Chapter 1	Discourses on the Mahábhárata

Why is the book Mahábhárata so named? The Mahábhárata is an educative history, and the name of the author of this book is Veda Vyasa.

First I will say something about the author. Veda Vyasa was known as Krśńa Dvaepayana Vyasa at first. He was born in a fisherman’s family. They were living just on the patch of land where the Ganges and the Yamuna join near Prayaga. The area through which the Yamuna flows is covered with black soil, due to which the Yamuna water looks somewhat black. The soil of the Ganges is yellowish, hence the water of the Ganges is yellowish. The soil of the patch of land where Veda Vyasa was born was blackish (krśńa). Due to the black soil, that patch of land was known as Krśńa Dviipa. The boy who was born in Krśńa Dviipa was thus named Krśńa Dvaepayana (“one who lives in Krśńa Dviipa”). Because his family title was Vyasa, he was known as Krśńa Dvaepayana Vyasa. Krśńa Dvaepayana Vyasa was a man of letters. He wrote very many books. He was a great man.

The Vedas had become almost extinct then. The Indians of that time were not conversant with the Vedas till the advent of Veda Vyasa about 3500 years ago. It was Krśńa Dvaepayana Vyasa who properly edited the Vedas and reintroduced them to the people at large. Therefore he became popularly known as “Veda Vyasa.” So the author of the Mahábhárata is Krśńa Dvaepayana Vyasa or “Veda Vyasa.”

The Mahábhárata is itihása (educative history). According to the then Indian system books were classified in four divisions – kávya, puráńa, itikathá and itihása. The subject matter of kavya might not be real, but the way of expression is lucid and beautiful. “Vákyaḿ rasátmakaḿ kávyam” – stories which were narrated in a graceful language were known as “kávya.” Kalidasa wrote kávya.

Next is puráńa (mythology). In it the stories told are not real but have educative value. Therefore it has its value in society. For instance, the Ramayana is a purana. Shrii Vyasa wrote eighteen puráńas to educate the people.

Aśt́ádasha puráńeśu Vyásasya vacanadvayam; Paropakárah puńyáya pápáya parapiid́ańam.

By writing different stories in the puráńas, Shrii Vyasa intended to educate the masses. To make people at large understand that by doing good to others a person acquires virtues (puńya) and by harming others incurs vices (pápa), Shrii Vyasa wrote eighteen puráńas.

Next is itikathá. In English this is known as “history”. Itikathá is a chronology of events. In itikathá there is simply a collection of different happenings. In it the author bothers little about the educative value of the affairs. People at large derive little benefit from knowing the dates of birth and death of different kings. But when and where the society is moving, what turn it has taken at a particular time and to which path it will take, is all indicated in itikathá. In other words, what the condition of society was in the past and what it is at present is all brought home by itikathá. Itikathá is also known as “purákathá”, “itivrtta”, “purávrtta,” etc., in Saḿskrta. It is known as “history” in English.

Fourth is itihása. “Iti hasati ityarthe itihása.” The meaning of the root of “hasati” is “laugh.” That means, it is illuminating (projjvala). That portion of the itikathá which has educative value can alone be known as itihása. In schools and colleges the students read Indian itikathá and not itihása. All history is not itihása.

Dharmartha-káma-mokśárthaḿ niitivákyasamanvitam; Purávrttakatháyuktam itihása pracakśyate.

Itihása is that itikathá from which a man gets the fruits of caturvarga – dharma, artha, káma and mokśa – as well as a system of the dos and don’ts of niiti.

What is káma? The desire for mundane objects – name, fame, wealth, etc., is káma. The desire to make efforts to get food and clothing is also included in the scope of káma.

The next varga is artha. Artha is that which relieves pain. The pain of hunger is relieved when one buys something and eats it. Hence money is the cause of the removal of the pain of hunger. Therefore money is known as “artha.” Similar is the case in the psychic sphere. Suppose you are mentally disturbed when you are not able to know the meaning of something. The moment you know it your mental trouble is gone. Meaning therefore is known as “artha.” So in the psychic field also, “artha” means that which removes pain.

The next varga is dharma. “Dharma” means psycho-spiritual development.

The fourth varga is mokśa. As long as a person is away from Paramátman there will be some trouble or other whether one is righteous or unrighteous. Pain is finally removed only by obtaining moks’a.

“Varga” means “class” there are four classes. The first is physical; the second physico-psychic, the third psycho-spiritual, and the fourth, spiritual. Hence the itikatha which begets the fruits of the four vargas and has the dos and don’ts of life in it is known as “itihása.” So the Mahábhárata is an itihása, the author of which is Krsna Dvaepayana Vyasa.

Now let us know why this book is named Mahábhárata. When the Aryans came from Central Asia to India, they came first to the Saptanada Desha (the Land of Seven Rivers), which later on was known as Paiṋcanada Desha or Punjab, (the Land of Five Rivers). Next they entered the Kashmir area. There they saw pebbles which were bluish in colour, looking like jambu (a fruit that resembles an olive except for the blue colour). These pebbles were then known as “jambushilá” (pebbles looking like jambu). The country in which, jambushilá was found was named Jambu Dviipa. At present Jambu is known as Jammu. Jambu Dviipa at that time meant the area stretching from Afghanistan to the Philippines, all of Southeast Asia.

There was and still is a fertile land within Jambu Dviipa where food was easily available. The time that the people of that area had left over from work they utilized in psychic and spiritual pursuits. They practised every possible means of psychic development. The patch of land which easily yielded grains was known as Bháratavarśa. The word “bhárata” is derived from the Saḿskrta root “bhar” plus the root “tan”. When the root “bhar” suffixed by “al” is combined with the root “tan” suffixed by “d́a”, the word “bhárata” is derived. And the word “varśa” means “country” (it can also mean “year” or “rainy season”). “Bhar” means that which nourishes, and “tan” means that which causes to expand. Food here was easily available to the Aryans as compared to Central Asia, and the extra time at their disposal was utilized in physical, psychic and spiritual expansion.

“Tan” means “to expand.” The body of a child goes on expanding up to the age of thirty-nine, so the body during this period is “tanu” – that which expands. After thirty-nine the body is known as “shariira” which means that whose nature is to decay. The body decays externally or internally after the thirty-ninth year of one’s age. The body of a child is known as “tanu” and that of an adult is known as “shariira.”

Therefore this patch of land was known as Bháratavarśa. Almost 7000 years ago Lord Sadashiva was born. During His period people were most undeveloped. The then people were partly knowledgeable about medicine, art, architecture and education, but nothing did they do systematically. People never shared their knowledge with others, because they thought that their prestige would be lessened. Thus so many methods of medical treatment and so many crafts were gradually lost due to long periods of disuse. In other words, there was no system for all human endeavours. For song, dance, music, medicine and all other endeavours He gave a system. That means the crude-natured people came under a system, under a pattern, through the efforts of Lord Shiva.

Then came Lord Krśńa about 3500 years ago, when the war of the Mahábhárata took place. People’s individual qualities then had not taken a collective shape. People did not know the art of living collectively. The individual qualities that lacked a sense of collectivity were given such a sense by Lord Krśńa. Suppose a person has a faculty for medicine. If one’s medical knowledge is channelled and utilized in a medical college, this will bring about the collective shaping of one’s individual attribute. This applies to all faculties. Lord Krśńa wanted to bring about a social synthesis, the seed of which was sown by Lord Shiva.

It was seen at the time of Lord Krśńa that though Amga, Bamga, Kalimga, Magadha, Saorastra and other kingdoms (Amga Bamga Kalimgesu Saorastra Magadhesu ca) were within Bharatavarsa, they fought among themselves because they had no collective sense. Lord Krśńa thought that if He combined all there would be collective spirit in the true sense of the term. Then alone all human faculties would get expanded. He tried to make people understand, but they did not understand, because there was no collective spirit in them as was the case in ancient England.

In ancient England there were so many countries, named Sussex, Essex, Yorkshire, etc. Along with these there were Wales and Scotland. At last all combined and made Great Britain.

Similar were Amga, Bamga, Kalimga, Saorastra and Magadha in India. Lord Krśńa wanted to combine them and make Mahábhárata (Great India). To synthesize them all Lord Krśńa was born, and to help in the mission of Lord Krśńa came the Paiṋca Páńd́avas, Bhisma, Vidura and the others. Therefore the book is known as Mahábhárata (Great India).

Chapter 2	Discourses on the Mahábhárata

As mentioned before, there were small states in the then Bháratavarśa. These small states were always at war with one another, and the chief reason for the war was nothing but their selfishness. Each state was desirous of expanding itself and thereby consuming others. As for instance, Amga Desha (now the Bhagalpur area) adjoined Magadha, and across the Ganges was Vaeshalii. Towards the western side of the River Sone was Kashii Rajya. All these were fighting among themselves. In between Magadha and Amga there was a patch of fertile land yielding a rich crop of wheat, oil seeds, pulses, etc. Since this patch of land was mostly under water in rainy season, which made the land fertile, it was named Amba Bhumii (the Land under Water). Because of Amba Bhumii there was a constant severe clash among Amga, Magadha and Vaeshalii or Videha. Naturally Amba Bhumii was captured sometimes by Amga, sometimes by Magadha and sometimes by Videha. (You know the persons belonging to Amba Bhumii are known as Ambastha).

In the then society there was no collective spirit, no solid social structure. Of course the people were strictly following the systems of art, music, dance, architecture and literature given by Lord Shiva. All respected the ideology given by Lord Shiva, but since the collective spirit was not there, there were Mongolians, Dravidians, Negroids and Austrics living separately. Dharma in the socio-economico-political field could not enter in and hence a solid collective structure could not be made. During the period of the Mahábhárata, Lord Krśńa realized the necessity of synthesizing all the different states into one and naming it Great India, because He realized that India was scattered into fragments due to the lack of only one thing, i.e. collective spirit.

The then India began to have the sense of becoming one as for instance, the Pandavas were Austrico-Aryan and Aryo-Austric. These people were then living in the West Uttar Pradesh area, the present western portion of UP and eastern portion of the Punjab – the present Haryana-Meerut area. These people were the first indigenous Indian population – the present Jat people. The Pandavas and Kaoravas were Jats. The effort to synthesize all the states had also then started, as mentioned above. For instance, Bhima was wedded to Hidimba, a Mongolian girl from East India. Krśńa was married to Rukmini, a girl from the North Eastern Frontier Area (which is now splintered into a number of states). The wife of Arjuna was Citramgada, a Mongolian girl from Manipur. Hence we see an effort to make a common Indian race; i.e., the Mahábhárata could be made possible in that way.

Though the people accepted the supremacy of Lord Shiva, there were different rituals, and dharma sádhaná in the true sense of the term was not there. That does not mean that there was no dhármika sádhaná. There were even great rśis and munis. Jarasandha, a king of that time, was performing the sádhaná of avidyá tantra. Jayadratha, a personality in the Mahábhárata, was a Shaeva Tántrika. Some were Kaolas and some Vaeśńavas – not Vaeśńavas like the present, but they had the mentality of Vaeśńavas, as for instance Maharsi Garga. Also there was some influence of rituals on the then kings and the people at large. As for instance Kamsa, the king of Shurasena and maternal uncle of Krśńa, was a rigid Shakta, an oppressive king. Due to this Maharsi Garga had to hatch a conspiracy which resulted in the victory of Krśńa, you may say. Kamsa had banned the entry of Garga into the Shurasena kingdom. There was an order from higher authority to female and male spies (visa kanya and Gaha puruśa) to arrange for delicious dishes for Maharsi Garga and to poison them. This was to be done with the intention of avoiding the unpopularity of the king that would result from the arrest of Maharsi Garga. By respecting Maharsi Garga, on the other hand, by arranging for dainty dishes, the king’s popularity would only be enhanced.

The system of four varńas was simply nominal at the time of the Mahábhárata, as it was in the Vaedika age. The system of varńas was only due to war purposes in the Vaedika period. In the Mahábhárata age this system got somewhat strengthened. The worldly father of Lord Krśńa was Vasudeva, a popular ksatriya leader, being an army commander. But Lord Krśńa’s guardians, Nanda and Upananda, the cousins of Vasudeva, were known as gopa yadava (milkmen). His worldly father, Vasudeva, was a kśatriya by profession. His guardian, Nanda, was a gopa (vaeshya); and his uncle, Maharsi Garga, was a vipra, because he adopted a life of scriptural study, contemplation and meditation. There was no rigidity in the caste system. Some time later the rigidity came into being.

The leader of the Mahábhárata was neither the Pandavas nor the Kaoravas, but Lord Krśńa Himself, both directly and indirectly. It was all foreseen by Maharsi Garga. I will say something more about Maharsi Garga some time later. It was Maharsi Garga himself who named the child Krśńa: “Krśńa náma rákhen Garga dhyánete jániyá” – in dhyána he realized that Puruśottama was to take birth, and he thought it proper to name the child Krśńa.

Chapter 3	Discourses on the Mahábhárata

I will now deal with the educational system during the Mahábhárata period.

In the Vaedika age there was no educational system in particular. Generally students would go to the guru’s house, at the age of five, and, completing their studies by the age of twenty-four, would return home. The reason for not having a solid educational system in the Vaedika age was the incomplete establishment of even monarchism at that time. The gurus would maintain their catuspathiis by begging from the public. The students were in turn maintained by the catuspathiis.

As the first phase of learning, one should be taught grammar. But in the Vaedika age there was no grammar of the Vaedika language. The Vaedika language was a spoken language. In addition to this, there was no script, and people did not know how to write. Therefore the students would memorize the things uttered by the gurus. This is why a solid system could not be evolved. Since the students were listening to their gurus and remembering the things spoken, the Veda was named “Shruti.” “Shruti” means “ear” as well as “to listen” The people in the Vaedika age did not even realize well the value of education, a must for sharpening the intellect. If you go through the Veda you will come across a thousand and one grammatical mistakes, i.e. no grammar had been made. A strong Saḿskrta grammar was made by Panini. Panini, a great scholar and the first grammarian of Saḿskrta, was a Pakhtoon of the Peshawar area.

During the Mahábhárata period there was a system in the educational field to some extent. In the catuspathiis also there was some financial solidarity, as the kings as well as the people helped financially. The Vaedika language had died in the Mahábhárata age. The language of the people was Prákrta. Though there was no solid written grammar, there was some kind of a grammatical structure.

Though everybody would go to the guru’s house to study, there were some day-students too. Students from far-off places would live in the guru’s house. In the first phase they would learn grammar, then general knowledge of different subjects. After this they would learn the art of operating various weapons, according to their abilities. Those who were interested in learning the shastras were taught them.

In the Vaedika era there was division by caste, but there was no casteism at all. But during the Mahábhárata period, there was both caste division and some sense of caste, or casteism. Still, intercaste marriages were customary, and in one family someone might be a vipra, someone a shúdra, someone a vaeshya, as mentioned earlier. Casteism had not yet entered in. Those who had ability for the use of weapons would study martial arts more than the scriptures. Even a person born in a vipra family could study the use of weapon more than the scriptures if he was interested. For example, there was Drona, who though born in a vipra family, was an expert in operating weapons, since he was interested in them. But persons born in vipra families lost respect if they became very skilled in the use of weapons.

There was also a close link between the educational system and the social system, i.e., the society wanted persons coming from kśatriya families to be expert in military skills, as it was the duty of the kśatriyas to defend the country. The social system was that only the kśatriyas were to defend the country, if invaded; this resulted in a great weakness of the society, leading to the defeat of India when invaded by outside forces 2000 years after the Mahábhárata, wherein the majority of the kśatriyas had been killed, causing a great reduction in their numbers.

Logic (nyaya), social code (smrti), Saḿskrta grammar and the science of spirituality were included in the educational curriculum of the then period. But that which we call philosophy today had not yet been born.

The oldest philosophy in the world is the Samkhya philosophy of Kapila. Though the Samkhya philosophy was written down some time after the Mahábhárata period, the philosophical trend had already crept into the minds of the people of that period. The first world philosophy was formulated in India, and had its preparation on the battlefield of the Mahábhárata. As said above, there was neither philosophy nor books in the Vaedika era, but there was spiritual teaching, in the period of the Mahábhárata there was spiritual teaching, there were books, but there was no philosophy. After the Mahábhárata, people began to think very seriously about the origin of the world, the duties of human beings, on the basis of Lord Krśńa’s teachings in the Giita. Due to these questions, people created the first philosophy, after getting the answers to these questions. Therefore Maharsi Kapila was after the Mahábhárata, not prior to it.

In the Mahábhárata age education was given through the medium of Saḿskrta. The Vaedika language was a dead language then. The people’s language was Prákrta but teaching was not in the Prákrta medium. Books in Prákrta were also very few. Generally people did not write in Prákrta. The Prákrta language was reformed, and the language which came into being out of the reformation was named Saḿskrta.

Saḿskrta is not the Vaedika language. After the death of the Vaedika language Prákrta was born. The synthetic language which was made by rectifying the Prákrta language was known as Saḿskrta. “Saḿskrta” means “reformed” – the reformation of the Prákrta language.

In the Vaedika age the expression of address was “Bho arya” – “arya” means “ respectable.” In the Mahábhárata age, i.e., in Prákrta, “arya” became “ajja.”

In that age, after the death of the Saḿskrta language (meaning here the Vaedika language), there emerged seven Prákrta languages. Towards the east of Allahabad in East India was Magadhii Prákrta; towards the west of Allahabad and east of Delhi, i.e., in Northern Central India, there was Shaorasenii Prákrta; in the Punjab, Kashmir and Himachal, i.e., to the northwest of Delhi, there was Paeshacii Prákrta; towards the west and north of this Paeshachii land (in Afghanistan and South Russia) there was Pashcatya Prákrta; towards the south of Multan, i.e., in Sindh and South Baluchistan, there was Pahlavii Prákrta; in Central India Malavii Prákrta; and in Southwest India, i.e., Maharastra and Goa, there was Maharastrii Prákrta. These were the seven Prákrta languages.

But educated persons did not use Prákrta. They wrote few Prákrta books. The leaders of the Mahábhárata, the Pandavas and the Kaoravas, spoke in Shaorasenii Prákrta, but they did not write that language. When the Pandavas were talking with Kuntii they used a blended language of Paeshacii and Shaorasenii Prákrta, but when they spoke with a gentleman they used reformed Shaorasenii Prákrta, i.e., Saḿskrta. Saḿskrta was not the natural language (matrbhasa) of anybody nor had it ever been. The natural language of Krśńa was Shaorasenii Prákrta. With Vasudeva, Nanda and Yashoda He talked in this very language, but with the Pandavas and the Kaoravas in Saḿskrta.

As I told you earlier, in the Vaedika era a gentleman was addressed as “arya.” In the Shaorasenii language, the natural language of Krśńa, the grandmother of Hindi (which is a matter of glory for Hindi) “arya” became “ajja.” After that, when Shaorasenii died, “ajja” became “ajjii” in Ardha Shaorasenii, the mother of Hindi. “Ajjii” became “jii” in present Hindi.

The education in that period was in Saḿskrta, and people wrote on bhurja leaves, not palm leaves. The famous book of that age is the Mahábhárata, a part of which is the Giitá. In the Mahábhárata age people began to write the Veda, but the writing was completed after a pretty long time. On the Giitá we find the influence of only one book or set of books – the Vaedika Upaniśads – because the only book which could have been called older than the Giitá was the Veda, which was not fully written either. The portion of the Veda dealing with knowledge is the Upaniśads.

You know that the Veda has two portions – the first is Karmakanda and the second is Jiṋánakanda. In Jiṋánakanda in turn there are a couple of portions – Aranyaka and the Upaniśads. So the influence of the Upaniśads on the Giitá and even on Krśńa is very clear. And the influence was expressed when Lord Krśńa began to answer the complicated philosophical questions of Arjuna. And Maharsi Kapila’s Sáḿkhya philosophy is just the philosophical explanation of the Upaniśadik Jiṋánakanda.

About two hundred years after the Mahábhárata we find in the catuspathiis and in the educational complex of India the teachings of philosophical lore. In that period philosophy meant Kapil’s Sáḿkhya philosophy. Though the teaching of philosophy started two hundred years after the Mahábhárata, we can speak of Kapil as a contemporary of the Mahábhárata, as two hundred years is not a very long period. And in that period, if people talked of a man of letters, it invariably meant Kapil. In the Saḿskrta language the word “Kapila” has acquired the meaning of “first scholar” (adi vidvan), i.e., it was Maharshi Kapil who first received recognition as being a scholar.

During the Mahábhárata age the panditas who were teaching in the catuspathiis were helped both by the government and by the public. People considered it to be a sacred deed to help the catuspathiis, which they did with food, clothing, etc, This was something spontaneous. Each pandita was the conductor of one catuspathii, and there was no such thing as a university. Each pandita set up his educational system and curriculum according to his wishes and his own teaching. Each student belonging to a catuspathii was the adopter (dharaka), supporter (vahaka), and patron (pariposaka) of a particular thought. Students connected to different panditas had considerable variation in their knowledge. There was internal clash of thoughts and interpretations in all these catuspathiis, i.e., every catuspathii was a small university in itself.

But in the Buddhistic age that was not so. Instead, controlling universities were there. As for instance, in East India there was Vaneshvarpur Vihara University, which is in the Rajasahi district in present Bangladesh. In East India, in Amga Desha, in the Bhagalpur district near Kahalgaon, was Vikramashila Vihara University. In East India, in Patna District, was Nalanda University. Nalanda was the greatest university, the controlling one. Towards the frontier side near Peshawar was Taksashila University. This was also a controlling university.

In the Mahábhárata period the university system was not set up by the people. The difference between the catuspathiis of the Mahábhárata age and the viharas of the Buddhistic age was that the latter were not helped by the public but only by the kings. This had a very damaging effect, as after the end of the supremacy of Buddhism, when Neo-Hinduism came in full swing, all the viharas failed, as none of the kings continued aiding them. So within only one hundred years of the end of the Buddhist states, all the viharas in India ceased to exist. Hence we see how dangerous it is for schools to depend completely on governmental aid. Educational institutions should depend on public help and not on governmental help.

There is a well-known word, “chátra.” This was first applied in the Mahábhárata period to any of the pupils staying under the canopy (chatra) of any particular pandit. As the pupils were under the control of, within the jurisdiction of, one pandit with one school of thought, they were known as “chátra”. “Chátra” has now wrongly been used to mean any student. Present students are not chatra. “Chátra” means one who is under the control and jurisdiction (chátra) of a school of thought of one guru.

Chapter 4	Discourses on the Mahábhárata

Now I will tell you something about the medical science in the Mahábhárata period.

According to ayurveda, when the balance of the body is lost due to the increase or decrease of váyu or pitta or kapha, disease starts. Medicine is applied to restore balance. If the amount of váyu or pitta decreases, medicine is applied to increase it; if the amount of vayu or pitta increases medicine is applied to decrease it. This is the ayurvedik system of medicine. In the unani system, a similar system of medicine, there are four factors (dhátu) – váyu, pitta, kapha and rakta. The difference between the two systems is that in the unani system one more factor, i.e., rakta, has been added. The other three factors are the same. In both systems crude medicine is applied and surgery ( shalya cikitsa) is simply nominal. In the pure ayurvedik system there is no surgery. But the vaedyaka shástra of India which has been incorporated into the ayurvedik system included surgery.

And one more system is the homoeopathic system popularized by Hahnemann, a great man. In the ayurvedic system and in the unani system the medicine is applied not to treat the disease but to bring about a balance among the aforesaid factors. In homoeopathy, too, whose principle is “Samah samam shamayati” (like cures like), the disease is not treated, but the symptom of the disease is treated. No matter whether the disease is diarrhoea or malaria, the symptom is treated and not the disease. Moreover, the medicine is applied in a subtle form. It is theorized that the subtle affects the crude, hence subtle medicine is applied to cure the crude disease. The more subtle the medicine, the more effective the result on the crude disease.

Allopathic treatment is a direct treatment of the disease. A particular disease is cured with the appropriate kind of medicine.

In India at that time, there was a mixture of ayurveda and vaedyaka shástra. But a strange thing is that homoeopathy incorporates the viśa cikitsá of that era, and through this viśa cikitsá people were familiar with the principle “Samah samam shamayati.” For instance, the Kaoravas gave poison to Bhiima, and people announced that he had died. But the experts in ayurveda gave injections of poison to Bhiima, by which he was cured. This proves that people had the knowledge of viśa cikitsá and the principle “Samah samam shamayati.” i.e., homoeopathy in an elementary form. Homoeopathy was not started by Mahatma Hahnemann, instead it was developed by him.

Viśa cikitsá is native to India, and its first reference is found in the Mahábhárata period. Later on this viśa cikitsá was encouraged not by Aryans, but rather by non-Aryans, and South India, especially Malabar, saw it expand a lot. These people attribute the origin of viśa cikitsá to Lord Krśńa, i.e., viśa cikitsá was originated by Krśńa. And vaedyaka shástra was originated by Lord Sadáshiva. Actually, ayurveda was known to the Aryans earlier than Lord Shiva. But Lord Sadáshiva brought about a blending between vaedyaka shástra and ayurveda.

But the originator of viśa cikitsá was Lord Krśńa. In the Mahábhárata period, it was appreciated a lot, and people discussed it and practised it by applying different venoms such as the venom of the snake, the venom of the spider, the venom of the scorpion, etc., to cure snake bite, spider bite, scorpion bite, etc. In course of time, it was neglected. At last it had some place in the royal family of Cochin. This system is neglected nowadays, but if it is encouraged, a new system will be added to medical science.

Perhaps you know arkavana (arkapatra), generally found in a cremation ground. If this is used either externally or internally, the eye becomes defective. But it was discovered in the Mahábhárata period that if that same arkavana is used in a subtle form, it is a very good medicine for various eye diseases. The same system of “Samah samam shamayati,” i.e., poison roots out poison, is there.

Surgery, which is considered to be a part of allopathy, is not really so; rather it is a part of ayurveda shástra. Since the time of Sadáshiva, it has developed a lot. In vaedyaka shástra, it is also explained how a dead body is to be studied by students. The structure of the human body, how to keep it clean, how it decomposes, is all explained in vaedyaka shástra. This proves that surgery was very developed in that period. There is a very interesting example of surgery. The cousin of Krśńa (the son of the sister of Lord Krśńa’s father) was Jarasandha, the king of Magadha, with his capital at Rajgir. At the time of the birth of Jarasandha, the child had to be cut out of the womb. People saw this child and threw it in the cremation ground. Then there came a very famous non-Aryan (rákśasii) lady doctor known as Jara. She stitched the child in a proper surgical operation and saved it. Since the lady Jara joined (sandhi) the pieces of the child’s body, the name of the child became Jarasandha. This proves that the people were well acquainted with surgery.

It is improper to think that everything in India has come from abroad. I have told you that Bhaskaracarya first discovered that the earth was round, and not Copernicus. That the earth is moving was first discovered by Bhaskaracharya and not by Galileo. The law of gravitation was first discovered by Bhaskaracharya and not by Newton. We give incorrect training to children.

Hence you see that homoeopathy sprang up in India itself. Nor did surgery originate with Aryans, but in India.

Suppose there are two persons. If the mind of either of them is stronger, it will control the other mind and the controlled mind will follow the stronger mind. The stronger mind imposes itself on the other mind either directly or by some artificial means indirectly. Because of the effect of the stronger mind, the controller mind utilizes its mental power against the disease and gets free from it. This sort of treatment by hypnotic spell, people say, was started by Dr. Mesmer of France, and so this system is known as “mesmerism.” But prior to Dr. Mesmer, this system was known to Indians. In India it was named “rákśasii vidyá.” In ancient India (by ancient India I mean the non-Aryans, the natives of India) there was a non-Aryan lady doctor, Kárkatii Rákśasii. This Rákśasii was very famous for her mesmeric treatment. This sort of treatment should therefore not have been known as “mesmerism” – it should have been known as something different.

Hence we find that in the Mahábhárata age, there was surgery, ayurveda, vaedyaka shástra, viśa cikitsá, and homoeopathy; and people were not unacquainted with mesmeric treatment either. This proves that medical science was not underdeveloped.

You can pose the question – if medical science was developed so much, why was it destroyed? The main reason was that touching the dead body, learning about the physical structure of the skeleton of the dead body, etc, was not considered to be lowly by the people of the early Buddhistic age; but after Buddha, people began to take it as lowly. Touching the dead body was considered to be most undesirable. This affected medical science a lot. Surgery especially was much affected, and because of this all medical science was affected.

Six or seven hundred years after Buddha, Buddhists once again discussed medical science a lot and tried their best to develop it But immediately after Buddha it was completely discouraged, and medical science in India had its downfall. Moreover, when people did start to develop medical science, some time after Buddha, there was simultaneously an invasion from outside India, due to which ayurveda, vaedyaka shástra, viśa cikitsá and surgery were discouraged in India and the unani (hakimii) System of medicine began to take root. Because the hakimii system was not much cultivated in this country, the downfall of India as far as medical science is concerned, occurred.

Chapter 5	Discourses on the Mahábhárata

Now we shall discuss dress, food, language, script and social structure in the Mahábhárata period.

DRESS

Dhuti and cádar 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 cádar, 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 cádars.

Páyjámá, kámij, etc., came from Persia a long time later. “Kámij” is a Persian word, so is “jama”. Jámá is known as “kurtá” in Bengali. “Jámá” is a Persian word and not an Indian word.

During the Mahábhárata period, vipras would use dhuti and cádar. And so would vaeshyas. Shúdras would use only dhuti, and kśatriyas would wear a dhuti and a tight kurtá like a T-shirt. The Kaoravas and Pandavas used this very dress.

Long after the Mahábhárata, 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 Bhima Kadphisus made his entry, and then came Kaniska. The names Kujela Kadphisus and Bhima 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 páyjámá. Before him there was no usage of páyjámá in India. Even a short time before the present, people with old ideas would regard a man in páyjámá as a Muslim.

So this was the dress during the Mahábhárata period.

Those persons – vipra, kśatriya 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 Mahábhárata 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 rut́i, but rather used rice. There was no use at all of garam masalá and the like. People were taking boiled food which nowadays we call haviśánna the kind of food which is taken in India for a particular number of days of the mourning period after death. But in the Mahábhárata period, because of the Aryans, there was use of meat, especially among the kśatriyas. 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, [[radish]], eggplant, beans, okra and potato were not used in India, because all these were brought to India afterwards. Eggplant came from China, the radish from Japan, okra from Africa, pumpkin and squash from Europe, and potato from America. In the India 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 Áryańyavraja in the Vaedika language, which got changed into Iráńvej – at present the official name of Persia is Iráńbej), 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-dhám” (pomp and show). “Go” in Saḿskrta 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 Prákrta language to “gohuma” which in Bihar became “gahum” or “gehuṋ.”

And when the Aryans came in contact with rice, they named it “briihi,” which means “food.” India was a rice-eating 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 Mahábhárata 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 Prákrta languages were used in India. Paeshácii and Shaorasenii Prákrta were spoken by the people around Delhi. The mother tongue of Krśńa was Shaorasenii Prákrta.

SCRIPT

In India at that time, the old Bráhmii and Kharośt́hii script were in use. People who wanted to write the Vaedika language had to write in the Bráhmii and Kharośt́hii scripts, as neither the Vaedika nor the Saḿskrta language had its own script. The same Bráhmii and Kharosthii scripts got transformed and became the present Sarada script of Kashmir. Then the Gurumukhii, Nagrii, and Nauṋgala 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 “Gośt́hii Mátá.” 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 Mahábhárata 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 today 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 Mahábhárata 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.) Today 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 Mahábhárata 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 Mahábhárata age, there was no solid social system. Only the Mongolians, known as Pisháca in old Saḿskrta, 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 Mahábhárata 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.

Chapter 6	Discourses on the Mahábhárata

Now about Lord Krśńa’s approach. All the characters in the Mahábhárata, from beginning to end, were simply puppets on the stage. They were made to dance by the tricks of Lord Krśńa alone. The life of Lord Krśńa justifies His practical approaches. However, I shall put forth a few out of many examples.

The first and foremost thing is that Lord Krśńa was Táraka Brahma. The advent of Táraka Brahma is known as “Mahásambhúti.”

What is Mahásambhúti? According to natural law, the movement of the world from crude to subtle is accompanied by clash between good (Shubha) and evil (ashubha), between kśema and akśema. During this period, good people sometimes get exhausted by the dominance of the dishonest (pápii). If this period were to continue some time more, the honest (sádhu) would be extinguished. If such a state of affairs exists in the world, a special force (visheśa shakti samprayoga) from Paramátman becomes a necessity.

To give a blow to the sinners (pápii) 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 Mahásambhuti becomes inevitable.

Every unit is doing the work of Paramátman; everyone is the expression of God; this is Paramátmá’s sambhúti. But to do great work which is not possible through the physical structure (adhara) of human beings, a special manifestation of God takes place (Ávirbháva) which is known as “Mahásambhúti.”

This is different from an incarnation (avatára). “Avatára” means “descending,” to come in the form of a unit. Every person is an avatara of Paramátman. You can say that the avatára is the sambhuti of Mahásambhúti.

There are also so many degrees (kot́i) of consciousness in the Jiivas that are the descendants of Paramátman. One is jiivakot́i. Paramátman has come in the form of jiivas. Special force can also be expressed through these media. Another is Iishvarakot́i. Paramátman 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 Iishvarakot́i is a hundred times more than that of jiivakot́i.

In this Iishvarakot́i also there are so many degrees. The lowest Iishvarakot́i is kalávatára. This kalávatára has the lowest power. “Kalá” means one-sixteenth. Kalávatára means that manifestation of Iishvarakot́i which has one sixteenth the power of Iishvarakot́i. In Iishvarakoti there is also aḿshávatara, which possesses more power that kalávatára, Khańd́avatára is still more developed. These are the different stages of Iishvarakot́i, according to their powers.

And where there is expression of the whole power, that is known as Púrńávatára, which is the same as Brahmakot́i. Jiivakot́i, Iishvarakot́i and Brahmakot́i are expressions of Paramátman, i.e., all are manifestations of Paramátman. All are His sambhúti. All jiivas are sambhúti and this Brahmakot́i is Púrńávatára.

Aḿshávatára, kalávatára, khańd́ávatára do work in a particular place, at a particular time and space, and leave the world. Such mahapuruśas have come to the world in good number. It is not possible to name them all. But this Mahásambhúti stirs the entire world because of His special force. Iishvarakot́i people advance due to their sádhaná. The realizations of their sádhaná, the knowledge obtained by sádhaná, have contributed to the progress of the world. But Mahásambhúti, of the same order as Brahmakot́i, 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, Sadáshiva came some 7000 years ago, and His vibration continues to this day. Similarly, some 3500 years ago Lord Krśńa came to the world. He was also a Mahásambhúti. 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 Mahásambhúti is born to guide the world.

Mahásambhúti will behave like a human being, but Mahásambhúti’s every action will be a superhuman action so that people may take lessons (lokashikśá) from it.

Let us give an example. Kansa was a most wicked king. And wicked-minded people always unite to save their position. There was one speciality in the reign of Kansa, 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 “viśa kanyá” and the male spies as “gaha puruśa.”

To save the world from the evil forces (pápashakti), Maharshi Garga, the greatest mahátmá, realized soul (pańd́ita), virtuous (dhármika) and wonderful Personality of his time, was doing penance for the advent of Mahásambhúti. A wise man, while praying for the advent of Mahásambhúti 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. [[You will earn the right to ask Iishvara for more power only when you have completely exhausted the power that He had already given you.]] 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 today. Suppose the enemy attacks and you begin squatting in groups and start Rámdhuna (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 (Pápa). Everything about the activities of Kansa was crystal-clear to him. And Kansa wanted to kill him. But he was not able to kill a famous maharśi like Garga as people might go against him.

You know Garga Muni was the brother of Vasudeva, i.e., he was uncle to Lord Krśńa. When Krśńa was born, Maharshi Garga knew in his meditation that the work would be done now, and hence he named the child Krśńa. It was he who named the child Krśńa – Krśńa has so many names but the name Krśńa was given by Garga himself. With the help of Garga, Krśńa killed Kansa. If Krśńa had not killed Kansa, 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 Krśńa’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 “dhá” root plus “d́a” 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 rákśasii (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 Krśńa with Jarasandha was the relationship of cousins. Though cousins, they were enemies. Jarasandha was against dharmarájya (the rule of the righteous). Lord Krśńa 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 the Shurasena [[kingdom]], whose king was Lord Krśńa after He killed Kansa. The capital of Shurasena was Mathura. There also Lord Krśńa presented an example of His practical approach. He shifted His capital from Mathura to Dwaraka, as the righteous people, then, were not united and it was not possible to fight against Jarasandha. Dwaraka 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 Dwaraka of Gujarat. So, this was a great practical approach by Lord Krśńa, and Jarasandha stopped attacking.

After that, Lord Krśńa united the kings in the name of dharmarájya, 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 Krśńa. When Jarasandha was defeated, he begged pardon, but Lord Krśńa did not forgive him, as his nature was not reformed. In the ensuing battle, Jarasandha was killed. After that, Lord Krśńa attacked Aḿgadesha (the [[modern-day]] 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 Játrii Kśatriya, Jat in the present language. The Saḿskrta name was Játrii Kśatriya. 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 Ábhiira. These were the two main Aryan groups. The Játrii Kśatriyas were mainly agriculturists, and the Ábhiiras were mainly dependent on cattle breeding. These were the two main branches of the Aryans. The Ábhiira became “Áhira” in the present language – they lived in Meerut, Haryana and near Delhi.

Of course, there was no caste [[discrimination]]. One belonged to a particular caste according to one’s livelihood. As mentioned earlier, Garga, the uncle of Krśńa, was a Vipra, and Krśńa’s father, Vasudeva, was a warlike Kśatriya, and the guardians of Krśńa, Nanda, Upananda and others, were Ábhiira Kśatriyas because they tamed cattle. These two, Játrii Kśatriya and Ábhiira Kśatriya, frequently fought each other. Both were good people, but because of some misunderstanding, they were fighting. Krśńa 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 Ábhiira Kśatriya, to marry Arjuna. This He did with a view to make the Játrii Kśatriyas and the Ábhiira Kśatriyas stop fighting.

Let’s take yet another instance of Lord Krśńa’s practical approach. Krśńa 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. Krśńa did it to save morality. “Ashvatthama hatah” was uttered very loudly, and Dronacarya heard it, became senseless and was killed. “Naro vá kuiṋjarah,” 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 Krśńa had the intention of getting Dronacarya killed. That is a fact, but the main idea of Lord Krśńa 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 Krśńa. As I told you, He never went against the main principles of morality. When at last the Yaduvaḿshii were destroyed in Prabhasa Tiirtha, Krśńa 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 Krśńa sat quietly under a tree in Prabhasa Tiirtha in lalita mudrá. 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 mudrá on a stone just below a tree. The lower portion of His feet was reddish. A vyádha (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 Krśńa’s feet. He came in search of his prey and found Lord Krśńa instead. The body of Lord Krśńa was getting bluish because of the working of the poison. The hunter confessed his serious mistake. Lord Krśńa 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 Krśńa left His body.

Chapter 7	Discourses on the Mahábhárata

What was the state of morality in the Mahábhárata 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 Mahábhárata 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 Mahábhárata 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 Mahábhárata 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 (pápii) 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 Bhisma, a prominent character in the Mahábhárata. 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 Bhisma 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, Bhisma 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 Mahábhárata. 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. Bhisma was a moralist and had a great reputation in the society. Bhisma, respected Lord Krsna, but he was not his devotee. Lord Krsna respected Bhisma because he was a moralist. Krsna used to greet Bhisma; and at the time of Bhisma’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 Mahábhárata 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 Krśńa. 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 Krśńa. 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 Kurukśetra 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 Krśńa also, came there, as many people from their side had been killed and they had to console their relatives. Krśńa 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 Krśńa, Gandhari said, “Krśńa, why do you console me? It does not befit you.” Krśńa asked, “Why?” Gandhari replied, “If you had not planned it, all my sons would not have been killed.” Krśńa replied, “The war was inevitable for the preservation of righteousness and the destruction of pápá [sin]. What could I have done, I am only an instrument.” To this Gandhari said, “Krśńa, you are Táraka Brahma. If you had wanted, you would have changed their minds without a fight.” It was a fact. But Krśńa had to put an example before the world. Pápá 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. Krśńa 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 Krśńa was put in that state. As Lord Krśńa showed respect to a moralist like Bhisma and greeted him, so did He uphold the importance of Gandhari.

Then Gandhari [[pronounced]] the curse, “As the members of my family met destruction before my eyes, so be it with yours before your eyes.” Lord Krśńa replied, “Be it so.” And so it happened. Because of the acceptance of the curse by Lord Krśńa, it happened. Had Krśńa not accepted the curse, it would not have happened. But Krśńa 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 Krśńa) would not have been destroyed. Only to make Gandhari great did Krśńa do so. Lord Krśńa 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 Krśńa’s life. Whenever someone commits injustice, you should not succumb. Fight against immoralists, as was done by Lord Krśńa, 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 Gandhari”]

Chapter 8	Discourses on the Mahábhárata

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 Krśńa planned the Mahábhárata to unite the scattered India. Today the universe has become small. Planning for Mahávishva (The Great Universe) and not Mahábhárata (Great India), is required.

The guiding factor behind the creation of the Mahábhárata 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 Mahávishva (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!

Chapter 9	Discourses on the Mahábhárata

In the intellectual sphere, the most important aspect of the personality of Krśńa 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 Puruśa does in the mental sphere, that becomes a reality for human beings. What devotees think internally remains mental imagination only. To depict Ramachandra as an ideal human being, Valmiki and Tulasidas had to compose the epics Rámáyańa and Rámacaritamánasa. The events described in these epics are not real. But the characters and the events of the Mahábhárata are factual.

Jayadratha: Humans should ask of Parama Puruśa only non-attributional devotion. Sometimes they ask material or psychic things from Him, but Parama Puruśa 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 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 Mahábhárata 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 Bhisma; 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 Bhisma, 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 even try to change Duryodhana’s attitude, much less exert pressure on him.

On points of sincerity and devotion, Bhisma 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 Krśńa, he breathed his last with Krśńa’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 shástraguru 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 Krśńa 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 Krśńa resorted to duplicity and advised Yudhisthira to announce before the assembled people in deceptive language, “Ashvatthama hatah iti naro kunjaro va” – “Ashvatthama is killed. This may be Ashvatthama the man or may be Ashvatthama 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 Krśńa. Both the Pandavas and the Kaoravas, on the eve of the Mahábhárata war, went to Lord Krśńa and approached him for military help.

It was essential to bring about a balance between justice and politics. Politics always relies on diplomacy. Krśńa pretended to be asleep. Duryodhana sat at the head of Krśńa’s bed and acted in conformity with royal dignity, but Arjuna preferred to sit at Krśńa’s feet. So when Krśńa woke up from his false sleep, his eyes first fell on Arjuna.

Krśńa 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.

Chapter 10	Discourses on the Mahábhárata

The last two weeks we discussed the intellectual role of Lord Krśńa. All the characters of the Mahábhárata were conceived of for the purpose of educating the masses. The events and the setting were all nicely planned out, just as a dramatist selects some special character and events that suit his purpose. Lord Krśńa wanted the establishment of dharmarájya (sound moralistic social order), the victory of dharma and the defeat of adharma, etc., and accordingly he conceived of certain characters. That’s why I say that the war of the Mahábhárata was not a natural war, it was something well thought out.

In a previous discourse some of the important characters were analysed. Only Draopadi and Karna were left out.

Karna

While discussing the character of Karna, we said that Karna attached much importance to simple morality, but lacked in spiritual morality. Now there is room for controversy as to whether Karna was the best of the characters of the Mahábhárata, but there is no doubt that Karna was a great personality.

Now let us examine simple morality. We will mention two incidents that illustrate this concept.

One is the incident of Karna’s ear-rings. In fact, these ear-rings were amulets. As long as these ear-rings remained with him, no one could harm him. Krsna knew that as long as Karna was in possession of these ear-rings, he would remain invincible in war. But in order to bring an end to the war, his death was a must. In case of a conflict between spiritual morality and simple morality, the first is destined to win, and the physical and psychological reason for the victory of spiritual morality is this: that spiritual morality is a dynamic force, and as it is a dynamic force, it has an inherent capacity to strike at the enemy.

Now, Karna possessed simple morality, which was static whereas the Pandavas were armed with spiritual morality. Lord Krsna thought it proper to extend support to spiritual morality, so He went to Karna in the guise of a Brahmin and begged for alms. Karna asked him, “What do you want, any material thing like money, clothes, etc.?” Krsna said, “No, I don’t need all those things.” Thus whatever Karna offered to Krsna, He persistently refused to accept. Finally Krśńa said, “I’m leaving. If you can’t give me anything of my choice, I will leave.” Karna said, “You have come to me for alms, and it’s not proper that I shouldn’t give you something and you return disappointed. It can’t happen as long as I am alive.” This is what simple morality teaches human beings.

Then Karna finally wanted to know of Krśńa what he really wanted. Krśńa said, “I want only your ear-rings, nothing else.” Now had Karna been a follower of spiritual morality, he would have said, “Look, sir, I am to join the war in the immediate future. I can’t part with my ear-rings now. Without these ear-rings my defeat will be inevitable. I may even die. Hence I can’t part with my ear-rings now. I will certainly give you the ear-rings, but later, not now.” Instead of saying all these things, Karna agreed to give away his earrings, and did quickly give the ear-rings to Krśńa. This is how he hastened his death.

Karna’s teacher was Parasurama. One day Parasurama and Karna were engaged in a conversation. Parasurama for some reason or other was tired, and he fell asleep, laying his head on Karna’s lap. At that moment a deadly insect gave a sharp bite to Karna’s thigh, and it started bleeding profusely. Karna was in great pain, no doubt, but he neither made any sound nor moved his legs even in the slightest, lest it should disturb the sleep of his guru. This is a perfect example of simple morality. Had Karna been a follower of spiritual morality, he would have laid his guru’s head on some object for a while, and meanwhile bandaged his wounds or done something to heal the wounds. But he did nothing of the sort. Later, when Parasurama woke up, he wanted to know why there was so much blood. Karna said, “This bleeding is due to the biting of a deadly insect on my thigh.” Parasurama asked him, “Then why didn’t you make any sound, or move your legs, or even wake me up?” Karna said in reply “I didn’t do all those things because it would have disturbed your sleep. To disturb my guru’s sleep would be a sacrilege on my part. Hence I refrained from doing anything like that.”

Then Parasurama said to him, “Since you have so much power to endure pain, certainly you were not born in a vipra family.” Parasurama was under the mistaken impression that Karna was a vipra by birth. “Usually a vipra lad is not endowed with this sort of power of tolerance, so you must have been born in a non-Brahman family” said Parasurama. Karna said in confirmation, “Yes, I was born in a charioteer’s family.” Karna really believed that he was born the son of a charioteer. This illustrates the fact that Karna was a strict adherent to simple morality, and if we compare Bhisma with Karna on this point, it is difficult to say who of the two is greater. But it must be said that Karna was a shining example so far as simple morality was concerned. Karna had some social standing also, which Bhisma didn’t have.

Draopadi

[The following section was also printed separately as “Five Virtuous Ladies” in The Awakening of Women. This is the The Awakening of Women, 1st edition, version.]

Draopadi was the daughter of King Drupada. Her actual name was Krśńá, not Draopadi, but as she was the daughter of King Drupada, people called her Draopadi.

It is significant to note that Indian people have been remembering the hallowed names of five ladies: Ahalya, Draopadi, Kunti, Tara and Mandodarii.

Ahalya-Draopadii-Kuntii-Tara-Mandodarii
Paiṋcakanyá smarennityaḿ mahápatakanasanam.

The popular belief is this that remembering the names of these revered ladies brings virtue. It is mahápatakanasanam i.e. that which eliminates the reaction of highly sinful deeds.

If analysed from the social point of view, the institution of having five husbands was neither customary in the past nor in the present. Still it is said, “One should remember the names of these five ladies, and this holy remembrance will remove the reactions of past sins.” This sort of teaching may create confusion in your mind between the social dharma and the artificial dharma. I remember I discussed the social dharma and artificial dharma sometime back in Bhagalpur. Just from the viewpoint of artificial dharma, Draopadi’s conduct was not at all praiseworthy. But if we analyse her conduct from the viewpoint of social dharma, her activities were not at all bad.

According to the rules of social science, a man should have only one wife. That is natural. The numbers of men and women in every country are almost equal. But it may so happen that the number of males in a particular country drops as a result of war or civil war, and naturally the number of women will exceed that of the men. In that case, a man, in order to maintain the sanctity and security of the women, may be required to marry more than one female. For many women, in the absence of legal husbands, would be forced to take to immoral lives, and the result would be disastrous for the society.

For instance, we can cite the case of post-second World War Germany in this regard. A large number of soldiers were killed during the war. Consequently, the problem of marriage of women assumed serious proportions. Immoral conduct was rampant in the society, and the result was the birth of a huge number of illegitimate children. The entire society was faced with a stupendous problem.

That’s why I have said that if there is a serious disproportion in the numbers of males and females in society (for instance, if the number of females exceeds the number of males), a man should be permitted to marry more than one woman just to maintain social purity. Conversely, if it so happens that the number of males exceeds the number of females, a woman will have to accept more than one husband, in order to maintain social purity. Such provisions have been included in the Caryácarya⁽¹⁾ of Ananda Marga. In Tibet there are similar provisions.

If a society doesn’t approve of such provisions, whether today or in any particular age, that is something unnatural. Genuine social scientists must admit that in certain special circumstances these types of provisions must be made. That’s why I don’t object to Draopadi being polyandrous. Still, it may be said that this was something unusual. It often happens that semi-educated people take anything unusual as censurable.

Now, we find that Ahalya’s name heads the list of the five women. You may have read that Ahalya committed many sins. And for that, she was reportedly turned into stone. Of course, here “stone” doesn’t literally mean stone. It means metaphorically that she became inert from a psychic point of view. In common parlance we call a cruel man “stone-hearted.” Similarly, Ahalya became as inert as stone because of her many sinful deeds. Later, when the same stone-like Ahalya came in contact with Parama Puruśa, that is, Ramachandra, she attained liberation.

It is true that anyone, whether he or she is a stone or brick or wood, who comes in contact with Parama Puruśa must attain liberation. That’s why human beings should ideate on Ramachandra, that is, Parama Puruśa. So when she attained emancipation by the Grace of Parama Puruśa, she became pratasmaraniiya.⁽²⁾ This is how we can account for her prestige.

In the Vedic age, the institution of polyandry was widespread, but in the Mahábhárata age, it was not so widely found. That is why people took it as something unnatural.

No one can say that Draopadi was a sinful lady; rather she looked upon Krśńa as her sakha [never-failing friend], and she always remained absorbed in the thought of Krśńa. That’s why, when she was being grossly humiliated in the court of the Kaoravas, her honour and dignity was saved because of her surrender to Lord Krśńa. So it is only natural that when people reverently remember these noble women, they are sure to acquire some virtue.

The same thing can be said of Kunti also. Judged from the viewpoint of modern society, her conduct may not be justifiable, but if we judge her actions in the light of the prevalent social customs of that time, they were not at all bad. Kunti had a son, Karna, even before she was married. Considered in the light of the social customs of that age, this was by no means bad, but by modern social standards it cannot be supported. But her wonderful sacrifice, her love of God, her profound sense of responsibility – all these sterling qualities have made her a venerable lady.

The same thing can be said of Tara and Mandodari. Tara, after the death of her first husband, Bali, married Sugriva, her brother-in-law. This was something very common in those days, but it is unnatural if considered in the light of present-day customs. But as she was an ardent devotee of Rama, all her actions are condoned, and she is considered a venerable lady. The same thing can be said of Mandodari.⁽³⁾

Draopadi was one of the five venerable ladies. Many people of the modern age do not realize that society is a dynamic entity: it undergoes necessary changes in accordance with changed social needs and changed psychological makeup. Had these changes not occurred, the old social structure would have crumbled to pieces. Society must be dynamic. Wherever it loses its inherent mobility, it breaks, into pieces. For instance, the old Hindu society has lost its dynamic character, and consequently it is moving towards final destruction. This old society one day will become extinct or will become a thing of the past. Those who advocate old and outmoded ideas, those who mentally cling to outdated and rotting ideas, will become extinct in the natural course of things. Those who, on the other hand, uphold and promote progressive ideas, will do their best to eliminate old and useless ideas.

Those advocates of old ideas who are not in favour of accepting these five venerable ladies contend that these five ladies should not be considered pratasmaraniiya, and that their remembrance will in no way offset the reactions of past actions, though they know very well that these ladies were ardent devotees of Parama Puruśa. They conclude that the contention of the shloka is not justifiable.

Nonetheless, one should not miss one special quality in Draopadi – she was endowed with nirguńa bhakti [unconditional devotion]. However, saguńa bhakti [conditional devotion] sometimes asserted itself in her, and whenever it got the upper hand, she would receive blows. Lord Krśńa would put her to tests at every step, and that’s why she had to confront insurmountable difficulties. And when nirguńa bhakti would assert itself in her, she would enjoy the blessings of Parama Puruśa.

Even in nirguńa bhakti sometimes the sense of ego raises its head. This is called “puśt́imárgii ahaḿkára”. Though essentially it is nirguńa bhakti, it belongs to the category of puśt́imárgii bhakti. But it is more inclined towards nirguńa than saguńa. This type of sentient ego sometimes would assert itself in Draopadi. She had this egoistic feeling, that although Krśńa was Puruśottama, He was her sakhá. Sometimes she used to give vent to this sort of egoistic feeling, though she should not have. The people could not accept it as a good quality, yet she couldn’t resist the temptation of disclosing her internal ego.

As this sort of ego centres around Parama Puruśa, it shouldn’t be censured. Krśńa was Puruśottama no doubt, but at the same time He was the sakhá of Draopadi, and as such Draopadi had every reason to be proud. On this point one cannot find fault with Draopadi, but at the same time one should bear in mind that while living in this world, one should maintain proper adjustment with each and every thing. One must look upon all things with equanimity of mind. But those who have this puśt́imárgii ahaḿkara are prone to discrimination between things one way or other.

Of all the five husbands of Draopadi, Arjuna was most popular with the masses because of his greater valour, physical charm, etc. That’s why sometimes Draopadi was inclined to think, “I am the wife of Arjuna,” although she was the wife of all five brothers. For the reason mentioned above, she felt more attraction towards Arjuna, because Arjuna enjoyed greater popularity and acclamation.

This is why, people say, when the Pandava brothers and Draopadi came near the mountain Hariparvata in Himachal Pradesh, she fell down and subsequently died.

At this Bhima asked Yudhisthira, “We five brothers are still physically strong enough to walk. Then why did Draopadi die? Why couldn’t she keep up with us?”

Yudhisthira said in reply, “Look, Bhima, a really chaste lady should have attraction towards her own husband. She should have no attraction towards other men. Draopadi had five husbands. She should have had equal attraction towards all her husbands, which she had not. She always made a discrimination between her husbands. It was in a sense a social offense. If she had equal attraction towards all her five husbands, I’m sure she would not have fallen like this. She was more drawn towards Arjuna, and that is why she fell.”

[end of section that was printed separately as “Five Virtuous Ladies”]

Footnotes

(1) Caryácarya Part 1, 1956. –Trans.

(2) “To be remembered in the morning” – an Indian tradition in relation to great men and women of the past, practised to obtain dharmic mental orientation for the day – by remembering such people one remembers their ideas. –Trans

(3) Mandodari was the wife of Ravana, Rama’s enemy, but she was, nevertheless, an ardent devotee of Rama. She counselled her husband to make peace with Rama. –Trans.

Chapter 11	Discourses on the Mahábhárata

The Mahábhárata war was not a spontaneous one, rather this great event was planned out by Lord Krśńa Himself. What is mere mental imagination for Parama Puruśa seems to be real to human beings. Lord Krśńa is the central figure of the Mahábhárata. He got His work done through different characters as per His own choice. He was God Himself in human form.

Lord Krśńa was considered to be the Nucleus of the Cosmic Circle. By dint of sádhaná, ordinary mortals can realize this Cosmic Nucleus. Parama Puruśa as Mahásambhúti in human form can work as the Nucleus of this universe. The poet Rabindranath described this Cosmic Nucleus as “jiivanadevatá” in his poetry.

Lord Krśńa selected a role for Himself also. Parama Puruśa, the Creator of this universe, planned the Mahábhárata in such a way that human beings might get inspiration to make further progress in all walks of life. He helped eliminate the weaknesses and vices of the society, and infused new vitality and strength into the social structure. He infused spiritual power into Arjuna and removed his psychic confusion. When He was in his mother’s womb, His mother Devakii was physically much weaker than before, yet Devakii and His father Vasudeva didn’t submit to pressure from Kamsa. He provided strength and inspiration to the gate-keepers and king Nanda. He exerted pressure on the mind of Duryodhana, and on the minds of Sudama and the other gopas of Vrndavan.

The gopas of Vrindavana dearly loved Him, no doubt, but they didn’t accept Him as the Nucleus of the Cycle of Creation, as no other than Puruśottama Krśńa Himself. That’s why, on the eve of His departure from Vrndavan, they lay down before the wheels of His chariot. They wanted Him to give His word that He would again return to Vrindavana. Krśńa did not give them His word, but instead He said, “My body may not be in Vrindavana, but my mind will always remain here.”

Lord Krśńa has no role in the first and last parts of the Mahábhárata. We see Him again and again only in the middle of the Mahábhárata. He Himself created circumstances in such a way that the people of the world gave Him a tremendous ovation during His lifetime, and made a proper evaluation of His personality after His death. He had only one purpose behind infusing strength in His supporters and striking at His opponents – to create a congenial environment for the Mahábhárata.

Jarasandha, the powerful king of Magadha, had two daughters, Asti and Prapti. Both of them were married to Kansa, the tyrannical king of Mathura. King Jarasandha had been killing kings and vassals in the name of tantra sádhaná. This demoniacal practice created an atmosphere of savagery. So it became imperative to eliminate Jarasandha from the earth.

In those days it was by no means easy to do two noble things: (1) To make the people understand the need to create Mahábhárata (a great and unified India) based on dharma, and (2) To infuse requisite strength and vigour in His supporters and strike at His opponents, in order to create the Mahábhárata. Lord Krśńa wanted to establish dharmarájya, wherein members of society would get ample scope to discharge their social obligations. In those days it was not at all easy for Lord Krśńa to introduce the sadvipra samaj.

Sadvipras are those who are deeply spiritual, who love human beings above anything else, and who are absolutely selfless. The power of administration must not be entrusted to those people who are selfish and who have no love for humanity. The power of Government must be left to those who are genuine servants of mankind.

Chapter 12	Discourses on the Mahábhárata

As has already been said, the events of the Mahábhárata, as designed by Lord Krśńa, were real, or seemed to be real historical facts to the masses. This entire quinquelemental universe is just the mental imagination of Parama Puruśa, a macro-psychic conation. All the characters and events in the Mahábhárata were the products of the Cosmic imagination, but for humans they are as good as real. Lord Krśńa selected one specific role for Himself to play.

It is not proper to treat Parama Puruśa as a representative of a particular age. He remains in His individual and collective pervasive association, in all countries, in all ages, in all microcosms. He is the life-force of the entire universe.

This expressed universe, though vast (vishála) is not infinite (virát́a). Though theoretically this universe is within the scope of measurement, in reality it’s not easy to measure it. In the case of virata, measurement is possible neither theoretically nor practically. As this expressed universe is bound by the bondages of the static principle, it has its limitations. In other spheres, the sentient and mutative principles are active, but the static is inactive. All these principles have their expressions, and that expression takes the form of bondage or limitations.

Though this universe of ours has emanated from Nirguńa Brahma, and is dominated by the static principle of Prakrti, still it has a Nucleus of its own. This universal Nucleus, this universal nave, this universal hub, is not dependent on any other entity. It is no other than Parama Puruśa, or Puruśottama Shrii Krśńa Himself, Who expresses Himself both internally and externally.

Now in His own creation He has kept a special role for Himself. Such a personality is known as “Mahásambhúti.” Lord Shiva was one such personality; Lord Krśńa was another such personality. He is beyond the scope of relativity, beyond the barriers of time, space and person. He has His sub-centres (upakendra) in each and every microcosm. During His advent as Mahásambhúti, these sub-centres also start working in full swing. He always controls the sub-centres whether He is in Mahásambhuti or not.

Lord Krśńa was in possession of occult powers from His childhood on. Some persons attain divinity by dint of prolonged sadhana, for instance Buddha and many others like him. But Lord Krśńa was an embodiment of Divine force from the time of His very birth. So He had no spiritual teacher as such. He Himself was the original Preceptor. Lord Shiva, Lord Krśńa were expressions of the same entity, but there was a time difference of 3500 years. Both of them were Mahásambhúti, and the sub-centres were jiivátmas, or unit consciousnesses which remained attached to living human bodies.

The personal relationship between Parama Puruśa and a unit, individual is termed “ota-yoga,” and His pervasive association with the collectivity is termed “prota-yoga.” Lord Krśńa in human form – the historical Krśńa – Himself was such a sub-centre.

Parama Puruśa is the Absolute or Supreme Controller of all human actions. Each and every entity of this created world is attracted towards other entities. Attraction is a natural law. Repulsion is negative attraction.

One who feels attracted towards subtle objects will not feel any attraction towards crude objects. Human beings as a rule feel much attraction towards Lord Krśńa, for He is the final repository of supreme bliss. His irresistible attraction makes people almost mad. That’s why He is called Krśńa, that is, one who attracts others towards himself. “Krśńa” has another meaning – one on whom depends others’ existence (“He exists, therefore I exist”). Human intellect is His gift. The human mind is a gift from Him. Even the very limbs of the human body are gifts from Him. Once the mind is separated from the human body, the latter starts decomposing right away. Even the tiny protozoic cells act as sub-centres around the main centre, and the very existence of all these cells is absolutely dependent on Krśńa.

Chapter 13	Discourses on the Mahábhárata

Lord Krśńa was essentially a spiritual entity, but fortunately the common masses had a chance to see Him in human form. Even in that capacity He controls all other physical entities. Each and every structure has a centre (kendra) of its own and a good number of sub-centres (upakendra).

The major part of human existence is mental; only a minor part is physical. An undeveloped human being is a big problem. It’s not enough for a person to have a human body. He or she must have an evolved mind; otherwise he or she cannot be called human.

All these sub-centres are controlled by the Cosmic Nucleus, that is, Lord Krśńa. But all the sub-centres are not Lord Krśńa. The pineal gland or sahasrára cakra controls the entire human body. Each and every entity, whether unicellular or multicellular, has certain substations which are basically ideational. The piithas affect the nerve-cells and nerve-fibres, and these affected nerve-cells and nerve-fibres affect the mind in their turn, and thus the crude mind affects the subtle.

Sometimes in the course of sádhaná a deliberate and conscious relationship is established between mind and Consciousness. The closer the relationship, the better it is for spiritual realization. This is the fundamental difference between a spiritual aspirant and a non-aspirant, and the scientific and systematic endeavour to establish the closest relationship between the unit mind and Cosmic Consciousness is termed “yoga.”

Depending upon the difference in the controlling points of the cakras, spiritual sádhaná can take either of two forms: (1) Controlling the hormone secretion of the glands and strengthening the controlling points of the cakras is the system known as hatha yoga, because it is more physical in character. This science is more extroversive in character and consequently part of avidya tantra. (2) To surrender one’s mind to Shrii Krśńa – This is introversive or ideational in character and is part of Vidyá Tantra. This is the real sádhaná, where the entire psycho-physical entity surrenders itself to Parama Puruśa.

The meeting point between Lord Krśńa and the jiivátma is just below the pineal gland or sahasrára cakra.

Each sub-centre is related to the next sub-centre. Of the two cakras, the lower one is comparatively crude. The physical control of any cakra is exercised by the controlling point of that cakra, but its ideational control is exercised by the controlling point of the next higher cakra. For instance, the svadhisthana cakra cannot have full control, both physical and ideational, over all the nerve-cells and nerve-fibres attached to the svadhisthana cakra; rather the ideational aspect of the control remains with the manipura cakra. The sahasrara cakra of pineal gland exercises no crude physical control, that’s why it is absolutely spiritual in character.

This point is the subtlest mental point. Paramashiva is, as it were, the minutest, the subtlest, point The pure “I” feeling is the causal matrix or Rádhá shakti. By dint of sádhaná this causal matrix or Rádhá shakti comes in contact with Parama Puruśa. Krśńa utilizes the pituitary gland of any human framework. Whenever a direct contact between Krśńa and the unit mind is established, human beings attain salvation. For this the mind must be absolutely pure. In certain different stages ajiṋa cakra comes in contact with Parama Puruśa. Krśńa controls the centre and the sub-centres both directly and indirectly. Paramátman Krśńa controls all the pure spiritual ideation, and Jiivátman Krśńa controls psycho-spiritual ideations. For sádhakas, the only mission is to surrender at the feet of Lord Krśńa by strengthening the physical sub-centres. He maintains His association with the microcosms either as Mahásambhúti or as Cosmic Nucleus.

	Discourses on the Mahábhárata

Acarya – Teacher by example, especially a spiritual teacher.
Aksema – Adversity.
Avidya Tantra – The negative side of Tantra, wherein psycho-spiritual power is used for crude purposes.

Cadar – Loose wrapper used as a cover for the upper body.
Caturvarga – Literally, “four classes”; the four basic kinds of mental drives of human beings.
Catuspathii – An ancient education centre oriented towards the teaching of Saḿskrta literature.

Dharma – Spirituality; the path of righteousness in social affairs.
Dharma Sadhana – Spiritual practice as a way of life.
Dharmika Sadhana – Spiritual practice, not necessarily of a deeper nature.
Dhyana – Meditation in which the psyche is directed toward consciousness; the seventh limb of Astauṋga Yoga.

Garam Masala – Hot spices.
Gopa – Cowherd,a devotee of Parama Puruśa.
Guru – Spiritual master: in ancient days any schoolteacher was also considered a guru.

Jama – Any kind of stitched shirt.
Jiiva – Individual living being.
Jiivátma – Unit consciousness, the consciousness of a living being.

Kamiij – Collarless stitched shirt.
Kaola – A practitioner of Tantra who has succeeded in raising the kundalinii.
Kapha – See Vayu, pitta, kapha and rakta.
Ksatriya – One of the ancient social divisions – those who were devoted to the defense of the country.
Ksema – Well-being.
Kurta – Long-sleeved collarless shirt.

Muni – A saintly person devoted to intellectual pursuits.

Niiti – Morality.
Nirguna Bhakti – Non-attributional devotion.

Pandita – Literally, “one on the path of self-knowledge”; a Saḿskrta scholar.
Papa – Sin.
Parama Puruśa – Supreme Consciousness.
Paramashiva – Supreme Consciousness.
Paramatman – Supreme Consciousness in the role of witness of Its own Macro-psychic conation.
Payjama – Loose pants.
Piitha – Controlling point.
Pitta – See Vayu, pitta, kapha and rakta.
Polao – A food made of fine rice, ghee and Spices.
Prakrti – Cosmic Operative Principle.
Purohit – Priest.
Puruśottama – Cosmic Nucleus.

Rakta – See Vayu, pitta, kapha and rakta.
Rśi – Sage; also, one who, by inventing new things, broadens the path of progress of human society.
Ruti – Flat bread made from whole-wheat flour.

Sádhaka – Spiritual practitioner.
Saguna Bhakti – Attributional devotion.
Satya – “Satya” has no English synonym. “Parahitarthe vaungmanasa yatharthatattvam satyam,” i.e., “The right spirit in the use of words and actions, with the intention of welfare, is satya.” Satya may be different from rta (literal truth). For a clearer understanding of satya and rta, please refer to the book A Guide to Human Conduct.
Shakta – A follower of the Shakti cult, the branch of Tantra in which Shakti, Cosmic Operative Principle, is the pivotal point.
Sadhana – Intuitional practice.
Shaeva Tantrik – A follower of the Shiva cult, the branch of Tantra in which Shiva is the pivotal point.
Shastra – Scripture.
Shloka – A Saḿskrta couplet expressing one idea.
Shúdra – One of the ancient social divisions – those who were devoted to physical labour.

Tantra – Supreme spiritual science as propounded by Lord Shiva. It emphasizes courageous vigour, both in internal meditation and external action to overcome all fears and weaknesses.

Vaeshya – One of the ancient social divisions – those who were devoted to making money through trade, commerce or agriculture.
Vaesnava – A follower of the Visnu cult, the branch of Tantra in which Visnu is the pivotal point.
Varga – Literally, “class”: one of the four kinds of basic mental drives of human beings.
Varna – Literally, “colour”; a social division, whether based on underlying psychological reality, or, as in casteism, based on heredity. See also Ksatriya, Shúdra, Vaeshya, Vipra.
Vayu, Pitta, Kapha and Rakta – Vayu comprises (1) the ten basic energy flows in the body, performing specific functions; (2) the gas that is created in the digestive tract, lungs, etc., when the energy flows become distorted. Pitta is the expression of the luminous (fire) factor in the human body, responsible for digestion and preservation of body heat. Examples of Pitta are the liver bile and pancreatic juice. Kapha denotes mucus, phlegm, and all physical factors such as some factors of the blood which tend to create mucus. Rakta is blood.
Vihara – Monastery
Vipra – One of the ancient social divisions – those who were devoted to scholarship.