:34 am

    1st things 1st…..I admire that you chose Krishna for analysis. In a debate generally anyone can say for the favourible topic but it takes lots of courage and self belief to play the devil’s adocate and do it effectively.

    I decided to give my replies in between since its so long! Ever since, I wrote the post, I have been expecting lots of comments of disagreement, but you turn out to be first one!

    I was hoping that someone would do an Analysis on a positive character from Mahabharata and highlight some grey areas of the character and you tried to that only.

    Though I have to say that I diasgree with you on few counts and agree of few others. I liked the point where you mentioned that Krishna being a king fought against his own army. also some other points raised by you are questionable.

    But in my opinion it wasn’t wrong if Ghatotkach was sent to the battlefield or as far as I know Yudhishtir didn’t say a “lie” as far as Asvathama was concerned though theri intention was that only. But an elephant named Asvathama was killed and when Dronacharya asked Yudhisthir if Asvathama is dead he replied in affirmative but he also added that its the elephant but just as he was saying this the war horn sounded because of which Yudhishtir’s voice was not audible. You can say this as “trickery” but a “lie” would be a bit too much.

    What you are saying is what is there in the story; I have just tried to look beyond the black letters and interpreted the incidents. I agree what Yudhisthir said was ‘not’ a lie exactly; but the fact remains that Krishna suggested it and also gave the ‘Iti Gaja’ part to cover it up. It remains as the single blemish in the character of Yudhisthir (at least in popular perceptions; I feel the Draupadi episode was the most shameful one)

    Please dont think that I am finding faults in your post. Since its an analysis its bound to be different for each person and I just wrote my perspective of it. As far as the analysis is concerned its very good and you have touched lots of points which is very good! Best of luck for the contest.

    You are most welcome to find faults and disagree with me 🙂

    On a side note Krishna is considered to be ninth avatar of Vishnu with the other eight being- matsaya (Fish), Kurma (tortoise), Mohini, Vraha, Narsingh, Vaaman, Parshuram and Ram. 🙂

    As far as my knowledge goes, Vishnu’s first incarnation is Matsya, second is Kurma, third is Varaha, fourth is Narasingha, fifth is Vamana, sixth is Parsurama, seventh is Rama, eighth is Krishna, ninth is Budhha and tenth is Kalki, who is yet to come! 🙂

  11. July 14, 2010 1:37 am

    also some other points raised by you are questionable.

    ==================

    I was just reading my reply and found out that this line is ambiguous! 😀

    What I meant was that also some other points raised by you are good and the acts mentioned in the points are questionable.

    Thought to clarify because it gave a totally opposite meaning to what I meant! 😀

  12. July 14, 2010 3:08 am

    ur style of delivery is just too good… loved it…. all the best buddy!

    • debosmita permalink*
      July 14, 2010 4:49 pm

      Thank you, thank you 🙂 Glad that you liked it!

  13. no one permalink
    July 14, 2010 9:59 pm

    It’s apparent that a lot of research went behind the authoring of this analytical piece and it shows in every single paragraph. Be it the content or be it the quotes. Kudos for that.

    Also, the instances where certain traits of Krishna are brought to attention in context to Kurukshetra are well presented. The part where Krishna hijacks the limelight from an impending catastrophe of war and uses it to “spread the word” about human follies and ‘the right path’ have justly been highlighted by you. Also, you did not forget to mention the redeeming features of Our Mischievous Lord in your conclusion. That not only lends credence but gives the bigot a chance to take the killer blows you have dealt to his beliefs with kind consideration.

    All done with the “bouquets” here comes the inevitable/ ineluctable “brickbats”.

    After Sanchit opened the flood gate, here comes ‘no one’ with a long ‘critical’ comment and making my comment space an interesting read. Thank you so much for visiting and sparing your time to give such a detailed analysis of my analytical post 🙂 btw, your brickbats far outnumber the bouquets 😦

    1. Try reading your introduction again and see for yourself if it rides easy on your tongue. It’s not tempting enough to make the average reader go through 6 pages of fact-crunching.

    I would agree that it would not catch the fancy of a reader who doesn’t have some preliminary interest in the subject of Mahabharata; however, I approached the topic by pre-supposing that readers have some knowledge of the epic and hence did not give any mythological story.

    2. Some quotes are well placed. Some are plain out of context. If there was one it was too subtle for yours truly to hang onto. e.g – 3.8, 18.62.

    One just has to click on the link given and read the explanation therein to fully grasp the purport. 3.8 speaks of duty towards Vedic Activities, which means duties according to the 4 stages of vedic life – brahmacharya, garhasthya, banaprastha and sannyas. One primary duty of man in garhasthya stage is towards his family; hence use of this particular quote at this palce. 18.62 was used in conclusion where Krishna urges Arjuna (and all) to ‘relinquish all ideas of righteousness’. In my opinion, it sums up the post aptly – every actor did some wrong actions at Krishna’s behest, believing that he will be Krishna will be able to ‘deliver him from all sinful reactions’.

    3. The fact that you took the pain/pleasure of reading the entire Bhagvad Geeta in a day, I believe, reflects on your singular fascination with the subject (Here Lord Krishna). Still, neither your clarity nor your conflict in reaching the conclusion of what might be called a substantive summary of Our Lord is amply borne by your words. I am inclined to believe the “tight deadline” had a role in it.

    I wish I had a bit more time to write a bit more on the topic; then may be, you would not be disappointed on this count. Yes, it was a very tight deadline 😦

    4. I wish you showed the same degree of grace and professionalism in writing this piece and developed a distinct style of yours, the exact same which you did commendably in your “Bhopal Gas Tragedy” post. Somehow, reading this piece, I got a feeling that you were rushed into it, not having the luxury of time to reflect on the marvel i.e The Brief Synopsis of Krishna’s Frailties- The One Who Is So Eternally Great Because He Is So Enduringly Human.

    I hope you write some more analyses.
    They make for gruelling writing and tremendous reads.

    P.S – ” In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgement.” – Anton Ego (Ratatouille)

    Finally, a huge thank you for your comment. I will heed your advice in my future posts.

  14. July 15, 2010 10:09 am

    As far as my knowledge goes, Vishnu’s first incarnation is Matsya, second is Kurma, third is Varaha, fourth is Narasingha, fifth is Vamana, sixth is Parsurama, seventh is Rama, eighth is Krishna, ninth is Budhha and tenth is Kalki, who is yet to come!

    ======================

    Well I would like to ask if you dont’ believe Mohini to be an Avatar or havent heard about her because as far as I know this avatar is also mentioned in the Mahabharata.

    And as far as Gautama Buddha there are many evidences that he was not an Avatar of Vishnu. There is a very wide and probable belief that when buddhism was gaining popularity and was one of the most prominent religions in India Hindu priests and scholars felt threatened and thus tried to Portray Buddha as an Avatar to prevent people from leaving Hinduism! and there are quite a few facts (if you can say so) to prove this theory-

    1.) Buddha himself said that he was no god and definitely not an Avatar in clear terms.

    2.) Buddha was agnostic and there is belief he wouldn’t have started a new religion if he was an Avatar.

    3.) There is no mention of Buddha as an Avatar in the Bhagwatam.

    4.) In Bhagwad Geeta Shri Krishna says he will come next in the Avatar of Kalki.

    Well beliefs are generally different from person to person and do not need any “proofs” to be believed. I do not force my views but if you get time someday do read about How Buddha was made an Avatar by the Hindu scholars! Even if you dont believe it is sure an interesting theory! 🙂

    • debosmita permalink*
      July 15, 2010 1:50 pm

      That’s an interesting point. You have sparked my interest in Buddha as Vishnu’s avatar.

    • July 16, 2010 8:16 am

      While all arguments and counter arguments are fine enough, presenting super logical skills, and amusing to me, there are many factual errors.

      One which I noticed immediately is the one saying Srimad Bhagavatam does not mention Lord Buddha.

      Visit http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/3/24/en.

      I would like to see your response for this.

      “4.) In Bhagwad Geeta Shri Krishna says he will come next in the Avatar of Kalki.”

      Please show me the verse where he says “I will come only as Kalki”.

      BTW, trying to read through Bhagavad Gita yourself from a theoretical standpoint (or from oh so many ‘scholarly’ translators) is like a LKG kid trying to read nuclear physics.

      • debosmita permalink*
        July 16, 2010 10:44 am

        Ambi, that reference clearly clinches the argument. And I agree whole-heartedly with you on your last sentence – its absolutely impossible to comprehend and understand Gita; many spend a lifetime doing that. Welcome to my blog 🙂

      • July 16, 2010 5:06 pm

        1.) I had read somewhere that Srimad Bhagavatam does not mention Lord Buddha. But searching now on google results otherwise but with a rider! It is believed by many that this point was added later to the book and not all scholars believe this. This would require more research and I am hoping to do that only. In the meantime 1 can try talking to a Buddhist and mention in fron of him that Lord Buddha was an Avatar of Vishnu and see their reaction. An informed buddhist about his religion and philosophy would bring out many interesting points.

        2.) On the point that Krishna will come as Kalki only I couldnt find any reference. Maybe it doesn’t exist and I stand corrected. I have a copy of Bhagwad Geeta with me and hopefully would be able to know better once I read it.

        3.) Would have answered your last point if I knew what it meant! :p BTW if it means that trying to read the book either by yourself or one of the translated versions is like LKG kid reading nuclear physics then would you please tell us how do you expect others to learn the knowledge taught in Geeta? And btw all scholors and Gurus are not corrupt or bad.

        Finally eliminating “Mohini” as an Avatar would be interesting as then all other Avatars follow the scientific process of Evolution! But then Bhagavatam mentions more than 20 Avatars! so it doesn’t fit the criteria there.

      • Prasad permalink
        July 16, 2010 6:49 pm

        @Sanchit Goyal –>

        Nice!! I strongly believe that people has made a lot of changes and their own versions of history, and arguing you like who is right. The reality is almost gone extinct like the earth has faced.

        I suggest you to watch a movie called “The Man from Earth (2007)”. The whole movie has just conversations where the lead character says he is a prehistoric cave man and an immortal. He narrates like, what he saw in his life time. He takes the subject of Buddha there!

      • July 16, 2010 7:19 pm

        Would surely check out the Movie. And even if we go by what is mentioned in the Bhagavatam then also Gautam Buddha is not an Avatar of Vishnu! Now thats something interesting I came across just now when I was looking for some answers on the topic…..Few lines from 1 extract-

        =====

        It should be noted that Gautama Buddha (Sakya Simha Buddha) who was born in Kapilavastu, Nepal (563 BC) to Suddhodana and Mayavadi is not the one mentioned in Vedas and scriptures. The Buddha (Sugata Buddha) referred in here is the Vishnu avatara was born (1500 BC) in Bodhi-Gaya (Kikata) to Anjana. As both had same name it was a confusion to many scholars. Gautama Buddha went to Bodhi-Gaya to get enlightenment from the birth place of Vishnu-avatar-Buddha.

        =====

        http://www.vaikunt.org/AyyaVaikuntar/avatars.htm

        =====

        A link with detailed discussion and references on the same topic-

        http://www.bvml.org/SBBTM/mbavabad.html

      • July 16, 2010 7:29 pm

        Also a counter argument to the above links can be this link-

        http://www.stephen-knapp.com/buddhism_and_its_vedic_connections.htm

        =======

        But then one has to think are the points mentioned justified? Even if for a moment we believe those still then how did Gautam Buddha deluded the demons like it is mentioned in the Bhagavatam?

        Therefore the 1st link and theory looks more probable than the 2nd one.

      • July 16, 2010 8:30 pm

        “please tell us how do you expect others to learn the knowledge taught in Geeta?”

        How does a kid learn English? From the alphabets, under the guidance of a ‘qualified’ teacher… right? They don’t start by reading Macbeth!

        The same way, without proper guidance of a teacher, no matter how hard once tries, trying to ‘theoretically’ understand Gita would be futile.

        The word ‘theoretical’ is very important since that is exactly what most ‘scholarly’ translators do.

        I don’t like to self promote my posts, but typing everything again is going to be a waste of my time. I have posted 12 articles a while ago on just this at http://www.gingerchai.com/author/ambi/. Feel free to browse through.

      • July 16, 2010 10:19 pm

        The problem and issue here is “Assumption”. It is wrong to assume on your part that all (If you are assuming so) editions are written by so called “scholars’ who didn’t had the guidance of their Guru. In any case you don’t even know what edition the person is reading and if he has or doesn’t have any guru.

        Thanks for the link and I have read 1-2 articles I guess. but to any normal person you won’t be any different from the so called scholars. They present their views and you present yours. Whats the difference?

        The fight today is not between Right V/s wrong. Its between 1 man’s view v/s others.

        And lastly there are some people who blindly believe things written in a book or told by someone. Thankfully I am not one of them.

      • July 17, 2010 9:53 am

        @Sanchit:

        “In any case you don’t even know what edition the person is reading and if he has or doesn’t have any guru.”

        Trust me, I can deduce at least the philosophical background, if not the author or book, based on what is being said. But I really don’t have to.

        The message of the Gita is pretty well clear in itself for a person who puts himself in the shoes of Arjuna and understands it from Arjuna’s viewpoint. That’s the logical baseline for ‘correct’ understanding.

        “They present their views and you present yours. Whats the difference? ”

        Those are not MY views. I have put in my words what I learned from my teachers, who are part of a bonafide samparadaya.

        Even if it was my ‘opinion’, unless you know how to verify whether my opinion is in line with the essence of the teachings of the Gita, how would you even be able to judge me or anyone else for that matter? Unless you are expert in medical science, would you try to judge the medicines prescribed by a doctor?

        “Thankfully I am not one of them.”

        You were, at least… that’s why you commented on Buddha and Kalki avatars in the first place, thinking that what you read was right! Granted, you accepted and stood corrected, but that doesn’t mean you didn’t believe what you read was exactly right, since you would have gone in to an argument with someone who didn’t give a reference and debated with you.

        People generally think that just by reading a book here and there they can become ‘experts’ in Gita and its ‘siddhanta’. That is the problem. Just like one cannot become a doctor just by reading Gray’s anatomy without any practice, no one has any moral authority to comment to Gita or its teachings unless they have learned it from a bonafide master and has practiced its siddhanta.

        Unfortunately, that is not being done these days, what with people all to eager for instant gratification and hence the flood of false gurus and bogus ‘godmen’… and their misguiding philosophies.

      • July 17, 2010 2:55 pm

        I didn’t wish that it would get to this point but since it has I would have to say. You have been arrogant and more importantly overconfident all this time! I didnt want to say it but there is no other option left.

        ==
        Trust me, I can deduce at least the philosophical background, if not the author or book, based on what is being said. But I really don’t have to.
        ==

        You think you can “deduce” that but you have no way of knowing if your assumption is correct. But you have this false belief that whatever you deduced should be correct.

        ==
        Those are not MY views. I have put in my words what I learned from my teachers, who are part of a bonafide samparadaya.
        ==

        As I said to any other normal person these are still YOUR views. Just like to you others are views of so called scholars no matter they may have learnt from their Gurus.

        ==
        Even if it was my ‘opinion’, unless you know how to verify whether my opinion is in line with the essence of the teachings of the Gita, how would you even be able to judge me or anyone else for that matter? Unless you are expert in medical science, would you try to judge the medicines prescribed by a doctor?
        ==

        If I am not an expert in medical science I would go to a reputed doctor in 1st place. 🙂 I really dont have any need to judge you.

        ==
        You were, at least… that’s why you commented on Buddha and Kalki avatars in the first place, thinking that what you read was right! Granted, you accepted and stood corrected, but that doesn’t mean you didn’t believe what you read was exactly right, since you would have gone in to an argument with someone who didn’t give a reference and debated with you.
        ==

        You seem to have missed the point. 😛

        You are talking as if you know everything about History, Ramayana and mahabharata. I wonder whether there was any instance in history when you were wrong sometime. I meant that I do not trust anyone blindly. How do you want me to compose everything? With a rider in last that I am not sure about these post! :p You provided the reference and I accepted the point in question. Tomorrow someone may provide another reference to the same point and the decision might be changed. In any case Buddha mentioned in Bhagavatam is not Gautama Buddha and if the scholarly wants to prove that please provide some references.

        ==
        People generally think that just by reading a book here and there they can become ‘experts’ in Gita and its ‘siddhanta’. That is the problem. Just like one cannot become a doctor just by reading Gray’s anatomy without any practice, no one has any moral authority to comment to Gita or its teachings unless they have learned it from a bonafide master and has practiced its siddhanta.
        ==

        1.) Another assumption.

        2.) IMO even after learning from a “bonafide master” noone has a moral right to preach it to others and think he is superior. If one has learnt it good why force views on others?

        PS: In this world there is no “bonafide master” or the “ever so knowing scholar”. For ex- Shri Shri Ravishankar is the spiritual guru of millions but there are million others who dont hold him in high regard!

        So a bonafide master for one can be a self made scholar for some one else. So no one get more moral rights to comment on a stuff incase he thinks he learnt it from the right master.

        PPS: I never commented on Geeta. Just 1 line that Krishna said about Kalki Avatar and that too I accepted once pointed out. If that made you believe all those things then I can’t help it.

      • July 18, 2010 9:17 am

        “arrogant and more importantly overconfident all this time”

        (Judgment, anyone?)

        It’s fine. Saying this, you are not the first and won’t be the last. I know what I am talking about, and sure hope you too do.

        “How do you want me to compose everything? With a rider in last that I am not sure about these post!”

        Damn right! Absolutely. If one does not know for sure what he/she is talking about, it is the decent thing to do!

        “Tomorrow someone may provide another reference to the same point and the decision might be changed. ”

        You are essentially saying that you have no clue on how the veracity of such a reference can be verified. If you are not sure of something, why accept it as true and comment using it in the first place?

        “In this world there is no “bonafide master” or the “ever so knowing scholar”

        And this is your assumption, is it not? Your arguments hinge on this essence… because without this you will have to concede that someone has to be bonafide and others are not. It is just easier to say that there is no such thing as a bonafide master, isn’t it?

        One cannot force anything upon anyone… agreed. But this does not mean that a wrong information should be left as such. You cannot say one does not have any right to preach… in fact you even just preached that no one should do this, that and all.

        “PPS: I never commented on Geeta…. can’t help it”

        You did. That one line makes all the difference… since it came with the rider above saying “there are quite a few facts (if you can say so) to prove this theory”.

        “Just 1 line that Krishna said about Kalki Avatar and that too I accepted once pointed out.”

        Just 1 line? It’s like “I built the house correctly… just the foundation is a bit weak.” You accepted your slip on that one mistake I pointed out, but you didn’t have much choice there because if you didn’t it would have been a loss of face for you… nothing more, nothing less.

        I corrected that along with some “statements of caution” for the general reader. You took it upon yourself to get this far. Thank you.

      • July 18, 2010 1:21 pm

        I could type another long reply for the stuff you have cleverly written omitting some stuff but-

        a.) Its of no use.

        b.) Its getting too tiring and useless.

        + Your judgements and explainations dont look convincing at all to me. The ones which did like Buddha being mentioned in Bhagavatam (Adi buddha and not Gautam Buddha) and Krishna not talking about Kalki avatar specifically I accepted them outright.

        But apart from that its all hogwash, claims, assumptions, hatred against “so called scholars” (in your view) and a belief that you are somehow superior coz you think you know the right interprations and stuff while all others are self made scholars.

        I have had enough of it and am no longer interested. You want to believe you are the know all person and we do not know anything then PLEASE BE MY GUEST!

        PS: I am still amazed at your power of reading between the lines and concluding imaginary stuff!

      • debosmita permalink*
        July 18, 2010 5:41 pm

        @ Sanchit and Ambi: For the last couple of days, you two have argued on a single point – whether one can understand and interprete religious texts like Bhagavad Gita by reading by oneself or one needs to be guided by a qualified teacher. Both of you have been correct at times and wrong in other places.

        Ambi, IMHO there’s nothing wrong if someone attempts to read and understand such texts by himself with the help of all scholarly works available. There are always a set of scholars who will challenge the existing understanding and its upto the individual to adopt any one understanding or formulate his own. If one is a part of a Sampradaya, then he would always endorse their teachings and not challenge them, in the same way we used to follow our teachers blindly. If such teacher encourages the student to develop his own thinking, then he is a true teacher. You have studied the Gita to a far greater extent than me, hence I respect all your views. While doing the post, I developed an interest in the text and plan to do some more research. I am sure your posts in Ginger Chai will help me in this regard.

        Sanchit, I must say that you have not used the best language at times; you could have dealt with the arguments without resorting to ‘judging’ Ambi. If you have been provoked, I urge you to write a post out of it. I look forward to it.

        I, hereby declare PEACE? 😉

      • Prasad permalink
        July 19, 2010 4:52 pm

        Missed this action yesterday! Lot of valid points came out from Ambi & Sanchit..
        Could have added some fuel to burn it out some 5 more replies 😉

      • July 19, 2010 6:02 pm

        @Sanchit:

        I don’t claim to be know-it-all. I never have. You have clearly shown that you have zero tolerance for anything except a “everyone is right in their own way” kinda approach.

        Let me not add to you frustration anymore.

        @Debo:

        “IMHO there’s nothing wrong if someone attempts to read and understand such texts by himself with the help of all scholarly works available.”

        I was just pointing out that because of such efforts, more damage has been done than good on our society. It has come to such an extent that no longer do many people have the courage to state something is right and something is wrong… Goodness is relative, truth is relative. If people wish to be sucked in to such a relative quagmire, so be it.

        I was one of the judges who reviewed your article for Gingerchai and I was impressed that you took the time to think over such a topic and present it nicely though I do not agree with the assertions made or conclusions you have arrived at.

  15. Prasad permalink
    July 15, 2010 3:09 pm

    Wait a second.. I just read the first paragraph.. This comment is not about the content of this article Debosmita wrote.

    Blogger’s Premire League???? Tiger Trails Team???

    Come on!! Bloggers are meant to be creative/innovative. This is one of the 100th Premire Leagues I came across!

    I am damn sure that this blog would be awesome to read! I will post my actual comment/reply once I finish reading it.

    • July 16, 2010 7:12 pm

      Would surely check out the Movie. And even if we go by what is mentioned in the Bhagavatam then also Gautam Buddha is not an Avatar of Vishnu! Now thats something interesting I came across just now when I was looking for some answers on the topic…..Few lines from 1 extract-

      =====

      It should be noted that Gautama Buddha (Sakya Simha Buddha) who was born in Kapilavastu, Nepal (563 BC) to Suddhodana and Mayavadi is not the one mentioned in Vedas and scriptures. The Buddha (Sugata Buddha) referred in here is the Vishnu avatara was born (1500 BC) in Bodhi-Gaya (Kikata) to Anjana. As both had same name it was a confusion to many scholars. Gautama Buddha went to Bodhi-Gaya to get enlightenment from the birth place of Vishnu-avatar-Buddha.

      =====

      http://www.vaikunt.org/AyyaVaikuntar/avatars.htm

  16. July 15, 2010 5:31 pm

    Totally agree with Saurabh here. This has made me want to read the epic.
    Such detailed analysis. Everything I’d read and watched and heard over the years came flooding back as I read this. And those quotes added an extra effect.
    Last time it was Bhopal Gas tragedy, and now this. Kudos, yaar! That FB application was right. You are a already a lawyer, and now writer in the making. So a lawyer-writer it is. 😉 Felt like I was reading some article in a newspaper by a professional journalist. 🙂
    All the best!

    • debosmita permalink*
      July 15, 2010 6:23 pm

      Finally, His Lordship Karthik decides to drop in! 😉 Thanks, dear. You are always welcome. I am so kicked about that stupid Facebook prediction 😉 Never have I been so excited about any such quiz result!

  17. Prasad permalink
    July 15, 2010 5:56 pm

    Brilliant!!

    About the illegal tactics used by the ‘Good’ side of the war,

    1. One has to go for the ‘Achilles Heel’, thigh/groin/Knee/****/*******, to win someone like Duryodhana. It’s comparable to the counterpart Ramayana, Ram killed the Almighty Vaali in an illegal move.
    2. Abhimanyu’s death was caused by himself, as he heard about the Chankravyuga when he was in his mother’s womb. He was overconfident and curious, so he made a move like that. Note that he was killed when he was unarmed in the war.
    3. Karna’s death deals with a lot of curses he got. Krishna told Arjun to kill him as a revenge for killing Abhimanyu when he was unarmed. And so a lot of myths and different versions of it. Can be compared to Inderjit’s death in Ramayana, who is the most poweful character next to Vaali. Lakshman’s humiliation of Soorpanaga has driven him into the war. Many knows that Lakshamn has cut-off her nose. But there is a lot more Lakshman did to destroy her lust towards Ram, ultimately he gored her gender specific parts.
    4. Gadothgaja’s death requires an indepth analysis. He is an Asura similar to Ravana’s Soldiers It’s related to History of India thro Aryan Invasion Theory. Both the epic says indirectly that all Asura’s should die. The Asura’s appearances were similar to the Indigenous Indians, i.e. dark, strong, hairy. Controversially, Rama’s apperance was similar to that.

    Those are mere mythologial characters created by Vaalmiki/Vyasa to interpret their preachings to the Brahmin society. They imposed on us to worship and learn the preachings on their imaginary characters. Hope people should take it in a simple, good way and relate to the day-2-day life.

    Pls correct me if I am wrong anywhere!! Kudos for giving me a nice read of this outstanding article!!

    • debosmita permalink*
      July 15, 2010 6:25 pm

      Thanks, Prasad for taking time out to comment on my posts 🙂 Your comment is a post in itself! Would like to see you write a post on this in your blog 🙂

    • July 16, 2010 11:45 am

      I beg to differ from what you wrote Prasad 🙂
      1. Bhima breaks thigh because Duryodhana insults Draupadi to sit on his lap.
      2. Abhimanyu was never over-confident. He had no choice but to enter because Arjuna was the only one who knew how to enter and he was not around. No other person could enter and Yudistra makes Abhimanyu enter saying we will be following you. Kauravas trick him by blocking the entrance, so that others cannot enter and thus trap Abhimanyu

      You have no right to say “imaginary characters” so randomly. First please get your facts right. I disagree with all the 4 points you have mentioned, because it is not true. Many hindus consider it as an epic and you have no right to say these words.

      • debosmita permalink*
        July 16, 2010 1:45 pm

        Avada, the ‘imaginary characters’ part is debatable. There has been an intense ongoing debate about whether Mahabharata was fiction or non-fiction. If its fiction, then what Prasad says might be true. I feel that it is an account of true story. There is also a theory that Chandragupta Maurya belonged directly to the lineage of Krishna.

      • July 16, 2010 2:56 pm

        But it is like questioning someone’s faith in the religion. It is as atheistic as saying Jesus never existed.

      • Prasad permalink
        July 16, 2010 4:29 pm

        @Avada Kedavra –>

        May be you are right about the reasons for the deaths of the characters in the epic. You, like everyone can believe what your mind says. Because the genius Vyasa has given a network of reasons and consequences of each incident, the effect of past, in present & future dealing with all the dimensions of time. Some are direct and some are indirect, is left to the imagination of the reader. That’s the reason for numerous versions/opinions was created, starting from the ‘first’ reader to Debosmitha, for this masterpiece. This is where the argument starts because everyone has a differ frequency in mind, something called as the sixth sense.
        As an agnostic reader, the characters come to my mind as humans which I see in this world form the day I born. Even the faces of those characters are often me or the people I know.
        So I strongly stand that I have a right to say that they are ‘Imaginary’. May be fictionalized version of real incidents also suits. To say something true or not true, we need a proof. A proof needs a research and a research needs a debate to bring out numerous views and opinions. As for as my opinion, one cannot write an epic without a research. Vyasa/Valmiki might have named Homo Erectus as demons and the ape like ‘Java man’ matches with the appearance of Vanaras, by seeing the numerous cave paintings or may be they could have lived in their time bcoz there is a match in the timeline.
        I can give you numerous examples like this, but this comment section is only to appreciate or criticize Debosmitha’s blog. I normally feel bad for writing comments like this, but in this case I was provoked.

        And your blog about the media is too good 🙂

        @ Debosmita –> Your blog made me to pen down like this after a long time!!

      • Prasad permalink
        July 16, 2010 4:50 pm

        “But it is like questioning someone’s faith in the religion. It is as atheistic as saying Jesus never existed.”

        I do respect your faith in religion but this is not a ‘questioning’ of yours. It’s upto you to keep a strong faith and not to disturbed by this ‘questioning’.
        And atheistic people doesn’t say that Jesus never existed, but they say He is a Human.

  18. Prasad permalink
    July 15, 2010 6:54 pm

    I dont own a blog!! Mahesh asked be register myself in Facebook just a week ago. There I found your blog and it’s just awesome.
    I am a child before you. Commenting is easy but trigerring someone to follow you is difficult.. I am not sure whether I could do a blog.. And my place in internet is hidden!

  19. no one permalink
    July 15, 2010 11:50 pm

    Had a long tussle with myself not to barge in and put down a second comment only to answer to your ‘clarifications’, if they could be called so, but, your “between-the-line-remarks” were just too “inviting”.

    1. I am not good at “bouquet” distribution.

    That’s why the few bouquets received are so valuable. 🙂

    2. The reader having no “preliminary interest” or “knowledge” of the Mahabharat in this case was me. I do not know if to feel sorry for myself or just blame your bluntness in pointing it out.

    I was under the impression that you meant all readers. If its you who didn’t feel compelled to read further on after the introduction, then I am only to be blamed. I will surely heed your advice in future on this count.

    3. Also, I see the “easy on the tongue” point went “unheeded”. It’s not always about “catching the fancy” and launching a thousand dreams, but sometimes it is about sheer ‘wordsmanship’ to attract the uninitiated. The reader who truly absorbs the import of a beautiful book is the one who should be inspiring others to read it by writing a riveting review. In doing so the former succeeds in paying the greatest tribute to the author and his art.
    I am sure this point would not elicit further illustration.

    4. In asking Arjuna to raise arms against his own kinsmen Krishna asks him to rise above mere mortals in order to hold aloft the torch of Truth, Righteousness and Justice. Krishna asks Arjun to set an example which will inspire and guide humanity when faced with a similar dilemma for aeons to come.

    The well known ‘vedic activities’ are prescribed for ordinary humans leading ordinary lives, who do not suffer the burden of war fought for the sake of furthering the above mentioned ideals. That is exactly the reason why Krishna had to lecture Arjuna to stand up and be counted when it mattered and not to confuse the priority order of his duties. Exceptional situations demand for exceptional responses. And Arjuna was just being the instrument of God’s Own Justice.

    5. Firstly, I believe if you have to provide ‘links’ to expose the true “purport” of your concluding line you better count me in the crowd of the “infinite imbeciles”. I would be more than glad to join that plebeian club of humanity.
    Secondly, when Krishna says, “Relinquishing all ideas of righteousness, surrender unto ‘ Me’ exclusively, I will deliver you from all sinful reactions, do not despair “; by “Me” he means the eternal, the Divine, the embodiment of Salvation and Truth and not the person per se. This is Me is the Biswarup, This Me is the The Preserver, this Me is The Vasudev, and not the human form of the butter-pinching cowherd.
    Characters like Arjuna, Dronacharya and Dhritarastra had one or more follies in them but they were not totally unaware of Krishna’s willy manoeuvres. For instance, Dhritarastra could have advised son Duryodhan to forget vanity for once and take the seat near the sleeping Krishna’s feet when he went to ask for his assistance in war. Instead, he took the seat near Krishna’s head and the latter saw Yudishtir first after awakening from his sleep (as he was sitting near his feet) got the first right over his resources. Yudhistir chose The Man, Duryodhana went home happy with the Yadava Army. Also, Bheeshma could have gone back on his promise not to raise arms against a female or Drona could have reconciled to the inclusion of Sutputra Karna into the Kaurava clan. But, they did not. Because through each of their action Krishna, the architect of the war- as you call him, wanted to expose the paradox of virtue and vice in human life. And by “Me” He calls for all sense of being in mortals to merge into Him – He, who is Absolute, Endless and Indestructible. To surrender to His will in order to play out the greatest saga of human contradictions is a marvel in itself.

    I am not disappointed ‘on any count’ from the post, but I am a little dejected that you failed to grasp the real “purport” of my first “analytical” comment. I was happy with the content. My advice was wholly and solely directed to the craftsmanship of your literature and presentation. I could have been more powerful in its delivery, or so, I thought.
    Also, I did not mean to be ‘critical’. The very topic is such that there is no end to arguing its merits. My apologies for being hurtfully succinct or painfully circuitous in my comments, if you find so .

    I have noted and noted well your disappointment, not with the content but the style. And I also mentioned how I wish I had some more time.

    I promise I won’t clutter your comment space any further.
    It’s your baby anyway.

    The post space is mine, not the comment space. That’s absolutely for the readers.

    * I see from your comments section that many of your friends “have played a big role behind this post” with their “constant feedback”. I feel we, readers, owe them a THANKS.
    THANK YOU.

    To be precise, they are my team members and two friends. Even I owe them a huge thanks 🙂

    • July 16, 2010 8:22 am

      “Secondly, when Krishna says, “Relinquishing all ideas of righteousness, surrender unto ‘ Me’ exclusively, I will deliver you from all sinful reactions, do not despair “; by “Me” he means the eternal, the Divine, the embodiment of Salvation and Truth and not the person per se”

      Does Krishna say that explicitly anywhere in BG that “when I say me, you should understand it is not me, this Krishna, but the undivided, unmanifested inside me and you etc…”?

      Is that how Arjuna understood it?

      Quote your references.

  20. no one permalink
    July 15, 2010 11:58 pm

    Corrections:

    * This Me is the Bishwarup
    ** It could have been more powerful in its delivery, or so, I thought.

  21. July 16, 2010 1:33 am

    Debs, an absolute winner from you once again…

    I have read both the Mahabharat and the Gita and have always thought of Krishna as the “Chanakya” for that period of history…but had never really thought of things from this perspective. Your post has inspired me to return to the two epics and before I do that, I don’t think I would be qualified to comment in terms of agreement or disagreement, because this is brilliant, HATS OFF!!!

    ATB for BPL…Go Tiger, you roar!!! 🙂

    • debosmita permalink*
      July 16, 2010 1:48 pm

      Arpita, you are always generous with your praises of me 🙂 Thanks a ton!

  22. July 16, 2010 12:05 pm

    Sadly, the thing is if we do something good, the credit belongs to us, if we do something bad, the fault is with God. 😀
    Didn’t any one have their choices and free will… if Lord Krishna exercised his power and averted the war, what would be the point of humans, their choices, their free will, karma or dharma… wouldn’t we be mere puppets?
    Lord Krishna acted diplomat, showed the sides of what will be, what could be… why would he do more? Finally it came down to what the others chose, the ones who were in the position to choose. And that’s how it should be.
    We blame everyone for Kurukshetra except the ones who are really responsible including greed and ego!
    But girl, great post! You did it again! 🙂

    • July 16, 2010 12:22 pm

      Agree with what Guria said.
      Debosmita, a great post again from your side buddy!! 🙂 Loved the way you made everyone think about it.

    • debosmita permalink*
      July 16, 2010 3:32 pm

      I agree with you, Guria. In my opinion none of the Pandavas or Kauravas were absolutely ‘right’ or absolutely ‘wrong’. Each one of them reaped the fruits of their actions. Krishna, on the other hand was in the know of it all and in my opinion, orchestrated the whole thing. But the popular perceptions never reflect on these issues. Hence, this was just an attempt to look at the whole of it in a different light. 🙂 Looking at the response and comments, I feel, may be I was somewhat successful.
      Thanks a bunch 🙂 to both G and AK 🙂

  23. July 16, 2010 5:23 pm

    We should judge the actions of Krishna in the light of his Avataric mission and that is the establishment of ” Dharma” ” Dharma Samsthapanarthaya Sambhavami Yuge-Yuge” says the lord. Once this aspect is clear, everything falls in place.

    Narayanan

    • debosmita permalink*
      July 18, 2010 5:56 pm

      This is what I didn’t intend to do. I treated Krishna as a character of Mahabharat and not an avatar of Vishnu. Hence, for the purpose of this post, Krishna is not a God but a human being.

  24. July 16, 2010 9:09 pm

    @debosmita

    “But he was also the one to change the whole course of the epic in ways more than one, and not all of them were the most rightful and fair.”

    Define rightful and fair, please.

    • debosmita permalink*
      July 18, 2010 6:02 pm

      Rightful and fair in their most simplistic sense – what is rightful and fair for normal human beings.

  25. July 16, 2010 10:32 pm

    hey debo….. thats really great analysis, comprehensive and balanced, and i would like to read more lengthy posts from you

    As an anthropologist and Agnostic , I second some of Prasad’s points …. and i also endorse Avada’s explanations.

    Yes, the topic is quite debatable(it will never end…) as it is susceptible to various subjective interpretations

    When the pseudo Utopian Rama of Valmiki failed to evoke submission from Dravidians, the Aryans came up with the character of Krishna

    Sanchit is very much true regarding Buddha’s inclusion in Hinduism

    • Prasad permalink
      July 17, 2010 1:00 am

      “When the pseudo Utopian Rama of Valmiki failed to evoke submission from Dravidians, the Aryans came up with the character of Krishna”

      That’s an absolute reality. The character ‘Ram’ has failed gain popularity with the Dravidians, whom being the most liberal society worshiping ‘Lingam’. Because Ram was extraordinarily pure and has a character like a Karan Johar’s lead. But the character Krishna is pretty much comparable to fellow humans, which has lust, thievery, cunning etc.,
      @Mahesh –> I owe you a lot!!!

    • debosmita permalink*
      July 18, 2010 6:21 pm

      Thank you Mahesh 🙂 More lengthy posts??? :-O Let’s see 😉 The theory of Aryan-Dravidian is an area of which I would not comment since I am not sure of it. Its one big grey area.

  26. July 16, 2010 11:07 pm

    @ Chapter 18 & Ambi What do you/we understand by Dharma? And what is rightful and fair?

  27. July 17, 2010 1:10 am

    1st of all this Aryan-Dravidian theory is a hogwash and there is no scientific evidence to support it. There have been reasearches conducted to compare the genetics of so called “Aryans” and “Dravidians” but there haven’t been any pathbreaking results.

    Having said that I cant help if people believe that Ram was a Aryan king who waged a war on Dravidians or other such stuff.

    And About Krishna- Cunningness etc is ok….but LUST?? Thats like a bit too much!!

    • Prasad permalink
      July 17, 2010 1:29 am

      “1st of all this Aryan-Dravidian theory is a hogwash and there is no scientific evidence to support it”

      Scientific evidence! Do you believe in evolution? Look at the exo-skeleton structure of Aryan-Dravidian-Hybrids.! If you go thro scientific evidence, then all the humans will be like clones!

      “There have been researches conducted to compare the genetics of so called “Aryans” and “Dravidian’s” but there haven’t been any path breaking results.”

      Please Google your sentence once again!!

      “And About Krishna- Cunningness etc is ok….but LUST?? Thats like a bit too much!!”

      That may be my mistake! Not all are perfect!

      • July 17, 2010 1:35 am

        1.) Whats the difference between Exo skeletal structure of Rahul Dravid and Sachin Tendulkar?? Now this is just 1 example. There is not much difference. And certain differences are affected by enivormental conditions. If not scientifically on what basis are you saying about the Aryan and dravidian philosophy? From stuff mentioned in books?

        2.) Please provide me with a link if it states otherwise. Coz as far as I know there havent been any studies which showed they have different genetics. One guy earlier was referring to a study in Hyderabad but he failed to provide any link so I am still waiting for a credible link.

      • Prasad permalink
        July 17, 2010 1:56 am

        Not from the stuff mentioned in the books. But from the logic of behaviors to appearances! All the humans in the earth are hybrids of three great races. This needs an article to write about!
        I appreciate that you don’t see the difference in them, but why there is something called migration in human civilization? I am afraid that some racism would come if we go on this argument!
        May be if we work together, instead of arguing, might get a good result!

      • July 17, 2010 2:03 am

        I agree completely. There is no use arguing. There have been theories which state that they are different races and there have been others which say that this was a ploy by westerners to divide Indians.

        Currently I believe the other theory specially after I read a book on Swami Vivekananda and got to know his views and arguments on this issue.

        But then I am always open to learning new things and discussion rather than arguments is the way forward! 🙂

      • July 17, 2010 10:01 am

        @Prasad:

        It’s a ‘theory’… and I doubt it if the mass knowledge here would extend beyond ‘google’ on this topic.

        “Do you believe in evolution?”

        Here it goes. A question on one subject is dragged in to another realm. Can you please compare the timelines for the purported evolution of humans to their current form and the timelines for AIT? Tell me how you correlate both. I am most interested in knowing that.

  28. Prasad permalink
    July 17, 2010 1:05 pm

    As I told already, it requires an article to write about. The two epics itself has strong influence of migration to an unknown land. The relative timeline of human evolution and the Indo-aryan migration starts from the genetic drift of sapiens, neanderthals & cro-magnon. The extinction of the latter two, the survival of sapiens, the haplogroup mutation in south asia, the appearance of tibetians, and lot more topics need to be covered. If time permits, I would write something, somewhere.

    • debosmita permalink*
      July 18, 2010 6:34 pm

      Please do so.. and if required, be a guest blogger here 🙂 I will be more than happy to feature your post here.

  29. July 19, 2010 12:22 pm

    Kudos girl! For the 100% track record! Wayy to go! 🙂

    • debosmita permalink*
      July 27, 2010 5:26 pm

      Hey, thanks for noticing 😉 Its just one more round now.. Phew!

  30. Tejas permalink
    August 22, 2010 11:04 pm

    I think you’re missing the overall point of the Gita, and the necessity of the Great War; it was not to proclaim a victory, but to carry through the laws of karma which are pre ordained. Lord Krishna says when there is rise in irreligion and unrighteousness he manifests himself on Earth as what appears to be a material being (He is not material) to remove the miscreants and non-believers, and reestablish dharma.

    The example of war is the perfect analogy Lord Krishna could have presented Arjuna, his cousin. For what other monumental life event could provide such calamities, such mind provoking scenarios and overall intellect?

    Observe the Gita as a guide on how to obtain spiritual perfection, not a material satisfcation.

    • debosmita permalink*
      August 26, 2010 10:16 am

      Tejas – firstly, thanks a lot for your thought-provoking comment. Instead of just saying “you know nothing, so don’t write on such stuff”, you actually took pains to explain to me a different view point.

      When I wrote the post, the focus was only on Mahabharata, but since I had to analyse the character of Krishna, the focus got heavily shifted to Gita. I claim to have some knowledge of the epic Mahabharata, but frankly, I read the whole of Gita, that too translated version for the first time during the contest. I have my own theories on various incidents and occasions of Mahabharata but none on Gita. Those verses were used mainly because I felt that they helped me prove my point – upon a plain reading.

      I am sure, there are lot of interpretations and yours is one of them. As I have always maintained, it really depends on a person as to which one he/she would adopt.

      One more assumption I made, which I also mentioned in the disclaimer is that I treated Krishna as a mortal character of Mahabharata and not the Divine avatar of Bhagavad Gita. Many readers have missed that point; may be I was not clear enough.

      Thanks once again for your valuable comments. I gained a new perspective and will surely read further on the same.

  31. VInay permalink
    August 25, 2010 11:34 pm

    Dear,

    The Blog means you know nothing about Mahabharata . Please don’t you these f you don’t know about a subject completely for mere points or wins.

    We are no body to judge Krishna’s act or participation is the Great Fight for Dharma. Better you understand the Epic Thoroughly.

    • debosmita permalink*
      August 26, 2010 10:31 am

      Vinay – firstly welcome to my blog. It seems you were in a hurry to make your point and hence, at places, it didn’t make sense.

      I understand what you say; however, I cannot write on anything unless I am 100 percent sure of the stand I am taking and unless I, myself believe in them completely. I only have a knack of seeing what others do not usually, but it doesn’t mean that I am always right. Mahabharata is my most favourite literary piece and I have read it many times. I simply had some radical view points, which I expressed through my post e.g. I also feel Duryodhana used Karna to gain one upmanship against the Pandavas in the garb of friendship, Karna and Draupadi were in love with each other but could never express it etc etc. I am not the only one to say so.. there are many scholars who have expressed such radical views.

      And about winning, as you can see above, the person who was judging my post was also dead-against my stand and have vigorously argued his view point in the comment section. Even before I wrote it, I knew there will be very few takers and I might face flak for it. I simply was not expecting to win.

      For me, its always about writing what I truly believe in and not to grab eyeballs and win contests.

      • Vinay permalink
        August 27, 2010 8:19 pm

        Yaa,

        I happened to read some of your so called radical views.
        You are write , I was in a hurry . But wanted to make it a point there.
        Please , we have better things in life to judge write or wrong than our ideals.
        The victory of Pandavas was very much essential as they are the 5 most important elements (Panchatatva as we know them) with Sri Shakti (Draupadi) the most power ful element of all . The world is all about these elements if you do indepth study of Mahabharata. Purpose of Lord Krishna was to establish Dharma . Great Warriers like Drona , Bhishma , Kul Guru Kripacharya were merely taking their stand themselves from going by tatvas , Being loyal to the kingdom and not Dharma . If they were in a position to judge , they could have very well stopped , what happened to Draupadi .

        Abhimanyu was Vali in his previous birth (in Tretha Yuga) . He was dead against Rama (Previous Incarnation of Lord Vishnu). Abhumanyu was due for salvation in Dwapara Yuga by way of sacrificing his life for a good cause ” Fighting for Dharma” . As Lord Krishna had rightly mentioned ” the doer of good deeds for the welfare of society either my work or waging war is special to Lord and thus find salvation in the feet of Lord.

        I had seen another person mentioning , Krishna was responsible for the war . This is totally wrong . Shakuni was responsible from the day Gandhari was married to Dhrutarashtra as He was a blind king . Inorder to take revenge , he ensures Duryodhana cultivates hatred towards Pandavas right from his childhood days . Lord Krishna is responsible in ending the great Battle .

        Lord Krishna is an Enigma . No one can know his character that easily . He vowed , not the raise weapons in the great battle of good vs evil , This is because , the deeds were planned through the hands of Pandavas (Karma) .

        Thanks..

      • September 1, 2010 4:24 pm

        debsmita,
        a great writeup. without sounding extremely right, i just want to say that there indeed are many who have commented thus (not just this post, but online, offline etc), and casting a long shadow of doubt over every great character created.

        even if one is atheist, that doesn’t mean one should jump to judge such elaborate characters as kRiShNa so quickly. they have stood the test of time, there must be something right they did. else, why would people worship them. not just now, but for ages? we can say, that these days people don’t even know the details of these legends, just the amar chitra katha or the TV serial. but for centuries great scholars and poets HAVE known the details of these characters, and yet no one has cast such shadows. this has seemed like a modern phenomenon, after british and leftist influence.

        i don’t want to write too much here, it is a long discussion. but if you genuinely desire to understand the kRiShNa and rAma character, the way they were developed by the authors, etc. and even an objective analysis, please send me an email (practicalsanskrit-at-gmail.com) . the other reason i don’t put all the points here is also that i don’t want to simply debate, so if you are not interested, i will not bother with the details. debates are useless, only discussions are helpful.

        i run a blog on practial sanskrit and i deal exactly with these kind of issues, how to interpret ancient sanskrit works, the body and the souls aspects of the works. i am glad you have taken so much time to write about kRiShNa, even if quick to cast shadow, at least you spent time thinking about the great story. now, if only you try to find the reasons why it has been alive for so long!
        thank you. warm regards.

      • debosmita permalink*
        September 2, 2010 12:35 pm

        Thank you for your insightful comment; I will surely go through your blog.. I feel truly humbled when so many readers take time out to read it and post their comments. Thanks a lot!

        The great epic has been interpreted in various ways by various scholars. Some say its fiction; some say its fact and you say its a manifestation of the world’s essential elements. The beauty lies in the fact that there are actually equal number of convincing points in favour of all the varying perspectives. One has the liberty to choose one of them, based on his understanding and belief.

        I would again repeat, may be I came out a bit too harsh on krishna, but I was only trying to analyse his mortal character (and not the divine one) in the backdrop his various actions in Mahabharata.

        One good thing that came out from the post is the varying levels of arguments that truly enriched the post. 🙂

  32. October 10, 2010 5:25 pm

    Hi Debosmita,

    I came from Pal’s link . Great Post . I got caught in all the comments here that I forgot what I was to post . Will read it once more .

    GREAT WORK ! HATS OFF TO YOU !

    • debosmita permalink*
      February 10, 2011 3:14 pm

      Thank you so much for appreciating! You are one of the few who did 🙂

  33. Abhishek permalink
    January 23, 2011 10:44 am

    You have put in a lot of thought and research. Nice read 🙂

    • debosmita permalink*
      February 10, 2011 3:17 pm

      That I did! Long hours of research! Thanks for dropping by 🙂

      • Abhishek permalink
        February 11, 2011 12:35 pm

        Did you read Bankim Chatterjee’s Krishna Charitra? Read it if you haven’t

  34. milap permalink
    February 1, 2011 11:38 pm

    You can not analyze beyond your real world thoughts, you can not explain god’s act in real worlds situation

    • debosmita permalink*
      February 10, 2011 3:19 pm

      But why can’t we judge the divine actions with the same yardstick used to judge mortal beings?

  35. geet permalink
    February 10, 2011 3:00 pm

    ok ,, i accidently hit this page while searching fr pics of Shri Krishna.. I am so sorry to say this but you seem to have a very shallow knowledge of scriptures. Especially the question posed for abhimanyu’s death made me laughed. I wonder what did u understand out of Gita if u simply did not understand the law cause and effect 🙂 ,,,, scriptures are highly sensitive and advanced and are up above all the triviality your talking about born out of your egoistic, narrow and delusional wordly mind.

    • debosmita permalink*
      February 10, 2011 3:23 pm

      Geet, welcome to my blog, which is more than just this post. Not completely agreeing with you, I say that I may not have full knowledge about the scriptures, but tell me who has? Even the scholars who read and re-read the scriptures come up with new explanations every time. That, in my eyes, is the beauty of the scriptures.

      You could have made your points, like others above, without the personal attacks, especially since you are not in a position to judge me.

      • February 11, 2011 12:15 am

        That is probably what is wrong with the entire comment thread. Most of them read like personal attacks. I was expecting a matured discussion. The Gita (and I have read it) is a story more than just mere teachings and we as readers can judge it and analyse it in our own way. It is a treasured piece of literature. Krishna, as a character, though considered God, can also be judged. Everyone has their own views and there are ways to put them across without attacking someone else’s thoughts. The post is an analysis, which gives the author the right to put across her points of views, just like Geet has the right to comment about it.

      • geet permalink
        February 11, 2011 12:39 pm

        Dear Debosmita ,, No personal attack was intended.. I really found this article extremely immature and the points raised clearly show lack of deep insight in the matter or shall I any??. The discussion is more or less like a critique on a soap opera or a movie for that matter,, and I guess this best describes it.

        Lot of people have knowledge even in today’s time, some completely aligned with the truth, some on the path to seek the truth and knowledge, some getting there and most don’t care and still pretend to have learned it and know it all. I tried to put my point across by simply asking one question if you did not understand law of karma, cause and effect then what did you really read?

        I just couldn’t resist commenting and I wanted to keep it short and to the point. when I said questions you posed are products of egoistic, wordly, delusional mind dont take it as an offence (probably thats what pinched you) , these traits are human origin and are present in most of us even in me else I wouldn’t have bother to comment and reply to nonessential, uninsightful post . you mentioned that “Krishna could have avoided war instead other peaceful measures could have sought” 😀 ok here I was like your kidding arent u? well the whole read gave this feeling. firstly, are you taking Krishna as a magic God whose gonna turn his magic wand n make everything alright? secondly, this is how the original author of mahabharat wrote the epic for a “reason” which you surely dont understand else this questions wouldnt be there. now tell me on such questions do you expect to put points across?? There is no point when basic essence has not been understood. Though I could have made my points across but that would be like a short novel or so. and I see some of ’em actually tried to refute (Vinay) you . I do not intend or rather wish to write long stories to educate people and go on a virtual debate.

        Anyways I have no intentions whatsoever to offend you and you have every right to have an opinion/view points of your own about anyone even “GOD (s)” … When even Shri Krishna after preaching all the Gita left everything on Arjun to decide .. then being a human who are we impose anything on others.

        Peace out !!

      • February 11, 2011 1:22 pm

        And I repeat, there are ways to say it.

        Anyways, let me clarify (again) that Krishna is a character in the Mahabharata, like Illiad and Odyssey. The fact that the book has been written by a human being (Vyasa) opens it up for “discussion”, not “personal wars”.

        There are essays by Rabindranath Tagore about both Ramayana and Mahabhrata, which give a more matured way of looking at these two texts without bringing religion into it. I’m not writing this only for Geet, but everyone else who is interested in the topic. Debosmita, have you read them?

  36. February 10, 2011 8:46 pm

    very nice post debo di. (hope u dont mind the shortening of your name)
    it made me interested in the whole Mahabharata mythological setup as an adult..also, kudos in the way you’ve handled all the bouquets and brickbats coming your way with elan and grace.
    cheers

    • debosmita permalink*
      February 11, 2011 11:02 am

      Debolina – yes, you were bang on 🙂 When I wrote it, I knew that it would spark a huge debate; what I did not bargain for was a series of personal attacks…

      Debadyuti – No! no! please don’t call me that 😦
      Thank you so much for dropping by; I do hope you pick up any copy of the Mahabharata (I will suggest the Bengali one by Rajshekhar Basu) and you will realise how every different read will reveal different interpretations for you. 🙂

  37. debadyuti Banerjee permalink
    February 11, 2011 1:00 pm

    Debosmita di- Thanks for the heads up.

  38. Rajeesh.K permalink
    February 14, 2011 9:28 am

    We may not eat everything in a ‘curry’ even though it is excellent, but total taste and aim of the curry is for our satisfaction and health. My dear friend you are, it seems, interested to eat only those things, are been considered as waist. Krishna is the lord and one and only one God. Thanks that you didn’t hurt much and provided some nice pictures.Say “Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare” as much as possible for “Moksha”

  39. Dr. Sugata Chatterjee permalink
    June 4, 2011 12:14 am

    Debosmita has commented on Sri Krishna just the way a school child will do and she feels very good about it. Perhaps she has not read Bankim Chandra Chatterjee’s Krishna Charitra, in that case she would not have felt the need for reproducing a few of Bankim’s comments and this whole “analytical Post”. The funniest part is she is making an oblique remark that Sri Krishna could have stopped the war. This is a dialogue of Mukesh Khanna in B.R.Chopra’s Mahabharat serial. She means Krishna could have killed Duryodhana and there would not have been any war !One should not write a post with such childish simplistic mind set. She has conveniently diluted the hineous crimes the Kauravas did in a continuous fashion on to the Pandavas. And she has also conveniently forgotten what basically Krishna told Arjuna, no matter who the sinner is, he should be punished. These are duties and if you take refuge in Him, he will give you the required vision and solace.

  40. January 2, 2012 9:48 pm

    Thanks for this. I have a new critique of the Gita that might be of interest as well. In it I argue that the Bhagavad Gita is an overrated text with a deplorable morality at its core.

  41. Girdhar permalink
    January 23, 2012 1:04 am

    @Debosmita :

    There is a difference between criticism and confusion. The points you have raised relate more to your confusion. Let me show how you writeup is out-of-context.

    In the past there had been a muslim regiment in the army, which refused to fight against Pakistan. Who knows if they were sent in the war, you might not be even existing for a writeup, as the history speaks, Mughals didn’t obey any rules of war. They killed, looted, raped and destroyed temples as they marched. Please read Aurangzeb Nama and Babur Nama for the details and how they found it crowning and glory in the misdeeds.

    So should the muslims in the regiment should have fought or not? Was it their duty to fight or not? A soldiers duty is only to obey the direct orders from their superiors and fight. Similarly, it is a doctors duty to heal irrespective of the fact whether the patient is from the enemy’s camp or not. Therefore, you see in Ramayan, the doctor from Ravana’s camp healed Laxman.

    Mahabharat’s war was not a good or bad war and should not be judged accordingly. It was a dharmic war and occured for the prevalence of dharma in the society. We all saw how Dhritrashtra forget his dharma and got “attached” to his son that he ignored even Draupadi being harrassed in front of everybody. The daughter-in-law in the great hastinapur being molested, itself only speaks volumes of adharma let alone the injustice done to the pandavas.

    Calling krishna as a “politician” only shows how the write up is meant to demean the Indian sentiments. Anything that upholds dharma cannot be reduced to “politics”, but to set of wors consisting of righteousness and ethics.

    Just like it is a soldier’s duty to fight irrespective of the enemy’s religion, region, cast, color and relation, similarly it was Arjun’s dharma or duty to fight and fulfill the duties of a kshatriya. It is common sense and simple objectivity that you have reduced to “Krishna’s politics”.

    Telling the “hot-headed Duryodhan” about Pandavas’ superiority was again a part of prevention of war as a last option as the war was obvious. I’m suprised you couldn’t see it as a characteristics of a good negotiater?

    If Arjun’s had yielded to “love and respect for one’s own family” i.e to Kaurava’s as per your criticism, then future @Debosmita’s would be writing articles that Arjun did have an objective mindset and he could not protect his real brothers i.e Pandavas or deliver justice to his wife i.e draupadi. Either ways Arjun was screwed by all criticism of @Debosmitas. An soldier will kill in a battle. The typical human rights activists would empathise with the terrorists, call the Indian army as molesters and if terrorism rises, the politicians would blame it on the Indian army. Therefore, whatever the army does someone would say soemthing or the other. Thus, it is a duty of the soldier to fight irrespective of the consequences.

    Thus what call as “provocation”, I see it as “enlightenment” reminding Arjun of hs dharma. Remember, it was only when Arjun asked for help that Krishna started his divine song called Bhagvad Gita (Bhagavad means Divine and Geet means Song).

    I don’t know how found verse 2.3 to be contrary to 3.8 as after reading Gita like 8 times already I still found no flaw.

    One who realizes the renunciation of action in activities and action in the renunciation of activities, he is spiritually intelligent among mankind, transcendentally situated a perfect performer of all actions. (BG 4.18)

    It is the most intelligent philosophy that I have encountered. In brief, renunciation of action in activites infers to detachment to the consequences to one’s actions to be able to faultlessly deliver the actions and similarly, action in renunciation of activites is characterised by activity in that detatchment. Earth moves around the sun flawlessly doing its activity in a selfless or a detached way. That detatchment alone speaks of its activity. Even when a sage meditates then also he does activity and even when it seems that he is doing some activity, then also he is doing it for the preservation of dharma which is associated with objectivity or detatchment.

    FYI, no where in Gita he depicts war as good or evil as you have ignorantly stated. Please find me the sanskrit verses saying the same? Throughout Gita, he states about “Dharma” and Karmayoga.

    And just to jog your memory, it was Duryodhana who actually said that he won’t even give an inch of land to the Pandavas. His anger surpassed all reasoning of Krishna. I wonder if you have even read Mahabharat?

    And finally, Krishna never forced Arjun to fight. He, throughout stated that it is his opinion and to do as he wishes!

    But the science of uniting the individual consciousness with the Ultimate Consciousness practiced by one with uncontrolled mind is difficult to obtain; thus it is My opinion that in this endeavor controlling the mind is the practical and appropriate means of achievement. (Gita 6.36)

    Thus the most confidential wisdom of all that is confidential has been described by I to you; deliberating fully on this; accordingly act as you wish. (Gita 18.63)

    The rest of writeup is a typical remainder of ignorance and is unworthy of any discussion. Let me remind, an intellectual questioning is one when a person reads the entire text to have actually understood in a “flow”, with that entire flow in his mind, and then asking a question if he has a doubt. But this write is unique. It proves you haven’t read Mahabharat or atleast Gita properly and only written it in haste or perhaps with an agenda to defame the holy Bhagvada Geet.

    You have not only ignore 6.36, 18.63, the entire chapter 2 of why Krishna enlightened Arjun, after what but also showed your ignorance of understanding of Dharma i.e righteousness, duty and ethics.

    Obviously, not war is good. But if it becomes obvious, one needs to do his duty leaving all his attachments aside. What will you do if you father or brother, beyond all your reasonings and beggings, decides to nuke India or carry out a terrorist attack? Will you stop him by all means or let him kill the innocents?

    I guess the answer is both simple and difficult depending upon the way you look at it which also reflects the level of consciousness! 🙂

  42. Girdhar permalink
    January 23, 2012 1:12 am

    –Typos corrected–

    @Debosmita :

    There is a difference between criticism and confusion. The points you have raised relate more to your confusion. Let me show how you writeup is out-of-context.

    In the past there had been a muslim regiment in the army, which refused to fight against Pakistan. Who knows if they were sent in the war, you might not be even existing for a writeup, as the history speaks, Mughals didn’t obey any rules of war. They killed, looted, raped and destroyed temples as they marched. Please read Aurangzeb Nama and Babur Nama for the details and how they found it crowning and glory in the misdeeds.

    So should the muslims in the regiment should have fought or not? Was it their duty to fight or not? A soldiers duty is only to obey the direct orders from their superiors and fight. Similarly, it is a doctors duty to heal irrespective of the fact whether the patient is from the enemy’s camp or not. Therefore, you see in Ramayan, the doctor from Ravana’s camp healed Laxman.

    Mahabharat’s war was not a good or bad war and should not be judged accordingly. It was a dharmic war and occured for the prevalence of dharma in the society. We all saw how Dhritrashtra forget his dharma and got “attached” to his son that he ignored even Draupadi being harrassed in front of everybody. The daughter-in-law in the great hastinapur being molested, itself only speaks volumes of adharma let alone the injustice done to the pandavas.

    Calling krishna as a “politician” only shows how the write up is meant to demean the Indian sentiments. Anything that upholds dharma cannot be reduced to “politics”, but to set of words consisting of righteousness and ethics.

    Just like it is a soldier’s duty to fight irrespective of the enemy’s religion, region, cast, color and relation, similarly it was Arjun’s dharma or duty to fight and fulfill the duties of a kshatriya. It is common sense and simple objectivity that you have reduced to “Krishna’s politics”.

    Telling the “hot-headed Duryodhan” about Pandavas’ superiority was again a part of prevention of war as a last option as the war was obvious. I’m suprised you couldn’t see it as a characteristics of a good negotiater?

    If Arjun’s had yielded to “love and respect for one’s own family” i.e to Kaurava’s as per your criticism, then future @Debosmita’s would be writing articles that Arjun did not have an objective mindset and he could not protect his real brothers i.e Pandavas or deliver justice to his wife i.e draupadi. Either ways Arjun was screwed by all criticisms of @Debosmitas. A soldier will kill in a battle. Typically, human rights activists would empathise with the terrorists, call the Indian army as molesters and if terrorism rises, the politicians would blame it on the Indian army. Therefore, whatever the army does, someone would say soemthing or the other. Thus, it is the duty of the soldier to fight irrespective of the consequences.

    Thus what call as “provocation”, I see it as “enlightenment” reminding Arjun of hs dharma. Remember, it was only when Arjun asked for help that Krishna started his divine song called Bhagvad Gita (Bhagavad means Divine and Geet means Song).

    I don’t know how you found verse 2.3 to be contrary to 3.8 as after reading Gita like 8 times already I still found no flaw.

    One who realizes the renunciation of action in activities and action in the renunciation of activities, he is spiritually intelligent among mankind, transcendentally situated a perfect performer of all actions. (BG 4.18)

    It is the most intelligent philosophy that I have encountered. In brief, renunciation of action in activites infers to detachment to the consequences to one’s actions to be able to faultlessly deliver the actions and similarly, action in renunciation of activites is characterised by activity in that detatchment. Earth moves around the sun flawlessly doing its activity in a selfless or a detached way. But it is till doing an activity! Even when a sage meditates then also he does activity and even when it seems that he is doing some activity, then also he is doing it for the preservation of dharma which is associated with objectivity or detatchment.

    FYI, no where in Gita he depicts war as good or evil as you have ignorantly stated. Please find me the sanskrit verses saying the same? Throughout Gita, he states about “Dharma” and Karmayoga.

    And just to jog your memory, it was Duryodhana who actually said that he won’t even give an inch of land to the Pandavas. His anger surpassed all reasoning of Krishna. I wonder if you have even read Mahabharat?

    And finally, Krishna never forced Arjun to fight. He, throughout stated that it is his opinion and to do as he wishes!

    But the science of uniting the individual consciousness with the Ultimate Consciousness practiced by one with uncontrolled mind is difficult to obtain; thus it is My opinion that in this endeavor controlling the mind is the practical and appropriate means of achievement. (Gita 6.36)

    Thus the most confidential wisdom of all that is confidential has been described by I to you; deliberating fully on this; accordingly act as you wish. (Gita 18.63)

    The rest of writeup is a typical remainder of ignorance and is unworthy of any discussion. Let me remind, an intellectual questioning is one when a person reads the entire text to have actually understood in a “flow”, with that entire flow in his mind, and then asking a question if he has a doubt. But this writeup is unique. It proves you haven’t read Mahabharat or atleast Gita properly and only written it in haste or perhaps with an agenda to defame the holy Bhagvada Geet.

    You have not only ignored 6.36, 18.63, the entire chapter 2 of why Krishna enlightened Arjun and after what but also showed your ignorance of understanding of Dharma i.e righteousness, duty and ethics.

    Obviously, no war is good. But if it becomes obvious, one needs to do his duty leaving all his attachments aside. What will you do if your father or brother, beyond all your reasonings and beggings, decides to nuke India or carry out a terrorist attack? Will you stop him by all means or let him kill the innocents?

    I guess the answer is both simple and difficult depending upon the way you look at it which also reflects the level of consciousness! 🙂

    • Uma Sookmanee permalink
      July 15, 2014 5:08 pm

      I like your comment and I would like to share what I found somewhere (I do not remember who wrote it) that just enlightened my curious mind.

      I quote:”Arjuna represents the individual soul, and Sri Krishna the Supreme Soul dwelling in every heart. Arjuna’s chariot is the body. The blind king Dhritarashtra is the mind under the spell of ignorance, and his hundred sons are man’s numerous evil tendencies. The battle, a perennial one, is between the power of good and the power of evil. The warrior who listens to the advice of the Lord speaking from within will triumph in this battle and attain the Highest Good.”

      I do not think that some debate is needed on the above quotation as it is self-explanatory!

  43. asaf permalink
    February 2, 2012 5:11 pm

    Thankyou for not intending to hurt anyone’s feelings. However, this post is far from being objective! Had it been objective, you would have mentioned verse 22 of chapter 3 (Bhagavad gita As it Is):
    “O son of Pritha, there is no work prescribed for Me within all the three planetary systems. Nor am I in want of anything, nor have I a need to obtain anything-and yet I am engaged in prescribed duties”.
    Also you may have quoted B.g. 4.7-8, where Krishna says:
    “Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice….and a predominant rise of irreligion – at that time I descend Myself. To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I Myself appear, millennium after millennium.”
    And in B.g. 7.7 Krishna says:
    ” O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.”
    Your last quote, from B.g.18.66 (NOT 62…..) is translated somewhat different in Bhagavad gita As it Is, by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada:
    “Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.”
    To conclude, there are nany more examples to be given, but the principle is clear. Understanding and accepting that Krishna IS God (hopefully you do believe in God), you would’nt need to waste valuable time to speculate why Krishna did this or that. His actions are beyond our finite, infinitesimal intelligence!

    “Bhagavad gita As it Is” is available online at: http://vedabase.net/en
    Please make an effort to read more deeply into the purports of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami. Thank you

  44. Seva permalink
    February 24, 2012 8:57 pm

    You will understand Bhagavad gita only when you accept Krishna as God.

    Krishna stands above morality.

    What pleases Krishna is good.
    What doesnt please Him is evil.
    War id good, if it pleases Krishna.
    Peace is evil if Krishna doesnt like it.

    You can ask why is Krishna so important?
    Well because he is eternal, immortal and He is

    endlessly strong,
    endlessly handsome,
    endlessly rich,
    endlessly wise,
    endlessly famous,
    and endlessly austere.

    He is Bhagavan – God of Gods.

    Untill you understand real position of Krishna, you wont understand Bhagavad gita.

  45. Ram permalink
    March 2, 2012 5:45 pm

    Hi everyone,

    The reply to this article (in short) is as follows:

    The article claims that “krishna instigated dhuryodhan by telling him that the pandavas were more skilled then he is”

    My arguement is that , this is not instigation but is called speaking the truth.
    If something is proven then it is said to be true.
    The pandavas war skills were proven to be superior then dhuryodhans.
    Therefore Krishna mentioning this to dhuryodhan meant he only spoke the truth.

    The article claims that ” krishna used illegal tactics when he directed bhima to hit dhuryodhan below the navel”

    My arguement is that …Dhuryodhan was already in breach of the war rules as he used the invincible tactics.

    Secondly , Krishna was not on any particular side. the theme of geeta suggests that krishna
    was on the side of righteuosness and pandavas were just that.

    Thirdly , krishna tried all possibilities to veto war. he even strategically led the pandavas to the forest providing them with a barren land as a platform to cultivate their karma but Dhuryodhan kept interfering due to greed of the throne. War was the only last resort to end this and was only permitted once all avenues to prevent it were exhausted.

    …and lastly the people who took part in the draupadi vastra haran and the people who were standing there watching in the name of kingdom ….. would it have been moral to leave them unpunished ?? would this had sent an appropriate signal to society ?

  46. Tamil Mani permalink
    March 6, 2012 12:38 pm

    It would seem to me that you have read the Mahabharata and the BhagavadGita with a view to finding faults with Lord Krishna’s actions and motives. There are some instances in your writing that belies the truth — either deliberately or through ignorance of Lord Krishna’s ultimate purpose.

    Remember this: Lord Vishnu reincarnated as a mortal being in the form of Lord Krishna when dharma was at a very low ebb. The Kauravas were the cause of this unrighteousness, and they were also a bunch of morally inept kshatriyas. No amount of pleadings, either from the Pandavas or Lord Krishna, could change their wayward ways.

    You have missed the whole point of the BhagavadGita and its teachings as explained by Lord Krishna at the onset of the war. He spoke about the ills of human or material nature, our purpose in life, our relationship with our Creator, and how we should aspire and act to be liberated from the bondage of human existence.

    It would pay to read Hindu scriptures, especially the BhagavadGita, with an open mind. Lord Krishna’s real intentions should be examined and understood with discernment.

  47. Tamil Mani permalink
    March 7, 2012 10:33 am

    I am very surprised you declare yourself to be an ardent fan of all that Krishna stands for, yet distort all of the Lord’s actions and intentions.

    I believe you must have got your skewed views from reading the Mahabharata only. Did you ever get to read the BhagavadGita, at least a proper translation of it?

    Did you write this post for self-aggrandisement at the expense of the Lord? In this age of Kali, if we can’t propagate the Truth, then the least we can do is to avoid displaying passion and ignorance. Remove the illusion of knowledge under the spell of maya.

    • Vikram permalink
      March 25, 2012 10:37 am

      To Tamil Mani, I so much agree with you. Mortals judging the eternal, how silly!!

      • Uma Sookmanee permalink
        July 15, 2014 4:59 pm

        Yes true indeed!
        We r in Kalyug and I think its not a surprise to find people lost from the path of Dharm. Anyway when I think that during the end of the Dwapar Yug, even the relatives of Shri Krishna e.g. Kans (mama) , Kauravas(cousins), Shishupal(cousin), Jarasandha, Shakuni, Dhrishtrashtra and all those present and witnessing Shri Krishna in that era did not believe to him so how are can we change the present mindset?

  48. N K DAS permalink
    March 29, 2012 8:55 pm

    Hare Krishna,

    It’s good that you tried to explain about Lord Krishna, but you don’t have enough knowledge about him. It’s more of your own understanding which you have presented about Lord Krishna. Now this is very wrong because anyone can present his own viewpoint about Krishna i.e how he understands with his imperfect, limited mind & intelligence about the LIMITLESS LORD Sri Krishna, but this will only create doubts and wrong conceptions to the innocent readers. My request to you is that you explain Krishna AS HE IS, and not what you and other people think. And to know about KRISHNA AS IT IS, you must read BHAGAVAD GITA AS IT IS by HDG A.C. BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI SRILA PRABHUPADA – a pure devotee of Krishna coming in a bonafied disciplic succession of gaudiya vaishnavism, and recommend your readers also to read it.
    We being humans are different from animals because we can think and ask questions like “who am i?”, “What is my existence?”, “Why there is birth, death, old age and diisease?”, Who is GOD?, What is this Creation all about? etc.
    We can understand the meaning behind this life, but a dog cannot.

    So please go on and find out who is KRISHNA. He is not a MYTH. He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Krishnas tu bhagwan svayam (Srimad Bhagvatam), Govindam adi purusam tam aham bhajami(Brahma samhita).

    One more thing: “it’s not sentiment, it’s science”.

    It;s really important to know about Krishna and his teachings of Bhagavad Gita because only intelligent people like you who are inquisitive can understand. But don’t speculate. Know it and understand it from a right source and then explain. Because wrong info is creating havoc in our society and misleading the society. Read Genuine, Become Genuine.

    Download Bhagavad gita as it is
    http://www.AsItIs.com
    http://www.PrabhupadaBooks.com

    Yours
    N.K.DAS
    nkkdasa@gmail.com

    • Sumit permalink
      September 1, 2012 9:33 am

      Great comments Mr Das. Only the chosen ones will understand the true God. Rest of the souls will remain puppets of ‘Maya’. After all this is ‘Kali Yuga’, isn’t it.

  49. amit permalink
    July 10, 2012 6:17 am

    Hi surabh. I am sorry I did not like many of your sentences like the one In which u say that krishna never wanted to stop the war.
    Yes. He did not wanted to stop it uska reason tha jab burai apni seema ka dayra par kar jaaye aur maafi ke layak nahi ho tab aisa kadam utha ya jata hai. Manushya itna saksham nahi hai ki woh kisiso sahi ya galat ka faisla kar ke desake eg;- jaise ki mera aap se yeah sab kaihna joh sahi bhi ho sakta hai aur galat bhi. Bahut soch samaj ke he mahabarat aur ramayan ki rachna ki gayi hai mein maafi mang ta hun agar aapko meri baat galat lagi ho toh. But I don’t know why I believe that hum itne paripuran nahi hai ki hum sahi aur galat ka faisla kar sake. Anyways hari om tc

  50. August 11, 2012 1:05 pm

    Here the questioner is a biased person with no idea of the importance of ‘dharma’ in human life, and also of the inevitability of a ‘dharma yudh’. Hence he failed to understand the moral lessons to be learnt from the different incidents explained in the Mahabharata written by the great Rishi Vedavyasa. More over the questioner seems to have an ulterior motive to project Sri Krishna as having done many wrong things like the Christian God did in the Bible stories of Moses, and Adam and Eve. My para- vise remarks are given below:_
    Since the adharmi Duryodhana got the boon from Gandhari in an unethical way, what Sri Krishna had done to enable his killing is the right thing. Gandhari did not really want to give the boon to her adharmi son Duryodhana and that might have been the reason why she put forward a condition which no mother would not have done. Would any noble King /Son agree to stand fully naked in front of his own mother? Here Rishi Vedavayas was showing the true color of Duryodhana. From his action one can understand what a base character Duryodhana was. The questioner has not given any importance to Bhima’s vows and has over-looked Duryodhana’s unethical way of getting the boon and how Duryodhana tried to kill Bhima during their childhood. It is also obvious that the questioner has not read the whole of Mahabharata. So he is not on firm ground to question Sri Krishna’s actions.
    No mother would want her children to fight and kill each other. Any mother would have done the same thing that Kunti had done in that particular instance . There is no justification for the questioner to blame Sri Krishna for his clever strategy. Karna played a negative role in Draupadi’s ‘cheer haran'(the most shameful disrobing of Draupadi). He went to the extent of calling her a prostitute. He was also one of the five powerful warriors who together killed the sixteen-year old Abhimanyu, when he was unarmed. Was it ethical of them? Later, despite knowing the secret of who his mother was, Karna was bent on fighting for Duryodhana, because both of them were partners in adharma. He thought that as long as he had the Brahmastra with him Arjuna cannot beat him. All the great warriors who fought for Duryodhana knew that he was not amenable to reason, and themselves did not care so much for Dharma. Such people deserve to perish. It is their fate- ‘vinaasa kaale vipareetha buddhi’.
    There is a good moral story in this incident. No warrior should fight with half knowledge in any war. But again, it was fate that befell the young warrior. In the Kurukshetra war Sri Krisna was not only a charioteer to Arjuna, but also a master strategist, and unofficial commander-in-chief of the Pandava army, without taking up a weapon. Sri. Krishna took a tactical move because he knew that Dronacharya devised the Chakravyuha formation to kill Arjuna through Karna using the Brahmastra. Sri Krishna wanted to avoid Karna till he somehow used the Brahmastra. Unfortunately, it happened to be against .Ghatotgaja.
    Why did Dronacharya join hands with Duryodhana, knowing well that he is adharmic? He should have cross -checked the news what Yudhisthira said. It is a lesson for humans that we should not believe in any news without cross- checking.

    In this case, it was Duryodhana who asked for only the army of Krishna. because he under-estimated the power of Sri Krishna. Where as Arjuna had abiding faith in Sri Krishna and had exemplary devotion. The failure of the questioner to read the complete Mahabharata and understand its nuances is responsible for the ill-conceived questions.
    Here again Bhagawan Sri Krishna showed his power to kill the evil Jayadrath, who joined the other warriors in mercilessly killing the unarmed Abhimanyu. Sri Krishna never ever leaves his devotee in the wilderness like the Christian God did to Moses for a small mistake committed by him. But Sri Krishna never forsakes his devotees(bhaktas).
    In a ‘Dharma yudh’ also there will be casualties. It is inevitable. After all, the Soul never perishes. It enters a new body according to its karma in its previous birth. Sri Krishna has not done anything wrong to win the war. He has taken the right actions at the right time.

    How many people know how Israel won the second war with Egypt? First two days Israel was losing the war and Egyptian army was advancing towards Israel. In the mean time Israelis got the aerial photos from USA spy plane. When they scrutinized the photos they found a big gap between Egyptian 1st and 2nd army in the Sinai desert. Immediately Israeli army marched through that gap and surrounded the Egyptian 1st and 2nd army from the back and cut of the supply. Similarly when Sri. Krishna found that if he used Ghatotkach, Karna would have no option but to use the divine weapon upon Ghatotkach, thereby killing him and in the process, making himself vulnerable against Arjuna. These are war strategies, which cannot be considered unethical.
    Kauravas did not even follow the rules in the game of dice. But the questioner is only blaming Sri. Krishna. Imagine India and Pakistan army standing face to face for a fight. At that time, if the Indian army chief refuses to fight saying that once upon a time Pakistanis were Indians and they are our brothers and so refuses to fight, what will be the position? Can it be justified, because the other side is merciless and has no such feelings? Bhagavad Gita shows us how to tackle such situations effectively. Crooked Evangelists are writing this type of criticism to create confusion among gullible Hindus. In the Bhagavad Gita Sri. Krishna never ordered Arjuna to the fight war. After advising him, He left it to Arjuna to decide for himself. Whereas in Moses story God gave instructions to Moses as command.

  51. August 12, 2012 8:57 pm

    In the 1st part of my reply, I missed to give an answer to a valid question. Question and answers are given below:-
    “On one hand, he placed himself and on the other hand, his own yadava army. In other words, he chose to fight against his own army – something which no king has ever done unless in a situation of rebellion. ”

    Ans:- There is no rule that a King should not give his army to the opposite party. It was Duryodhana who went to Sri Krishna for help. It was Duryodhana who opted for Sri Krishna’s army, whereas Arjuna settled for Sri Krishna. Here also Sri Krishna made a brilliant move before starting the war. He was able to satisfy Duryodhana and at the same time He established His own spy net work in the enemy camp. Not only Duryodhana, but also all the great warriors on the Kaurava side were fools, and none of them had a clear strategy to win the war, knowing very well that they were fighting against Dharma. . So what the Questioner said against Sri Krishna is also applicable to Duryodhana .Like I said earlier, if we minutely analyze the Mahabharat epic, we will get many moral lessons which we will not get from the Bible.

    On analysing the Mahabharata war, we find that the Kaurava side had done another great blunder. Dhronacharya created the Chakravyuh or Padmavyuh, to trap and kill Arjuna. Instead of killing the unarmed Abhimanyu by breaking the war rules, the Kauravas should have captured him alive and kept him in captivity by creating another Chakravyuh. In that case Arjuna himself would have asked Sri Krishna to take him there to save his son from captivity and in the subsequent fight they could have killed Arjuna or Sri Krishna would have had to break His promise of not taking up a weapon, and might have had to use His Chakra to kill Karna, in order to save Arjuna. Here also the great warriors of the Kaurava army had failed miserably.

    Bhagwan Sri Krishna showed the people by example more than 4000 years back that war can be fought by army commanders without taking up any weapon in the hand. All the modern-day warfare is being fought by the army commanders in the same method. The Army Commander-in-Chief sits in a secure place and gives his orders to his subordinate through wireless. Since there was no wireless in those days, Sri Krishna took the position of a charioteer so as to reach any place even in the sky and watch the formation of both the army and give orders using the divine chariot and horse of Arjuna and guide him. He worked as an unofficial commander of the Pandava Army.
    Discription of Chariot and horse used by Sri Krishna-
    . This Divine golden Chariot was donated By Agni to Arjuna after Khandav Dah. Lord Hanuman was present on its Flag . This Chariot cannot be destroyed unlike chariot used by other warriors in the War and can move with great speed , it can accomodate weapons loaded in nine bullock carts. The white horses used to draw the chariot cannot be killed
    The Horses – Gandharva Chitrarath had given 100 divine horses to Arjuna , Their number didn’t decrease even if they are killed, and they can roam anywhere from Earth to Swargloka.

    • Sumit permalink
      September 1, 2012 9:47 am

      Govindan, I am your fan from today :). On behalf of ‘normal humans’ like the questioner himself, a bunch of thanks to you for this enlightenment. A ‘perfect human’ or ‘Muni’ is one who performs duties (Karma) and does not expect results. If the questioner had understood the depth of this statement, he would have never written this article full of such naive questions. Jai Shri Krishna .. 🙂

      • prabin permalink
        July 27, 2014 11:39 pm

        Omm tat saat

  52. August 24, 2012 3:13 pm

    jay sri krashna

  53. Rajat permalink
    October 22, 2012 10:53 pm

    Hare Krishna, thanks a lot Govindan for saving my lot of time today. There are extremely ignorant interpretations in this article. It would take hours to answer all this. Hey Author, you seriously need to understand the intent of documenting Mahabharata by Vedvyasa.
    I can give you a simple example to understand why intent is so important-

    Incident: My mother cooked the meal one day. She asked me to get it to the dinning table. When I showed up with food, I cracked a joke to all the family members, Do you know who cooked all the food? It was me! And everybody laughed.
    Everybody knew mother cooked the food, I know mother cooked the food too.

    A family member’s version: Boy(me) knew that mother cooked the food.
    An outsider’s version: Boy(me) is such an idiot he thinks he cooked the food.

    There is an utmost need to understand the mood and intent of any writ.

    Mahabharata is a war of Dharma, if you do not understand Dharma behind something just by looking at once, you need to dig deeper and question those who are authority on it.

  54. November 10, 2012 1:08 am

    There is an error in the verse you quoted at the end of your blog from Gita. Krishna’s exhortation to Arjuna to abandon all dharmas (righteousness) and to take refuge in him appears in Stanza 18.66 and not as quoted. Your translation, however, is substantially correct.
    That stanza encompasses the spirit of every known religion (except, perhaps, agnostic Buddhism) : Go ahead and sin; if you follow the right faith and conduct the right rituals, God will be pleased to save you.

  55. November 18, 2012 7:01 pm

    hello to u
    one thing u must remember always is u r a human
    krishna cant be fully understood by a human being,its impossible,even his mother couldnot ,
    therefore his ways of karma can only be analyzed n reasoned out,
    we can try to do that ,because if krishna is god,he will be god always,n if he does something there will be reasons for that
    bali in ramayana cud have killed raavan
    n that killing bali was justified when krishna got killed by balis punarjanma
    duryodhana n everybody who died in mahabharata war got swargaloga
    he only advised arjuna to do his karma n one must stick to one’s karma-its a way to live just as we breath n each of our billions of cells need oxygen
    b4 questioning god,u shud learn to see god with bhaya bhakhti n respect-
    even krishnas relatives cudnt actually understand tht he is god himself towards the end of vrishni vamsha
    imagine,if krishna lived amongst us as krishna in this modern age,there will be always some people who wont respect him
    if u have to appear for an exam,u have to study the given portion for the exam thoroughly n understand it,then u r a good exponent to raise a question,instead of that n b4 understanding what krishna does ,u cant point fingers at krishna n accuse him,thatswhat gandhari did
    krishna during his tenure even killed his own son narkasura,only krishna cud have killed narkasura,u must also note that,he nearly killed banasura,but didnt kill him,so its not entirely jus bcoz when sm1 does a wron thing,its also when banasura acc to lord shivas instruction made it clear tht shiva n krishna r one n the same power of divinity,banasura asked forgiveness from krishna,bt narkasura didnt,duryodhana didnt,,a king of kings with so much land across asia indian subcontinent n entire populated earth cud have granted 5 pandavas even 5 villages ,but he didnt,so u see,thats one of my points here
    2nd will be,in that time ,any ruler cud malign any woman ,draupadi had to suffer that when she was on period,the most heinous crime for a woman in such position,duryodhana is like modern warlords who was so confident of winning any war n doing anything he wants,,so krishna had to fetch them to a good reason for bringing them to proper justice,u can view battle ground as court,where punishments r given,,krishna wanted to set the example n bring dharma back,so duryodhana had to be punished
    nobody ho gets born in a yoni is fully good or bad,pandavas were righteous in everything they wanted from dhritharashtra,n duryodhana was fully wrong in confiscating the kingdom from dharma putra ,u can start by counting what duryodhana did..
    my boy..u r so funny,without knowing things,my small effort is to enlighten u..ok?so dont take my reasoning as personal
    krishna didnt want to participate in war,because more than family feud,krishna as a god tells us what is right n what is wrong n leaves the decision to us to choose what to do,even the result of karma is resting entirely upon his hands,krishna was in relation with both parties,but he was more affliated to kunti party,because they depecited the righteousness,this mahabharata war is the last biggest event in his avatara uddeshyam,
    duryodhana said to draupadi to sit on his lap-thatsy tht part was taken out
    karna was taken out when he had no arms in his hands bcoz he killed arjunas putra when abhimanyu had no arms in his hands n was surrounded by 7 maharathis,rules of war is one maharathi shud only engage in war with one maharathi,n there was a set of rules,u cant jus go n kill anyone u like in a battlefield,war even in battlefield was between equals of equal calibre
    dronacharya was corrupted as a teacher,he took up teaching as his livelyhood bcoz he didnt have cow or anything tht was considered welthy for a brahmanas point of view,story tells us ,he decidd to go to dhrithsrashtras cour when he had to see his own son ashwattma was fed with water mixed with rice as milk to his son by his wife..he was so corrupted that he wudnt teach eklavya ,he wudnt make a noise when somebody was raping a wife of someone else infront of his own eyes when tht female was on period,hewas indebted to kuru dynasty,a brahmana can always see whats right n wrong ,bt he considered wealth n debt to kuru dynasty as something bigger than right n wrong sides,so he stayed with duryodhana in war,also narayanastra he only gave it to his own son n nt arjuna,so the common knowledge of arjuna being his favorite is not correct..dharma putra had to say ashwattma was dead because only if dronacharya had no arms in his hands,he cud be defeated,he was tht powerful n a student of great parasurama himself,same as bhishma,there r invincible people of that time,u cnt imagine the power,even stand alone bhishma cud win u the war of entire mahabharata,bt they ha to do thier roles in thier life,n each of them knew krishna was god,dronachrya knew ,he saw krishnas 4handed rupa when krishna came to the court with shanti dyuth,everybody saw krishna had sudarshana,they all respected the truth abt krishna n they knew that they were on wrong sid due to thier allegiancewith kuru dynasty,even kripacharya who surived the entire war wasnot a right person,he along with ashwatwama killed 5 sons of pandavas,the rules of war were broken first by kuru party by killing abhimanyu unjustly,,

    krishna is god,he cud have let abhimanyu knew the full art of chakravyuaha,when abhimayu woke up aftr sleeping in his mothers udara,bt krishna didnt do tht bcoz abhimanyu is the turning point of family feud being a full unconditional no rules barred anything goes war,n it had to happen to bring down this big corrupted people in high positions,its like our manmohan singh,he knows almost everyone in his ministry is corrupt,even the barkha dutt of ndtv has got her share from 2g scam stashed in swiss banks,but he wont do anything,thats corruption at highest level,,imagine some 5000yrs ago,corruption at highest level cant be broght down by doing suicide attacks on buildings,bt with sacrifices in the path of righteousness,that was abhimanyus role,krishna was the teacher of all arts abhimanyu knew of arms,,,even the story tells u that after mahabharata war,arjuna tok karnas son as his own son n taught him everything arjuna knew bcoz truth was out tht karna was pandavas big brother after war from kunti…rmbr karna was one of 7maharathis who killed abhimanyu in the first place violating the rule of war tht 1 maharathi shud only face 1 maharathi..
    draupadi is jus a tool for bringing the option of war on table-nothing else,she was a sister to krishna,she is agniputri,she represents a womans unimaginable insults she had to bear during that time from warlords in tht big dritharashtras dyuthsabha..
    during the war jus b4 when arjuna killed karna,there was a conversation btn draupadi n krishna,,,bcoz draupadi thought entire war is bcoz of duryodhana insulted her,,,that was her aham speaking there,n krishna clarifies that war is waged not jus bcoz of the rape attempt,bt bigger proportions of wrongful doings of people that time,which happened to be represented by duryodhana n party
    u see..this was written by veda vyasa more importantly ganapathi himself,mahabharata verses,bcoz everything tht happened had a reason that time n not all is known if we ask why,bcoz generations b4 us didnt pass it along,there was no paper for so many centuries aftr war..we ha 3 big universities here nalanda takshashila etc towards beginning of AD as we know now..so everything was taught vocally,even in ashramas that time,there is one name i shud tell u gene d matlock,i cant imagine how he came to so many conclusions tht was forgotten ,untold by our generations jus bcoz he is an expert in linguistics …i can tell u how things r forgotten during generations,there is a saying tht u shudnt eat yoghurt in night,n not shave in night,or not miss a birds weight of food in night …i came to know why,only later,even why parishikt was named parishikt..
    so if u wanna ask questions about what has already happened,u shud really ask urself n find it out ,there is god in all of us,that is if we want to face the truth,u know what am talking about..goodday

  56. keshav permalink
    February 3, 2013 10:47 am

    Krishna was Unfair with Abhimanyu and Ghatotkacha..!!! Just to protect arjuna and Dharma this is not the way to use somebody and sacrifice other’s life.Krishna knew everything,he knew that his nephew’s life was in danger and Abhimanyu will get killed but still he ignored Abhimanyu’s death so that Arjuna’s life can be saved..!!! And the next stance he did the same with Bheema’s son Ghatotkacha…he used Ghatotkacha in such a manner that karna used the weapon against ghatotkacha which parshurama gave him to kill Arjuna…and karna had no chance but to kill ghatotkacha with that weapon..!!! So when krishna knew all these things then why he did not save Abhimanyu???Morever Krishna and Arjuna both knew how to enter and exit the chakrravyuha…!!! is it fair that a young fearless warriour like Abhimanyu who did not fear death,who died like a dog..??? to die in such a miserable manner..!!! Krishna has no right to talk about dharma in this case the entire concept of bhagavad gita has no meaning…!!! Krishna is a real trickster..!! That is why i Guess he got the curse from gandhari and krishna died a miserable death in the forest shot by a arrow in his leg by a hunter who treated krishna’s leg as a dear’s skin…!!! If krishna was right he would not have died miserably…!!!!

    • June 26, 2014 8:03 pm

      So why jesus christ died so miserably as well as muhammad.why Gautam buddha died so miserably????
      before idiotness read abcd of gita.

  57. Abhinesh Singh permalink
    August 6, 2013 6:51 pm

    Hellow who can answer these questions regarding avatar of shri krishna
    When did shiv ji visited Krishna after his birth …when?
    How old was krishna When he moved from gokul to vrindhavan?
    How old was krishna wen he killed kansa and lifted govardhan and got married? All different ages when he did all the rasa leelas killed different demons etc please reply thnx …give proofs which book or purans have details …provide reference.

  58. Minna permalink
    November 7, 2013 6:01 pm

    The confusion happens because we are prejudiced that war is evil and also because we look at individual incidents instead of the whole picture. Yes, Krishna instigated the war. But the war was necessary. Evil reigned during that era. Narakasur imprisoned 16000 women, Baka ate a man everyday, Kamsa killed his own nephews and imprisoned his own father. But nobody was stopping them. Krishna could kill the demons and evil kings single handedly. But he may have wanted to involve the people . He decided human beings should share the responsibility and pay the price so that they remember the lessons. But who was to decide between good and evil ? Shouldnt people be given a chance ? Thats why a war was necessary. It gave people a chance to choose sides. Thats why he let Droupadi vastraharan happen. The ultimate adharma happened , which was bigger than normal ties of loyalty..Now it was easy to choose between dharma and adharma. Knowing that Kouravas did Droupadi vastraharan, knowing that Krishna was on the side of Pandavas, every warrior of the day had a choice to join the war on either side. Even moments before the war started, a call was issued to armies of both sides that anyone who wished can change sides, Yuyutsu availed that last opportunity.

  59. November 16, 2013 1:46 pm

    Excellent piece of writing and most of all… observance and analysis… Kudos to you 🙂

  60. November 28, 2013 3:28 pm

    The very 1st question which must have come to your mind is tat if Krishna wanted he could have ended the war in a fraction of seconds and the 2nd ques Y he choose a battle field to convey Gita?

  61. saachi permalink
    February 10, 2014 1:23 am

    Nice arguments, but if you’ve read the Gita chapter closely, all your questions on that part are answered. You see, ALL the characters on the ‘good’ side of the war, the Pandavas, Krishna, etc, tried repeatedly to swerve and avoid the war. The number of peace attempts made by Yudhistra were more than the Kauravas deserved. After all their insults and injustices, the Pandavas still honoured and respected them, even loved them- but Krishna was NOT telling Arjuna to ignore the weakness of his ‘love’ for his cousins and elders. Be very careful when inferring something like that. Krishna was pointing out that one should not allow injustices and sins to be committed out of ATTACHMENT to the sinner. This is why he emphasises on the immortal nature of the soul- by killing them, Arjuna was only preforming his duty, killing wrongdoers. When a mother slaps a child who does something wrong, does she love him any less? No! In fact to not punish the child out of her attachment would be the wrong thing to do- just as Krishna illustrates. Krishna NEVER tells Arjun to rise above his respect for his family- even as Arjun kills them, he still respects them. That in fact is the whole purpose of the Gita: to show how one can do his divinely ordained duty without any emotional involvement of the ego. In his reluctance to battle against his family, Arjun was being constrained by the ties of his false ego. The Mahabharata cannot be taken at face value- it requires a whole lot of insight and context to understand.

    Krishna actually was unbiased. If you remember the story of how Duryodhana and Arjuna each went to him and asked him for his allegiance, you will remember that he gave the first choice to Arjun because he saw him first- because Arjun was humble enough to stand at his feet while Duryodhana went and plonked himself down by Krishna’s pillow! You see, it was Duryodhana’s own ignorance that made him pick Krishna’s army over Krishna. He was an idiot, he was HAPPY that Arjuna picked Krishna so that he, Duryodhana, could have his army. He didn’t recognise Krishna as the greater power, HE wanted the army, so how was it unfair of Krishna to give him the lesser power? Duryodhana never knew what was good for him, despite his elders and well wishers constantly advising him well. That was his hubris, and his downfall. If he had had the wisdom to know Krishna was the better choice, the war wouldn’t have even had a root cause in the first place.

    Krishna was not ‘instigating’ Duryodhana against the Pandavas. I think you’re missing the point here. The aim of Krishna’s interventions for a peaceful conclusion was not to avoid the war- at least, that was the secondary and not the primary intent. His aim was to make Duryodhana see sense. If that was achieved, the war would automatically be evaded. Seeing that Duryodhana would not be swayed, Krishna speaks simply and straightforwardly. He is not some politician who speaks honeyed words for the keeping the illusion of peace. He tells it like it is, and he knows that evil must surface for it to be destroyed. He KNOWS that the war will come to pass, because of the tensions bristling between good and evil (and yeah, the Pandavas ARE fully good, they are the paragons of humanity, I don’t know what made you think otherwise). The conflict is there. It is present ever since the birth and childhood of the Pandavas. War is only going to conclude the conflict: it is not the conflict itself.

    This is why I also don’t agree with Hemingway’s quote that war is always a crime even when justified. No offense to anyone, but it is utterly stupid when applied to this context. If a woman injures her would-be rapist in self defence, is it a crime even though she is justified? I think not. The real crime is in allowing injustices and cruelty to happen and not doing anything about it. Violence that is justified and necessary is never ever a crime, so that quote contradicts itself. Even if you argue that conflicts shouldn’t be escalated to a full fledged war involving armies and people who aren’t central to the conflicting parties, you have to consider the context: this is ancient India, where all the princes and kings have been trained for battle since they were kids, and most importantly, none of them were forced onto the battlefield! They all picked their sides, and there were neutral kings as well, like Balarama. Everyone on Kurukshetra was fighting for a cause. Nobody was dragged there against their will to be slaughtered. The Kshatriya code was in fierce motion, just as the divinely prepared sequence of war was also in motion. Characters in the Mahabharata are extremely self aware: Drona and Bhisma both tell Yudhistra how to kill their own selves; even they know that their time of death is close at hand.

    Like I said before, this is not an epic to be taken at face value. Nothing, absolutely nothing in it can be lifted out of its context and studied in isolation from the greater picture. There is a legacy preceding the time frame encompassed by the Mahabharata, as well as the impending age of Kaliyuga foreshadowed at the end of it- even characters with births and deaths located within this time frame have a soul history and a higher purpose that spans a greater period than their lifetime. Therefore, the Mahabharata is only one facet of a fragment in a history and a mythology that can never be contained within a story, just like all the divine forms of Krishna can never be contained in one mortal body. It is this quality of multiplicity and eternal confluence of the world’s energies that gives the Mahabharata its timelessness.

  62. February 22, 2014 2:21 pm

    Thanks bro for analyzing the great epic and character Krishna.

    The question you has told, has its own answer in the speech given by the Krishna itself in “Bhagvad Gita” (The speech of Gold). It is the conclusion of the hindu religious rules (Same as given by Kuran and Bible). It was not new what is called by Lord Krishna. It is already present in the 4 ‘Vedas’ (basic religious books like bible or kuran) of hindu religion. People just forgot those basic rules and thats why Krishna told all this rules with appropriate example compared to present ‘war’ situation.

    In the rule of ‘karma’ (The Action Done By a Person), decides if the ‘karma’ is a ‘Sin’ or a ‘Worship’. If an Act is done for the religious purpose than the act is ‘Worship’. But, if an Act is done for the nonreligious purpose than the act is ‘Sinful’.

    An act might be a ‘Sinful’ or ‘Worship’ at same time, according to the view at what point of view you see the situation.

    Exa……
    If a person goes on the road and if it kills an another person, than the act is counted as ‘Sinful’. Because, the act and desire was here to kill a person.

    But, consider an another situation that the same person goes on the road and it knew that the person coming on the road is a Mafia gangster and going to blast and kill many people, Than what will he do?
    What is its own personal Religion?.
    Should it kill a one person, or let it kill hundreds of people?.

    If it will not kill that mafia , the mafia will kill thousands people. Will he kill mafia and will count its ‘karma’ as ‘Sinful’?. Or it will kill that mafia and save thousands life?

    The answer in Gita.
    If an act is done for the not wishing the outcome(‘Fruit’) of the act (thinking about sinful act or worshipful act), Just by doing because of it is your Personal Religion. If the person did that act following its own Personal Religion than the act will neither generate ‘Sin’ or ‘Worship’.

    The same situation can be considered as, if an soldier kills thousands solders of other country, will neither give him a ‘sin’ or ‘virtue’, because it is his own ‘Personal Religion’ to save country and its people.

    The same example is that a Judge gives ‘Death Penalty’ to hundreds of prisoners throughout its job duration. Thus if you think according to prisoners point of view he is an serial killer and killed so many prisoners than a single alone prisoner.
    Will it be a ‘Sinful’? No, his did will neither generate ‘Sin’ or ‘Worship’. Because, the judge has done all because it was his ‘Personal Religion’ to that that act.

    The example depicted explained here, is short form of your question “May be an act be a sinful or worshipful simultaneously?’ and “the act did by Krishna were Sinful or Worshipful?”

    According to this principal The Lord Krishna did all the dids and acts to Establish the Religious on the land.
    Even after explaining all the truths of karma and life, Arjun refuses to kill his grand grandfather ‘Bhishma’. Krishna gets angry. Krishna has take oath, Not to use Weapon in war.
    Krishna tells Arjuna. I believed in you to establish the Religion on land thats why i take oath not to use weapon in war. but, you had broken my belief in you.
    Than krishna rises the weapon and first time, he did the ‘Sinful’ act by breaking its own act.

    In answer of this act Krishna says that
    “I am ready to face the fruits of my act of Sins, But, I am not ready to accept the victory of Nonreligious people over religious people. If the Religious people dies in this battle and if Non-Religious people won this battle than , it will be meaning less to take birth on the land as “Krishna” on the earth”

    Thus Krishna depicts its reincarnation as the main Lord Vishnu, who is responsible to drive the World and protect the Religious People.

  63. Sivakumar U M permalink
    April 22, 2014 8:11 pm

    It is my precious time, i feel, when I read this article. Lot of information, debates, finally, still the conclusion is the epic “Mahabharata” confuses you when you are clear and clarifies your thoughts when you are confused.

    Thanks Debs for initiating such a wonderful article……………

  64. May 4, 2014 11:49 am

    Dear Debosmita,
    Nice Post 🙂 And I appreciate your efforts to explore Mahabharata and Lord Krishna in Depth.
    I just wanna say I am not being biased towards Lord Krishna but I feel that he was not biased towards Pandavas but he was biased towards “Righteousness” to restore equilibrium in society and for that it was necessary to wage war against Kauravas and finish them because since young times they were harassing the masses of their kingdom. So it was a war for uplifting humanity. So Lord Krishna used means of manipulative skills and politics to make it happen. Also people had mis-conceptualized Dharma and were doing many evil actions using it.
    Also if you have seen the serial Mahabharat on Star Plus Lord Krishna justifies his true motive for every action and decision.
    Just mentioning what I know.
    Anyways once again Nice Post
    ~ Govind 🙂

  65. Swati permalink
    June 11, 2014 1:29 pm

    Hi Debosmita 🙂

    I do not know really if you are following this anymore or not. (Sorry, I know this is very much your blog, said that because it is back from 2010)

    I bumped on to this blog while searching on some facts regarding Abhimanyu’s death. It took me almost three hours to go through the entire post. First thing first. I am so glad that you took up this topic. I have always considered it important to question the norms to dig down to the deeper truth.

    Secondly, I appreciate your sheer humbleness & warmth on how you welcomed both critics & appreciators. Since there have been prolonged discussions already. But I would certainly express my sadness to see, how rigid people are with there ideas of the supreme power. I understand that power to express your opinion & constructive criticism is a healthy way to open perspectives. Outright vehemence is tragic. Once people are more accepting to the other’s view point, it will be a wonderful way to progress.

    Wish you luck lady.. & am so glad to read that you too share my interest of having Mahabharat as your favorite subject of research. 🙂

    • debosmita permalink*
      June 11, 2014 3:46 pm

      Hi Swati,
      I have enabled email notifications and so I always come to know of a new comment. Thank you so much for going through the entire post. After so many comments on this post, yours have made me happy in a long time. 🙂

  66. June 13, 2014 7:31 am

    Blues jerseys cheap

  67. Selvi permalink
    June 26, 2014 3:19 pm

    Even I get this thought about Lord Krishna even though I love Him so much.
    I have a feeling that each character is the creator of their own destiny and Lord Krishna
    just oversees the events.Good and Bad karma decides.

  68. June 26, 2014 7:54 pm

    “But what happened when he supposedly failed? What did he say when Duryodhana refused to give away even an inch of the kingdom without war? He told the ever hot-headed Duryodhana how the Pandavas were illustrious and superior in all skill sets both on and off the war field. In a way, he instigated and motivated Duryodhana more to take up arms and fight the war by manipulating his diplomatic and conciliatory words with jargons and comparisons.” so new vyas dev,before comment on mahabharata know what is action??
    “He indeed, the Lord, who pervades all regions, was the first to be born and it is He who
    dwells in the womb of the universe. It is He, again, who is born as a child and He will be
    born in the future, He stands behind all persons and His face is everywhere.-Svetasvatara Upanishad.”
    So he is not man according to Shastra but you who think himself greater than veda vyas think so.(we have no sympathy towards your foolishness).
    “Some learned men speak of the inherent nature of things and some speak of time, as the
    cause of the universe. They all, indeed, are deluded. It is the greatness of the
    self−luminous Lord that causes the Wheel of Brahman to revolve.
    He by whom the whole universe is constantly pervaded is the Knower, the Author of time.
    He is sinless and omniscient, It is at His command that the work which is called earth,
    water, fire, air and akasa appears as the universe. All this should be reflected upon by the
    wise.-Svetasvatara Upanishad.”
    There is some words for you,
    Fools, dwelling in darkness, but wise in their own conceit and puffed up with vain
    scholarship, wander about, being afflicted by many ills, like blind men led by the blind.-Mundaka upanishad.
    Now come to the point,
    But what happened when he supposedly failed?
    The counter question arise,where he failed??because every life come after destruction of old life,like this “samaj” old system destroy and new one occupied the place.every human civilization passed through this phase.Sri krishna teaches us “You have the right to perform your actions, but you are not entitled to the fruits of the actions.”
    Karmanye Vadhikaraste, Ma phaleshou kada chana,

    Ma Karma Phala Hetur Bhurmatey Sangostva Akarmani
    Do not let the fruit be the purpose of your actions, and therefore you won’t be attached to not doing your duty..
    Its the implementation of that teaching.which you forget and follow western dumb ass atheism. Because eastern atheism follow this rule blindly,from charvak to buddha all follow this “nishkam karma”.Its a Sramanic teaching,which your western scholar not mention and you new veda vyass not able to know this.
    ” What did he say when Duryodhana refused to give away even an inch of the kingdom without war?”
    “No guide is known who can shelter the world from woe, None who knows what moves and works Thy lofty plans. The most powerful Of beings is he to whose help I shall go on an invocation.”-Yasna 29
    Duryodhana will not listen to warnings. He convinces himself that since the gods had not blessed the Pandavas thus far, they would not protect them during the war. “I can sacrifice my life, my wealth, my kingdom, my everything, but I can never live in peace with the Pandavas. I will not surrender to them even as much land as can be pierced by the point of a needle” (KD 453). He makes excuses for his nature: “I am whatever the gods have made me” (KD 482)..
    Two birds seated upon the same tree ? one is like a body who eats the sweet fruits of the tree doing his karma, the second, the soul or Atman who eats not, remains a constant silent witness.-Svetasvatara Upanishad.

    The war of Kurukshetra despite many futile attempts by wise men, ruling kings and Lord Krishna himself could not be averted. The war is on. Dhritrashtra, the blind king is hearing the running commentaries of the war from Sanjay, his attendant.
    (aS A TEACHER ,WE TEACH STUDENT WITH AN EXAMPLE OF RIGHT CHARACTER OR GOOD STUDENT )
    CONTINUE…………………………..

    • June 26, 2014 7:56 pm

      PLS CORRECT THIS “So he is not man according to Shastra but you who think yourself greater than veda vyas think so.(we have no sympathy towards your foolishness).”

  69. manibalan permalink
    June 30, 2014 10:20 pm

    Hi, Wat ever u said s look lik Gd questions. Bt answers apart from ur thoughts. U know very well winning evil s nt easy one. Can I ask you the same question. Y karna didn’t join wit pandavas after know his birth, t reason s friendship, t same was there wit Krish and arjun, Krish actually indirectly said he was everything bt duryodan didn’t understand. Krish Showed His Vishwaroop In hastinapur .BT He Didn’t Realise, Secondly Krish Want To Show Hw Strong Ur Lik Karna Wit indras Gift, in T Adharma Side, He Is Always There To protect Dharma, Even Karna Used That weapon To Save His Friend, Lik That Krish Used Ghot To Save Arjun, thirdly abimanyu death y drone accept the cruel idea. Y karna accept that thy also known dharma la. Y didn’t thy stop dng that. And last one who doesn’t respect women and do cruelty should be punished only.

  70. manibalan permalink
    June 30, 2014 10:57 pm

    Hi, Wat ever u said s look lik Gd questions. Bt answers apart from ur thoughts. U know very well winning evil s nt easy one. Can I ask you the same question. Y karna didn’t join wit pandavas after know his birth, t reason s friendship, t same was there wit Krish and arjun, Krish actually indirectly said he was everything bt duryodan didn’t understand. Krish Showed His Vishwaroop In hastinapur .BT He Didn’t Realise, Secondly Krish Want To Show Hw Strong Ur Lik Karna Wit indras Gift, in T Adharma Side, He Is Always There To protect Dharma, Even Karna Used That weapon To Save His Friend, Lik That Krish Used Ghot To Save Arjun, thirdly abimanyu death y drone accept the cruel idea. Y karna accept that thy also known dharma la. Y didn’t thy stop dng that. And last one who doesn’t respect women and do cruelty should be punished only. Krish doesn’t protect abimanyu because of nt his fault, it’s abi fate. Even he also didn’t ask krishna hw to cme out of chakra viyuka. And also krishna didn’t tell arjun to go fr. It was their dharma to fight wit opposition. And this incident only makes abi as great warrior, Krish doesn’t do anything simply. Even this war also nt made by him. It was made by great people lik bhisma because of his promise and boon fr death. The king of hastinapur jealous. Sakuni oath to destroy the family, gandhari didn’t stop bad thoughts teach by Sakuni to her sons, and if the war was nt happen hw u know abt benefits of dharma, proudest of great warrior lik bhisma, karna drona. Bhisma has boon was he has wish to death,if the war was nt happen wen he will and hw he get proud. There was a rule that all born should be die. Karna was great warrior, but he didn’t believe his strength that’s y he depend on indras astra, that’s y he lost also, and also krishna wants us to know by karna death if u do sme thing wrong lik abi death u also should suffer lik that only that’s y he was killed by arjun lik tat. Even arjun faced deaft from his own son fr drafting bhisma n wrong way. .V r nt too brilliant to understand krishna behaviour and attitudes. Bt try to get his advice at least

    Try to know Wat ever krishna did for everyone benefits only. V r all his child. Even Duryodan Also, BT He Didn’t Realise That, V People Also Dnt Be Lik Him. Be lik arjun and always stay wit Lord,may God bless you all

  71. Param permalink
    July 14, 2014 10:53 pm

    I think, you need to put reference to context. Krishna had a lot to lose than gain as a peace diplomat. If he changed the conniving hearts of the kurus he perhaps would have been greater than he is today. But the fact is he left a big lesson for all. Sometimes war is better than peace. If at all he (kuru crown prince) had accepted the zero sum offer krisna gave him, he would have just bought peace for a few more years. For sooner or later pandus family would have attacked. In diplomacy it is not unheard to scare your enemy. Infact I find it amazing that even today tenets of diplomacy remains the same.

    And to what u say on the war, I find no merit. Why would you expose ur best warrior to a celestial weapon to which he has no answer. That drona or bhishma never thought of preserving karna was a strategic mistakes the kurus made. Infact the king was foolish enough to think he would win a war his general was least interested in. While Pandu sons were smart enough to use the exile to hone their skills, the king never created a plan b. It would have served him well if he nevet had his grand sire anf teacher as a general. All he needed was a new brees of pandu hating warriors. Different result maybe. Mind u the war was not won cos of krisna. It was won cause pandu family hated the kurus.

  72. akansha permalink
    October 3, 2014 7:58 pm

    I don’t agree with your opinion of Krishna. When he went to negotiate to avoid the war he asked Duryodhan to give Pandavs, only 5 villages but druyodhan in his arrogance refused and humiliated Krishna. And when Arjun was in dilemma Krishna like a true friend gave him moral support. It should not be forgotten that the same elders whom Arjun respected failed him when he needed their help. They let a woman to be exploited in a shabha. Moreover, the war of krurushetra was important for the end of the evil kings and Mahabharata was a lesson to humanity. For the greater good, Krishna sacrificed some people whom he loved the most. It wasn’t easy for him to see his creation destroy itself but it was necessary.

  73. Vasu permalink
    February 20, 2015 4:35 pm

    I do want to give you a reply, but I won’t.

  74. bhanu permalink
    March 3, 2016 11:45 pm

    Krishna in the MB has always seemed a little too wordly to me, not God at all but a man and a very partial man at that. What was the purpose behind the war? Did it bring about any positive changes in the society? Those 36 years that Yudi ruled, did they change society for the better? Did the Pandavas have the guts to make a Sutaputra a king, the way Duryodhan did to Karna? And why did Krishna never speak against the killing of the Nishada family in the House of Lac; against the cutting of Eklavaya’s thumb; against Draupadi’s division amongst the five brothers; against Karna’s constant humiliation? Even before the war, he along with Arjun killed the Nagas in the Khandavprastha forest, sparing not even the birds and animals. Even Shishupal’s killing has always seemed a little excessive to me since Shishupal was only arguing that rather than Krishna, somebody else like Bheeshma, Drupada, Karna, or Eklavaya should be honoured. Can somebody explain please.

  75. Parabin permalink
    February 8, 2017 9:47 pm

    Dear Debosmita
    Krishna had to pay the price too
    His dynasty was wiped out
    Being a devotee of Shiva he urged pandvas to plant a shiva linga to get rid of the sins committed (kedar nath).
    This is karma – even God is not spared.

Trackbacks

  1. Cafe GingerChai » Blog Archive » BPL Super 3 Post links
  2. Cafe GingerChai » Blog Archive » BPL Super 3 results
  3. And its time for Celebration!!!! « Straight Drive
  4. A real treat – Palace of Illusions | Writer-z-block
  5. Wordpress reviews my blog in 2010 « Life's Many Whispers
  6. Book Review: The Krishna Key by Ashwin Sanghi « Life's Many Whispers

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: