THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND OTHER FEATURES OF THE AGE LORD KRS'N'A'S UNIQUE APPROACH THE MORAL STANDARD OF THE AGE PLANNING FOR THE MAHA'VISHVA. SOME CHARACTERS OF THE MAHA'BHA'RATA THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND OTHER FEATURES OF THE AGE official source: Discourses on the Maha'bha'rata cross-references: none this version: is the printed Discourses on the Maha'bha'rata, 2nd edition, version (spelling mistakes only may have been corrected). I.e., this is the most up-to-date version as of the present Electronic Edition. Now we shall discuss dress, food, language, script and social structure in the Mahabharata period. DRESS Dhuti and cadar are India's own dress. To stitch a shirt and the like was not done in ancient India. But sometimes there was inconvenience with the cadar, so people began getting it stitched. When the Aryans came to India, the dhuti was being used, but with it people were wearing a stitched garment, a sort of T-shirt. Excepting purohits, all were using it. The purohits would use cadars. Payjama, kamiij, etc., came from Persia a long time later. "Kamiij" is a Persian word, so is "jama ". Jama is known as "kurta" in Bengali. "Jama" is a Persian word and not an Indian word. During the Mahabharata period, vipras would use dhuti and cadar. And so would vaeshyas. Shudras would use only dhuti, and ksatriyas would wear a dhuti and a tight kurta like a T-shirt. The Kaoravas and Pandavas used this very dress. Long after the Mahabharata, Kaniska, the Hiinayanii Buddhist king from Central Asia, invaded India and expanded his kingdom. Of course he did not invade personally ; rather the invasion was done by Kujela Kadphisus. Then Bhiima Kadphisus made his entry, and then came Kaniska. The names Kujela Kadphisus and Bhiima Kadphisus alone show that they were not Indians; but when Kaniska was enthroned his name was Kaniska - an Indian name. At the time of Kaniska, Indians began to use payjama. Before him there was no usage of Payjama in India. Even a short time before the present, people with old ideas would regard a man in payjama as a Muslim. So this was the dress during the Mahabharata period. Those persons -- vipra, ksatriya and vaeshya -- who came from Aryan families generally used turbans. And the respect to be paid was judged from the turban -- the costlier the turban, the greater the man. That Mahabharata system as regards the turban is still there in the Punjab in one way or other. When juniors were greeting seniors, they had to take off their turbans. FOOD The staple food of ancient India was very simple. The ancient people did not use ruti, but rather used rice. There was no use at all of garam masala and the like. People were taking boiled food which nowadays we call havisanna the kind of food which is taken in India for a particular number of days of the mourning period after death. But in the Mahabharata period, because of the Aryans, there was use of meat, especially among the ksatriyas. There were a number of jungles then. Hence people mostly liked to take deer meat According to Vaedika views, deer meat, being sentient, could be taken by Vipras also. There is no proof about fish-eating in that period. Probably people did not eat fish. Food made with spices -- polao and the like -- was not known to Indians. The use of polao we have learned from Persia. As far as vegetables, such as radish, egg-plant, beans, okra and potato were not used in India, because all these were brought to India afterwards. Egg-plant came from China, the radish from Japan, okra from Africa, pumpkin and squash from Europe, and potato from America. In the ladia of that time there were none of these things. We have learned about spices mostly from South Russia and old Iran. Rice was heavily used, as wheat came from outside India. In the old Vaedika language, rice has no name. Of course, the same is the case with wheat, with which the Aryans first came in contact in Persia. When the Aryans moved from Persia to India, in the period of the Atharva Veda, they first came in contact with rice. Before they came to Persia, known as Iran (known as Aryanyavraja in the Vaedika language, which got changed into Iranvej -- at present the official name of Persia is Irativej), they knew only the use of barley. Coming to Persia, they learned the use of wheat. It was tasty. When some function is held that we enjoy, we say the function was held with 'dhum-dham" (pomp and show). "Go" in Samskrta means "tongue" And since there was great pleasure in the tongue upon taking wheat, it was known as "godhum " This "godhum" got changed in the Prakrta language to "gohuma" which in Bihar became "guhama" or "gahum." And when the Aryans came in contact with rice, they named it "vriihi," which means "food." India was a riceeating country. Later on, wheat from outside India was brought and used. The first use of wheat was in Saptanada Desha, the Punjab. Wheat did not have any local name. When it ripens it becomes like gold. So in the Punjab it is known as "kanaka," meaning "gold." So in the Mahabharata age, people were rice-eaters. This was the food, the most simple food. LANGUAGE As regards language, as was said earlier, after the death of the Vaedika language, the seven Prakrta languages were used in India. Paeshacii and Shaorasenii Prakrta were spoken by the people around Delhi. The mother tongue of Krsna was Shaorasenii Prakrta. SCRIPT In India at that time, the old Brahmii and Kharosthii script were in use. People who wanted to write the Vaedika language had to write in the Brahmii and Kharosthii scripts, as neither the Vaedika nor the Samskrta language had its own script. The same Brahmii and Kharosthii scripts got transformed and became the present Sarada script of Kashmir. Then the Gurumukhii, Nagrii, and Naungala scripts came into, being. The present-day scripts came into being within the last 1000 or 1200 years. SOCIAL STRUCTURE A solid social structure, a social system, did not exist then. Society was yet to evolve one. Even the present Sanatana social system was not yet fully developed. The Aryans were living in huts built on hillocks, and there was a lady in each group named "Gosthi Mata." People would introduce themselves with the name of that lady. Later on, this matrilinear order got changed into a patrilinear order, as explained in the book The Human Society, Part Two. According to the matrilinear order the mother's name was asked, and according to the patrilinear order the father's name was asked. Property in the matrilinear order was inherited from the mother's side, and in the patrilinear order from the father's side. In the patrilinear order, introductions were made according to the hillock a man was living on. In the Vaedika language one name for a hillock is "gotra." So "gotra" came to mean the inhabitants of a particular hillock. People used to introduce themselves using the name of the headman of their particular hillock: for instance, if one introduced oneself as belonging to Kashyapa Gotra, he or she meant that Kashyapa was the headman of the particular hillock he or she belonged to. The same with Bharadvaja Gotra, whose leader was Bharadvaja. Hence in the Mahabharata period, the gotra system was used, especially around Delhi and in North-west India. But in South and in West India (Bengal), the matrilinear order alone was used. Of course, to-day also, in some parts of Kerala, Bengal and Assam, this system is still there. The portions of India wherein the matrilinear system was prevalent during the Mahabharata period were known as "Pramiila Rajya.' This means "The Reign of Women." In some portions of India there was patrilinear order, while there was matrilinear order in other portions ; i. e,, there was no fixed order. Even in the patrilinear order, a solid social structure had not come about. Children would introduce themselves by the name of their mother's current husband, regardless of who their actual father was. This system was not considered to be bad, then. Such children were known as "niyoga putra," and the fathers were known as "niyoga pati (Legally married fathers were of course also in existence.) To-day this system may be considered to be bad, but then it was not considered to be so. As the social system changes, so changes the mentality of man. For instance, the married husband of Kunti was Pandu, but the Pandavas were not the sons of Pandu. But the influence of the matrilinear order was there also. One of the names of Arjuna is Kaonteya, which means "the son of Kunti" -- so people were known by their mother's name also. The Pandavas, when introducing themselves, would say that they were the sons of Pandu though Pandu was not their actual father. But since he was married to Kunti, they would say he was their father. Take another instance -- the mother of Karna was Kunti, but his father was someone named Suda. People did not condemn Kunti due to this. Karna was accepted by society as niyoga putra. This niyoga putra system formally disappeared from Indian Hindu society some seven or eight hundred years ago, but it disappeared actually, only two hundred years ago at most. It was not considered to be bad in the Mahabharata period. The social order is dynamic. It will change gradually. That which is considered to be bad today may not be so tomorrow. This is the law of society. Draopadii had five husbands, which was not considered to be bad, as in the Mongolian race of Northern India there was polyandry. Even today, in Tibet and in Laddakh, India, this system is prevalent. It was not considered to be bad then. For instance, with the Aryans, one husband could have five or six wives. Even today, in Hindu society, that is found in some measure or the other. Hence, in the Mahabharata age, there was no solid social system. Only the Mongolians, known as Pishaca in old Samskrta, had the system of one wife and many husbands. But among Aryans one man might have many wives. In East India (Bengal) and in South India, there was the matrilinear order. With the Aryans, there was a blending of matrilinear order and patrilinear order : there was a social relationship with the mother, but the social order was patrilinear or patriarchal. As a result of this, in the Post-Buddhist era, i.e., later Hinduism (Brahmanism), because of the clash among the matrilinear and patrilinear systems, a resultant came into being which is the present social system. In the post-Buddhistic era, Manu framed a social system, the Sanatana social system, which blended the two previous systems together. This means that Manu was one hundred percent influenced by the social system in the Mahabharata period. But Manu accepted the Aryan social system, and avoided the social system of the Mongolians, South Indians and East Indians as much as possible. Because of this avoidance, a perfect system could not be made. 1 October 1967, Ranchi LORD KRS'N'A'S UNIQUE APPROACH official source: Discourses on the Maha'bha'rata cross-references: none this version: is the printed Discourses on the Maha'bha'rata, 2nd edition, version (spelling mistakes only may have been corrected). I.e., this is the most up-to-date version as of the present Electronic Edition. Now about Lord Krsna's approach. All the characters in the Mahabharata, from beginning to end, were simply puppets on the stage. They were made to dance by the tricks of Lord Krsna alone. The life of Lord Krsna justifies His practical approaches. However, I shall put forth a few out of many examples. The first and foremost thing is that Lord Krsna was Taraka Brahma. The advent of Taraka Brahma is known as "Mahasambhuti." What is Mahasambhuti ? According to natural law, the movement of the world from crude to subtle is accompanied by clash between good (Shubha) and evil (ashubha), between ksema and aksema. During this period, good people sometimes get exhausted by the dominance of the dishonest (papii). If this period were to continue some time more, the honest (sadhu) would be extinguished. If such a state of affairs exists in the world, a special force (vishesa shakti samprayoga) from Paramatman becomes a necessity. To give a blow to the sinners (papii) at this hour becomes an essentiality. Giving this blow is not possible for human beings (Jiiva) as they do not have the power to deal it. During this state of affairs, to deal a strong blow, a special manifestation known as Mahasambhuti becomes inevitable. Every unit is doing the work of Paramatman ; everyone is the expression of God; this is Paramatma's sambhuti. But to do great work which is not possible through the physical structure (adhara) of human beings, a special manifestation of God takes place (Avirbhava) which is known as "Mahasambhuti." This is different from an incarnation (avatara). "Avatara" means "descending," to come in the form of a unit. Every person is an avatara of Paramatman. You can say that the avatara is the sambhuti of Mahasambhuti. There are also so many degrees (koti) of consciousness in the Jiivas that are the descendants of Paramatman. One is jiivakoti. Paramatman has come in the form of jiivas. Special force can also be expressed through these media. Another is Iishvarakoti. Paramatman has come in the form of a Jiiva, but it has some special force. It has special dominance, has the special power to do and get things done. They say, power of Iishvarakoti is a hundred times more than that of jiivakoti. In this Iishvarakoti also there are so many degrees. The lowest Iishvarakoti is kalavatara. This kalavatara has the lowest power. "Kala" means one-sixteenth. Kalavatara means that manifestation of Iishvarakoti which has one sixteenth the power of Iishvarakoti. In Iishvarakoti there is also amshavatara, which possesses more power that kalavatara, Khandavatara is still more developed. These are the different stages of Iishvarakoti, according to their powers. And where there is expression of the whole power, that is. known as Purnavatara, which is the same as Brahmakoti. Jiivakoti, Iishvarakoti and Brahmakoti are expressions of Paramatman, i.e., all are manifestations of Paramatman. All are His sambhuti. All jiivas are sambhuti and this Brahmakoti is Purnavatara. Amshavatara, kalavatara, khandavatara do work in a particular place, at a particular time and space, and leave the world. Such mahapurusas have come to the world in good number. It is not possible to name them all. But this Mahasambhuti stirs the entire world because of His special force. Iishvarakoti people advance due to their sadhana. The realizations of their sadhana, the knowledge obtained by sadhana, have contributed to the progress of the world. But Mahasambhuti, of the same order as Brahmakoti, comes to the world to educate people, to create a Cosmic vibration in the world -- and that vibration continues to guide society as long as it exists. For example, Sadashiva came some 7000 years ago, and His vibration continues to this day. Similarly, some 3500 years ago Lord Krsna came to the world. He was also a Mahasambhuti. He came to create a vibration in the world, to give a new direction to it. Had He not come, society would have been destroyed. So Mahasambhuti is born to guide the world. Mahasambhuti will behave like a human being, but Mahasambhuti's every action will be a superhuman action so that people may take lessons (lokashiksa) from it. Let us give an example. Kamsa was a most wicked king. And wicked-minded people always unite to save their position. There was one speciality in the reign of Kamsa, and it was the profusion of male and female spies. In each and every village he had his spies. The women spies were then known as "visa kanya" and the male spies as "gaha purusa." To save the world from the evil forces (papa shakti), Maharsi Garga, the greatest mahatma realized soul (pandita), virtuous (dharmika) and wonderful Personality of his time, was doing penance f or the advent of Mahasambhuti. A wise man, while praying for the advent of Mahasambhuti from within, also utilizes properly the physical and mental capacity bestowed on him by the Lord. If the power given by the Lord in the physical body and mental body is not utilized, the Lord will not give spiritual power even if asked. Only those who utilize their physical and mental power have the right to ask spiritual power from the Lord. Suppose a wicked man is fighting against you, you should fight vigorously against him and tell Paramatman to bestow you more power, as you are utilizing your force to the fullest. If you don't fight, like a coward, and ask for more power, the Lord will not give you any. This sort of cowardliness entered into the Indians of that time and still does to-day. Suppose the enemy attacks and you begin squatting in groups and start Ramdhuna (repeating the name of Rama). This sort of approach will not do at all. Pick up your weapons, go and fight and say to yourselves "Victory to the Lord" -- this alone is the practical approach. Garga Muni had just this practical sense. He was praying to the Lord and also utilizing his energy and wisdom. He also had his own group to fight against vices (Papa). Everything about the activities of Kamsa was crystal clear to him. And Kamsa wanted to kill him. But he was not able to kill a famous maharsi like Garga as people might go against him. You know Garga Muni was the brother of Vasudeva, i.e. he was uncle to Lord Krsna. When Krsna was born, Maharsi Garga knew in his meditation that the work would be done now, and hence he named the child Krsna. It was he who named the child Krsna -- Krsna has so many names but the name Krsna was given by Garga himself. With the help of Garga, Krsna killed Kamsa. If Krsna had not killed Kamsa, it would not have been possible for Him to materialize His future programme of mending the world and forming Great India. Here is one more example of Lord Krsna's practical approach, though there are so many like it. The Kuru kingdom was not then the biggest kingdom in India, nor was the Panchala kingdom. These kingdoms formed the present Haryana area, the area around Delhi. The biggest kingdom was Magadha. And the people of Magadha were against the Kuru and Panchala kingdoms, and even against the Vedas. "Maga" means a person who does not accept the Vedas. All the priests who did not accept the Vedas were known as "maga" And the "dha" root plus "da" makes "dha," which means "believers" ; i.e., the land of the people who accept maga is known as Magadha. In other words, the people of Magadha were opposed to the Aryan code of conduct. The King of Magadha then was Jarasandha. As described earlier, the child Jarasandha was born in pieces and was joined by a lady doctor, a raksasii (aboriginal), by operating and stitching the body of the child. Hence he was known as Jarasandha, as the joining (sandhi) was done by Jara. The relationship of Krsna with Jarasandha was the relationship of cousins. Though cousins, they were enemies. Jarasandha was against dharmarajya (the rule of the righteous). Lord Krsna had a scheme to make a great India, to join all the scattered kingdoms into one, but Jarasandha wanted his own kingdom. Jarasandha would usually attack Shurasena Rajya, whose king was Lord Krsna after He killed Kamsa. The capital of Shurasena was Mathura. There also Lord Krsna presented an example of His practical approach. He shifted His capital from Mathura to Dvaraka, as the righteous people, then, were not united and it was not possible to fight against Jarasandha. Dvaraka was across the desert of Rajasthan and the hillocks and the jungles of Madhya Pradesh. Magadha soldiers remaining in the plains were not able to cross the desert or jungle or fight in them. Hence, the capital was shifted to Dvaraka of Gujrat. So, this was a great practical approach by Lord Krsna, and Jarasandha stopped attacking. After that, Lord Krsna united the kings in the name of dharmarajya, and attacked Magadha unitedly and killed Jarasandha. While at Mathura, it was difficult for Him to do this from a diplomatic point of view. When power is gained sufficiently, the enemy has to be attacked and killed. As long as there is no power, one has to accept the dictates of the enemy, but the moment it is gained, he has to be attacked and killed. Such was the practical approach of Lord Krsna. When Jarasandha was defeated, he begged pardon, but Lord Krsna did not forgive him, as his nature was not reformed. In the ensuing battle, Jarasandha was killed. After that, Lord Krsna united the kings in the name of dharmarajya, and attacked Magadha unitedly and killed Jarasandha. While at Mathura, it was difficult for Him to do this from a diplomatic point of view. When power is gained sufficiently, the enemy has to be attacked and killed. As long as there is no power, one has to accept the dictates of the enemy, but the moment it is gained, he has to be attacked and killed. Such was the practical approach of Lord Krsna. When Jarasandha was defeated, he begged pardon, but Lord Krsna did not forgive him, as his nature was not reformed. In the ensuing battle, Jarasandha was killed. After that, Lord Krsna attacked Amga Desha (the Bhagalpur area). This was also His practical approach. In that period in the Delhi area, there was an Aryan population, i. e , that is where the Indian people first accepted Aryan culture. The Aryans of that time in the Delhi area were called Jatrii Ksatriya, Jat in the present language. The Samskrta name was Jatrii Ksatriya. The Kaoravas and Pandavas were the same, the present Jat people. The other group of people living in that area usually fought against the Jat people. This group of people was known as Abhiira. There were the two main Aryan groups. The Jatrii Ksatriyas were mainly agriculturists, and the Abhiiras were mainly dependent on cattle breeding. These were the two main branches of the Aryans. The Abhiira became "Ahira" in the present language -- they lived in Meerut, Haryana and near Delhi. Of course, there was no casteism. One belonged to a particular caste according to one's livelihood. As mentioned earlier, Garga, the uncle of Krsna, was a vipra, and Krsna's father, Vasudeva, was a warlike Ksatriya, and the guardians of Krsna, Nanda, Upananda and others, were Abhiira Ksatriyas because they tamed cattle. These two, Jatrii Ksatriya and Abhiira Ksatriya, frequently fought each other. Both were good people, but because of some misunderstanding, they were fighting. Krsna thought, if He united these two, it would be very easy for Him to bring about Great India. He applied His practical approach. He got His elder sister, Subhadra, an Abhiira Ksatriya, to marry Arjuna. This He did with a view to make the Jatrii Ksatriyas and the Abhiira Ksatriyas stop fighting. Krsna thought, if He united these two, it would be very easy for Him to bring about Great India. He applied His practical approach. He got His elder sister, Subhadra, an Abhira Ksariya, to marry Arjuna. This He did with a view to make the Jatrii Ksatriyas and the Abriira Ksatriyas stop fighting. Let's take yet another instance of Lord Krsna's practical approach. Krsna asked Yudhisthira on the battlefield to say, 'Ashvatthama hatah, ' i. e., "Ashvatthama has been killed." The literal words were not correct, but the spirit was correct. Krsna did it to save morality. "Ashvatthama hatah" was uttered very loudly, and Dronacarya heard it, became senseless and was killed. "Naro va' kuinjaro" i.e., " this may be Ashvatthama the man or may be Ashvatthama the elephant" was uttered very softly, and at the same time people began to beat drums very loudly, due to which no one could hear it, and Drona was killed. You may take it to be something against morality, as Lord Krsna had the intention of getting Dronacarya killed. That is a fact, but the main idea of Lord Krsna was to save morality. So that His main moral objective could be fulfilled, He did all these things. You know that if the soldiers of two countries fight, the civilian population will also be killed, but the intention is not to kill them This happens in the interest of the greater cause. Here, also, the greater cause was a very proper approach by Lord Krsna. As I told you, He never went against the main principles of morality. When at last the Yaduvamsha were destroyed in Prabhasa, Krsna did not help them; rather He said that they were immoral and He could not support them. After the Yadavas, including Balarama, had finally been destroyed, Lord Krsna sat quietly under a tree in Prabhasa Tiirtha in Lalita mudra. He had become an octogenarian. He had grown old. At the end of His life, He again showed His practical approach and His understanding of the purpose of life. He was sitting in lalita mudra on a stone just below a tree. The lower portion of His feet was reddish. A vyadha (hunter), Jara by name, saw something reddish under the tree and took it to be a bird or the like. He shot a poisonous arrow that struck Lord Krsna's feet. He came in search of his prey and found Lord Krsna instead. The body of Lord Krsna was getting bluish because of the working of the poison. The hunter confessed his serious mistake. Lord Krsna consoled him and said, "Such mistakes are committed by human beings. Had I been you, I might have committed the same mistake. You have not committed this mistake intentionally. Never mind it. In the world such mistakes are committed by people. You did not know beforehand that I was here. You should not be punished either legally or morally, as such mistakes are committed by people. I forgive you." Saying this, Lord Krsna left His body. 22 October 1967, Ranchi THE MORAL STANDARD OF THE AGE official source: Discourses on the Maha'bha'rata cross-references: none this version: is the printed Discourses on the Maha'bha'rata, 2nd edition, version (spelling mistakes only may have been corrected). I.e., this is the most up-to-date version as of the present Electronic Edition. What was the state of morality in the Mahabharata period ? You must remember that though people were ignorant, though their intellectual standard was not high at all, even in that period they were not immoral -- this was their greatest quality. There was no spiritualism nor philosophy in support of the morality of the people of that time. They would accept the naked facts, and in that sense they were moralists. "I will say just what has happened" -- this was their way of practising satya, This very thing is quite natural. They had no intellect to ponder over the consequences of practising such satya. A crooked intellect is essential to deviate from satya, and this the people of the Mahabharata period did not possess. Suppose a man thieves. To rescue himself, he will concoct statements in different ways with the police and in court. So cunningness is needed for any deviation from the path of Satya. In the absence of cunningness, the people of the Mahabharata period were naturally moralists. On the other hand those who tread the path of spirituality become moralists after grasping spirituality well. There is a gulf of difference between the moralists of the two types mentioned above. The people of the Mahabharata period were supporters of the naked facts, and in just this sense were moralists. This does not mean that they were spiritualists. The masses were not spiritually elevated. On the contrary, the number of spiritualists in the present time is greater. But the percentage of moralists of that period was rather greater. The greatest gain in becoming a moralist is that a man has tremendous moral force. That one has not committed a wrong, is not doing so nor will do so -- this very awareness generates in one a force, the moral force. A sinner ( papa ) does not possess this moral force. A ruffian, though possessing a lot of physical strength, is afraid of the police, but a moralist, even if physically weak, is not. For the former is devoid of moral force and the latter is full of it. Take for example Bhiisma, a prominent character in the Mahabharata. He was a great man, a great hero. He accepted the food of Duryodhana, of the Kaoravas. After the time of war between the Pandavas and the Kaoravas, dharma (righteousness) was with the former and adharma (unrighteousness) with the latter. But because of the simple morality of Bhiisma he could not go against Duryodhana, as he felt a sense of obligation to him for having accepted his food. Knowing quite well that the Kaoravas were unrighteous, Bhiisma supported them, being guided by simple morality, the morality of the prehistoric age. He was, of course, a righteous man and even desired the victory of the righteous Pandavas, but being guided by the simple prehistoric morality, he supported the Kaoravas. Just this simple morality was greatly appreciated in the society of that time. A man had to act up to his promise. Arjuna promised that he would slay Jayadratha before sunset or commit suicide. At the moment of sunset, the people were sure that Arjuna would now commit suicide as he had promised. (In the present age, people make so many promises in a day and break them during the day, and this is considered to be heroism. You know, before people cast their votes, so many promises are made by the candidates, but after the election is over, the elected one does not even recognize his or her electorate. Immorality has become the order of the day. So people had gathered to see the suicide of Arjuna, and Jayadratha, who had so far stayed hidden, also came to see. Lord Krsna had applied His occult power and covered the sun with dark clouds even before the actual time of sunset. He now uncovered the sun -- it was still day -- and seeing Jayadratha, his enemy, Arjuna killed him and fulfilled his promise. So many examples of simple morality can be cited in the age of the Mahabharata. It was taken to be so natural by the people. There was no question of anything written at the time of taking loans, etc. Moreover, literate people were few and far between. The sun and the moon were working as witnesses and people were free in their transactions. The value of simple morality may be less than spiritual morality, but simple morality, too, is included within human cardinal values. Therefore, Lord Krsna attached a lot of importance to simple morality also. Spiritualistic morality was in few people as the number of spiritualists was so very small. Very few people had the opportunity to learn the hard and complicated processes of intuitional practice. The reason for this was that the people of that age were intellectually deficient, they were not intellectually developed, though they were more developed morally than the people of the present day. Bhiisma was a moralist and had a great reputation in the society. Bhiisma, respected Lord Krsna, but he was not his devotee. Lord Krsna respected Bhiisma because he was a moralist. Krsna used to greet Bhiisma ; and at the time of Bhiisma's death, when he lay on a bed of arrows for so many days, Lord Krsna used to sit near him and look after him with the Pandavas. Moralistic values, thus, were prominent in the life of the Mahabharata age. [The following section was also printed separately as part of "The Righteous Gandhari" in The Awakening of Women. This is the The Awakening of Women, 1st edition, version.] Take another small example -- the character of Gandhari. Gandhari was an Afghan lady. There is a place named Kandahara, Gandhara in Sanskrit, in Afghanistan, to which Gandhari belonged. Indian people called Kandahara "Pratyanta Desha" -- the extreme border area, not exactly Indian. Gandhari was not well acquainted with the greatness of Lord Krs'n'a. Neither were the people of Kandahara very familiar with the social structure of India, of Central India, though Kandahara, i. e., Afghanistan, was then within, India. Before marriage, when Gandhari learned that her would-be husband was blind, she covered her eyes with a cloth. "If my husband is unable to see the world, then why should I?" Thinking thus she kept her eyes covered throughout her life. What a tremendous moral force she had! She removed the cloth only twice in the whole of her life: once at the command of her husband, Dhritarastra, and secondly to see Lord Krs'n'a. Dhritarastra told Duryodhana and his brothers to go before their mother and ask for blessings for victory in the war. He further asked them to request her to see them, so that their bodies might become as hard as iron, as she possessed such great power. First Gandhari did not want to do this, but when Dhritarastra ordered her to first see them and then bless them for their victory, she obeyed -- and for a few moments she removed the cloth from her eyes. Dhritarastra had instructed his sons to go naked before their mother, as wherever she would see, that portion of the body would become hard and nobody would be able to kill them. Since the sons were adult, they went before their mother wearing loincloths, and not nude. The portion of the body which was under the loincloth remained soft, while the rest got hardened. This fact was known to the Pandavas. So at the time of a fight with maces, Bhima had to hit below the navel, as it was not possible to kill the kaoravas by hitting above, as was the prevailing rule. The war of that period was taken as a sport, as competition, it was not for killing. One had to obey the rules. In a fight with maces, hitting below the navel was prohibited. Bhima had to go against this rule to kill the Kaoravas. The second time Gandhari removed the cloth from her eyes was after the war of Kuruks'etra when it had become a vast cremation ground. All the daughters-in-law of Gandhari had become widows and were weeping bitterly near their dead husbands. Gandhari, also, was there. The Pandavas, accompanied by Kunti, their mother, and Lord Krs'n'a also, came there, as many people from their side had been killed and they had to console their relatives. Krs'n'a consoled Gandhari and said, "Why do you weep? This is the way of the world -- you will also depart some day. Why do you weep then?" Addressing Krs'n'a, Gandhari said, "Krs'n'a, why do you console me? It does not befit you." Krs'n'a asked, "'Why?" Gandhari replied, "If you had not planned it, all my sons would not have been killed." Krs'n'a replied, "The war was inevitable for the preservation of righteousness and the destruction of pa'pa' [sin]. What could I have done, I am only an instrument." To this Gandhari said, "Krs'n'a, you are Ta'raka Brahma. If you had wanted, you would have changed their minds without a fight." It was a fact. But Krs'n'a had to put an example before the world. Pa'pa' is defeated. Let there be a fight. Let the world see and take a lesson. If it had been done without a fight, the world would not have received the lesson. Krs'n'a did not speak, though logic was on his side. There are numerous instances in one's life where one's ideas are correct, but one has to keep quiet. Lord Krs'n'a was put in that state. As Lord Krs'n'a showed respect to a moralist like Bhishma and greeted him, so did He uphold the importance of Gandhari. Then Gandhari gave the curse, "As the members of my family met destruction before my eyes, so be it with yours before your eyes." Lord Krs'n'a replied, "Be it so." And so it happened. Because of the acceptance of the curse by Lord Krs'n'a, it happened. Had Krs'n'a not accepted the curse, it would not have happened. But Krs'n'a accepted it because He wanted to show that moral force has value in life and that it should be accepted. Had He not done so, the Yaduvamsha (members of the Yadava clan, relatives of Lord Krs'n'a) would not have been destroyed. Only to make Gandhari great did Krs'n'a do so. Lord Krs'n'a planned the fight for the victory of righteousness. He did all possible works to this end. But wherever he saw a moralist, he accepted his own defeat of his own accord, though in a number of instances the acceptance of His defeat was not just. You, too, should learn this lesson from Krs'n'a's life. Whenever someone commits injustice, you should not succumb. Fight against immoralists, as was done by Lord Krs'n'a, but if someone is a moralist, a noble man, you must bow to him. This will enrich and enhance your own prestige. [end of section that was printed separately as part of "The Righteous Gandharii"] 19 November 1967, Ranchi PLANNING FOR THE MAHA'VISHVA. official source: Discourses on the Maha'bha'rata cross-references: none this version: is the printed Discourses on the Maha'bha'rata, 2nd edition, version (spelling mistakes only may have been corrected). I.e., this is the most up-to-date version as of the present Electronic Edition. Now the universe has become very small. People are able to travel from one planet to another. When there was no convenience of conveyances, Lord Krsna planned the Mahabharata to unite the scattered India. Today the universe has become small. Planning for Mahavishva (The Great Universe ) and not Mahabharata ( Great India ), is required. The guiding factor behind the creation of the Mahabharata was dharma -- the creation of a great human society in which there would be peace, happiness, fraternity and no poverty. In that period, it was the rule that the country was held responsible if a person died of starvation. Not merely this, if there was an early death, if a child of five or so died, people regarded it as a flaw in the ruling structure. Today you have to create Mahavishva (The Great Universe), and the guiding principle behind it will be that all human beings are the progeny of the Supreme Progenitor. Hence all are His children, hence all should live together -- nay, will have to live together. Black or white, literate or illiterate, small or tall, all are the children of the same Father. Hence all will have to live together. So the important thing is that all are the progeny of the Supreme Progenitor. According to this, there will be unity in the physical stratum, and so will there be in the psychic and spiritual strata. But to strengthen this unity yet more, there is one more factor which should be there, and is there -- that factor being the common goal for all the children of the Supreme Father -- the merger of all in Him. All have come from Him and are in Him ; therefore, all people will have to live together. Remaining together is natural for you, and to remain disunited is something unnatural. You know well that unnaturality is not tolerated by Prakrti. Unnaturality is ultimately destroyed. So it is natural for human beings to live together and to make a great Universe. By not doing so, and by mutual fight, all will be destroyed. This is the law of Prakrti. Hence, united you will have to remain, this is your duty. So that the people of the world may remain united, it is your duty to bring the Mahavishva as soon as possible. There will be peace and happiness in the Universe, and, established in one indivisible ideology, humanity will march ahead toward the Supreme Goal. Victory be with you! 3 December 1967, Ranchi SOME CHARACTERS OF THE MAHA'BHA'RATA official source: Discourses on the Maha'bha'rata cross-references: none this version: is the printed Discourses on the Maha'bha'rata, 2nd edition, version (spelling mistakes only may have been corrected). I.e., this is the most up-to-date version as of the present Electronic Edition. In the intellectual sphere, the most important aspect of the personality of Krsna was the creation of great personalities and the setting of a clear demonstration to humanity that satya ultimately triumphs and papa is ultimately defeated. Whatever Parama Purusa does in the mental sphere, that becomes a reality for human beings. What devotees think internally remains mental imagination only. To depict Ramacandra as an ideal human being, Valmiki and Tulasidas had to compose the epics Ramayana and Ramacaritmanasa. The events described in these epics are not real. But the characters and the events of the Mahabharata are factual. Jayadratha : Humans should ask of Parama Purusa only non-attributional devotion. Sometimes they ask material or psychic things from Him, but Parama Purusa may or may not grant such things. Jayadratha asked a special boon from Shiva, that he should die neither during the day nor at night ; in other words, he wanted to become immortal. God blessed him as he wished, and Jayadratha actually died at dusk, which was neither day nor night. Shakuni: A certain part of the human mind always remains concealed in almost every case. "Let others suffer"Shakuni harboured this sort of sadistic internal desire. You will come across some people in every village who get a crude pleasure in setting people against one another. Shakuni was the Prince of Gandhara (present-day Afghanistan). In those days Gandhara was one of the provinces of the Gandhara Empire. Gandhara was famous for its distinctive style of art. Shakuni knew in his heart of hearts that only those who received God's favour wo would be victorious. And that's why by setting the Kaoravas against the Pandavas he in fact did a disservice to the Kaoravas. Shakuni's role in the Mahabharata was very, very significant. The final outcome of the war establishes the fact that it is simplicity that always triumphs, not duplicity. Karna : In many cases aristocratic blood is given more importance than one's individual noble deeds. Karna was the first child of Kuntii, although she was not legally married to anyone. He was her son by a king named Suda. Such things received social support in those days. Later, Karna was brought up by a charioteer. Throughout his life be was an out-and-out idealist. He was the most trusted friend of the Kaoravas. He has some striking points of similarity with Bhiisma ; for example, if someone did some service to him, he always remained faithful to him. He followed a code of simple morality. Strict adherence to spiritual morality may lead to the parting of friends. It is often found that ultimately it is spiritual morality that wins over simple morality, but common people always commit mistakes on this point. It is never proper to extend support to immoralists. As Bhiisma, the grandfather, had accepted the food and drink of the Kaoravas, he continued to support them. Of course he tried in his own way to change the attitude of Duryodhana, but he didn't exert pressure on him. Karna did not eeven try to change Duryodhana's attitude, much less exert pressure on him. On points of sincerity and devotion, Bhiisma had no parallel, but in point of valour, Karna was certainly greater. There was a curse on him that during the war his chariot wheels would stick in the mud. Under such circumstances he might pray for a truce with his enemies, as a righteous fight always presupposes two equal fighters. But it must be said to his credit that Karna didn't make any such request of his enemies. Although he fought against the Pandavas who were always backed by Krsna, he breathed his last with Krsna's name on his lips. Karna's was an excellent character, except for one defect: he valued simple morality more than spiritual morality. Dronacarya: He was the tutor of both the Kaoravas and the Pandavas. He taught them the scriptures as well as military skill : He was both sha'straguru and shastraguru. Then why was he defeated in the fight ? Teachers should, as a rule, have equal love and affection for all their students, but Dronacarya was clearly partial to Arjuna. Still later, when he discovered to his displeasure that Arjuna was growing to be a greater warrior, he disclosed some secret military skills to Ashvatthama, his own son. Ekalavya, another disciple, had profound regard for Dronacarya, but when Dronacarya came to know that Ekalavya was born of a low-caste family, he outright refused to accept him as a disciple. This outright refusal was extremely unbecoming of an acarya. Not all are competent to become acaryas. Partiality is a serious lapse on the part of any teacher. So far as archery was concerned, Ekalavya was more expert than Arjuna or Ashvatthama. Once Dronacarya went to Ekalavya and noticed his excellent feats of archery. On being questioned, Ekalavya let him know that having accepted Dronacarya as his teacher, he had acquired that sort of skill. But shockingly, in the name of guru daksina (sacerdotal fee for the master), Dronacarya demanded the thumb of Ekalavya) and thereby spoiled the brilliant career of Ekalavya. Shrii Krsna had to conceive of such a character just to open the eyes of other members of society. It is only proper that one treat the virtuous and the sinful alike. We must look upon all with equal respect, thereby maintaining harmony in society. And as a result of his discriminatory treatment of his disciples, Dronacarya had a serious fall in the battle. Dronacarya was neither an ideal man nor an ideal teacher. So it became imperative to eliminate such an acarya from society. That's why Shrii Krsna resorted to duplicity and advised Yudhisthira to announce before the assembled people in deceptive language, "Ashvatthama hatah iti naro kunjaro va" -- Ashvatthama is killed. Ashvatthama the man or may be the elephant." The Ashvatthama who was killed was in fact an elephant, not Ashvatthama, the son of Dronacarya. But the announcement was made in such a way that Dronacarya was convinced that his son was killed, and was overcome with grief. It was easy for the Pandavas to slay him. Arjuna : He acted on the advice of Lord Krsna. Both the Pandavas and the Kaoravas, on the eve of the Mahabharata war, went to Lord Krsna and approached him for military help. It was essential to bring about a balance between justice and politics. Politics always relies on diplomacy. Krsna pretended to be asleep. Duryodhana sat at the head of Krsna's bed and acted in conformity with royal dignity, but Arjuna preferred to sit at Krsna's feet. So when Krsna woke up from his false sleep, his eyes first fell on Arjuna. Krsna contrived an indirect diplomatic plan. He proved that spiritual force was much stronger than physical force, and that it was only spiritual force that could show light to the world. Duryodhana, in spite of having a vast army, couldn't realize that only the force of righteousness could win the war, and not the crude physical force. 12 February 1968, Ranchi