• The Gambling Match Mahabharata Summary 2
• The Gambling Match Mahabharata Summary 3

The Gambling Match Mahabharata Summary 2

The gambling match mahabharata summary Coverage begins on Day 2 with feature table action live from King's Casino Rozvadov.However, they also tend to make up for this with very poor payout rates for natural blackjacks, and also may give the dealer the win with certain types of pushes.It is a place where you get to enjoy birds eye from the Jasper the gambling match mahabharata summary skytram. The Mahabharata reports neither any friction between her and her husbands, nor any noteworthy interaction between her and Karna. Dishonor in the gambling match: Some people hold that, after the failure of her husbands to protect her during the gambling match, she felt that Karna would have protected her better. But such an analysis overlooks. Vidura’s recounting of the trial of Prahlada during the gambling match is analysed to demonstrate how a commentary is woven into the text. The MBH repeatedly asserts that by reading and listening to it the audience is transformed—much as Greek Tragedy sought to do through catharsis. The Gambling Match. Cruel Treatment of Draupadi. The Second Gambling Match. The Departure of the Pandus. Reading Part B pp. The Forest Book Forest Life. Visit from Krishna. Discontent of Draupadi. Arjuna and the Celestial Weapons. Arjuna in Indra's Heaven. Nala and Damayanti. The Search for Nala. Nala Discovered. Nala Recovers His.

Using the Juan Mascaró translation (Penguin Books, 1962), with references to the Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Charles A. Moore translation (A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy, Princeton, 1957)

Mohandas Gandhi, his last words, 1948

The Bhagavad Gîta, , is a chapter in the Epic, the , Mahâbhârata. A gîta, , alone is a 'song or poem,' and there is actually more than one gîta just in the Mahâbhârata. However, anyone talking about 'The Gîta' will almost certainly be taken to refer to the Bhagavad Gîta. Bhagavad is an interesting word. Bhaga, , alone means 'lord' or 'good fortune, grandure, loveliness,' etc. This is a cognate of bog, Бог, which is 'God' in Russian, but also of phagein, φαγεῖν, 'to eat' in Greek. So the Indo-European meanings have drifted around a bit [cf. The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots, Second Edition, revised and edited by Calvert Watkins, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000, p.7]. In turn, bhagavat, , is 'fortunate, blessed, adorable, venerable, divine, holy,' etc. [A Practical Sanskrit Dictionary by Arthur Anthony MacDonell, Oxford, 1929, 1971, p.200]. So the Bhagavad Gîta, , is the 'Song of God,' or of the 'Adorable One,' 'Blessed One,' 'Holy One,' etc. The 'Adorable One,' of course, is Krishna, , Sanskrit Kṛṣṇa, who is an Incarnation of Viṣṇu, .

This page consists of 'comments' on the Bhagavad Gîta, rather than a 'commentary,' because not every verse is disucussed. Also, the point of view here is not devotionalistic but historical and philosophical. The Gîta is a composite document, built over time, like the larger Mahâbhârata itself. Different parts of the Gîta reflect different and sometimes conflicting influences and values. The question that Arjuna asks at the beginning of Chapter 3, which asserts that Krishna has contradicted himself in Chapter 2, reflects no contradiction in Chapter 2, which was perfectly consistent, but does signal the conflict between action and renunciation that will emerge in Krishna's answer to Arjuna. This is a key issue in all of Indian religion, where the renunciation of the world is the ultimate value in Jainism and Buddhism, and is deeply engrained in Hinduism. But it is opposed or limited by the doctrine of karmayoga, , in the Bhagavad Gîta, where the conflict is evident in the text. Sometimes karmayoga is not even regarded as a means of salvation, and may only be cited as karmamarga, 'the way of action.' Nevertheless, karmayoga underlies the sanctified practice of Mohandas Gandhi. Devotionalistic commentary on the Gîta may be found through the link to the Online Bhagavad Gîta at the bottom of the page.

• Chapter 1

  • 1. Dhṛtarâṣṭra, the blind King who cannot be present at the battle, asks his attendant Sanjaya what is going on.
  • 2-23. Sanjaya, who has been given clairvoyant powers, by the Sage , to see the battle for the King, describes the scene of the battlefield, ultimately (20) coming to Krishna and Arjuna in their chariot. Arjuna asks Krishna to drive the chariot out between the armies and surveys the scene. The role of chariot driver is humble. Krishna is in this place because he is, strictly speaking, a non-combatant; but he is present to give advice. He offered Duryodhana his advice or his armies, and Duryodhana accepted the armies.
  • 28-47. The 'Lament of Arjuna.' Arjuna realizes that he doesn't want to fight the battle and kill his relatives and friends, who are often fighting in the army of the Kurus just out of loyalty to the King, not because they believe in the justice of the Kuru's cause.
  • 32. Krishna is called , 'Govinda,' from the Sanskrit word for 'cow,' , go (Vedic gau, Persian , gâv, English 'cow'). This refers to Krishna's youth, when he played with the gopis (), the 'cowherdesses' or 'milkmaids,' who included Radha, Krishna's lover, shown on the cover of the Penguin edition of the Gita, even though she isn't in the Gita.
  • 35. 'The three worlds.' The heavens, the air, and the earth are the 'three worlds.'
  • 40. 'Rituals of righteousness.' These are the household rituals of the Vedic religion, whose fundamental unit was, like Greek and Roman religion, the home.
  • 41. 'The women sin.' Illegitimate children would create 'disorder of castes, social confusion.' An ironic fear, since Arjuna and his brothers actually are not the children of their father Paṇḍu. The last legitimate Bhârata was really Bhîṣma. The 'social confusion' has already occurred.
  • 42. 'The spirits of their dead suffer in pain when deprived of the ritual offerings.' This is about the pitṛyajña, , the offerings of food and water to the ancestors. How can the dead suffer when they simply get reincarnated and endure the fruits of their karma, good or bad? This statement comes from the older level of Vedic belief. As with the Greeks, the dead were originally thought to descend into the Underworld, where they were miserable, especially without offerings from their descendants.
  • 46. 'Better for me if the sons of Dhrita-rashtra...found me unarmed, unresisting, and killed me in the struggle of war.' This was actually Mahâtma Gandhi's advice, and the Gita was Gandhi's favorite text. So we might think this will be the lesson of the Gita. But the lesson will actually be that Arjuna must fight the battle. To Gandhi, this simply meant that one must do one's dharma.

• Chapter 2

  • 1-3. Krishna has no sympathy with Arjuna's difficulty. 'Be a man,' is essentially what he says.
  • 4-9. Arjuna continues his Lament.
  • 4-5. 'My sacred teachers.' Drona, , is Arjuna's teacher. Killing him is shocking to Arjuna for the same kind of reason that Euthyphro prosecuting his father was shocking to Socrates: the teacher (, guru) has a sacred office. The saying in India is, 'The teacher is God,' because the teacher stands in the place of God to teach religious duties. (Indian ideas about marriage may be inferred from the principle that a woman's husband is her 'sacred teacher': The teacher is God; her husband is a woman's teacher; therefore....)
  • 11-25. Krishna eloquently answers Arjuna. His first argument is that Arjuna should 'cease from sorrow' (25) because he cannot actually kill his relatives. The Spirit in them is immortal and will simply pass on to a new body.
  • 16. , Nâsato vidyáte bhâvo, nâbhâvo vidyáte satah. 'The unreal never is; the Real never is not' is the translation of Juan Mascaró. We also find, 'There is no becoming of what did not already exist, there is no unbecoming of what does exist,' from J.A.B. van Buitenen [The Bhagavadgîtâ in the Mahâbhârata, University of Chicago Press, 1981, pp.74-75], and 'Nothing of nonbeing comes to be, nor does being cease to exist,' from Barbara Stoler Miller [The Bhagavad Gita, Krishna's Counsel in Time of War, Bantam Books, 1986, p.49]. This sounds like Parmenides: Not-Being cannot be; Being cannot not be. The structure of this statement in Sanskrit perplexed me for many years, until it was pointed out to me that both clauses begin with contractions. Thus, nâsato and nâbhâvo are short for na-asato and na-abhâvo. We have both a negative and what in Greek would be called an 'alpha privative,' which provides a second negative. Juan Mascaró's translation is the closest to the Sanskrit wording, but there is no word for 'never' in Sanskrit. Vidyáte functions as a copula, 'be found, exist.' Asato and abhâvo can both mean 'non-existence,' but bhâva also has the sense of 'becoming, arising,' from the root , bhû, which is cognate to 'be' in English, fieri, 'to become,' in Latin, and phyein, 'to grow,' in Greek -- whence φύσις, physis, 'nature,' φυσικά, physika, 'physics.' The most literal translation might be, 'Non-existence does not come to be; what does not come to be is not.' [See The Metaphysics of Nothing.]
  • 26-30. Krishna's second argument is that, even if Arjuna can't get past the killing part, the truth is that death is simply followed by rebirth, so it amounts to the same thing as the first argument. Again, 'cease thou to sorrow' (30).
  • 31-33. Krishna's third argument provides a positive reason, the only one, why Arjuna must fight the battle: It is his , dharma, his duty, as a , Kṣatriya to fight the battle. This is the problem with Gandhi's desire to interpret the Gita pacifistically: Kṣatriyas really were in the business of fighting, and both Krishna and Arjuna are Kshatriyas. Krishna's argument is appropriately directed in the context.
  • 34-36. Krishna's fourth and final argument adds an emotional goad to his substantive arguments: If Arjuna doesn't fight, people will think he is a coward and will insult him. We can't have that! Indeed, more fights probably result from insults against manhood than from anybody's sense of duty. Krishna is willing to use both against Arjuna.
  • 37-38. Krishna wraps up his appeal. Victory or loss don't matter. Loss will simply gain him 'glory in heaven.' All that matters is that Arjuna fight the battle.
  • 39. An important verse, where the Penguin translation has happily left 'Sankhya' and 'Yoga' untranslated. One interpretation of the verse is that Sankhya () represents theory and Yoga () practice. 'Sankhya' could mean 'counting,' 'reckoning,' 'reasoning,' or 'knowledge.' Krishna has thus given Arjuna the requisite knowledge, next he will teach the practical application of the knowledge, the Yoga that is the means to salvation. But another interpretation of the verse depends on recognizing that 'Sankhya' and 'Yoga' are also the proper names of Schools of philosophy, the earliest schools independent of the Vedas, contemporaneous with the Upanishads themselves (see The 'Six Schools' of Indian Philosophy). Verse 39 thus may be telling us that the Gita contains the teachings of the Sankhya and Yoga Schools, as indeed it does in Chapter 2 and elsewhere. One theory is that the Gita was originally a popularized presentation of the Sankhya and Yoga Schools. (Be that as it may, most of the Gita consists of later additions, which are extremely devotionalistic, while Sankhya and Yoga had originally been atheistic.) The Gita thus may be said to be both a product and a source of Indian philosophy -- the product of the Sankhya and Yoga Schools, but then a source as one of the authoritative texts, along with the Upanishads and others, of later Vedânta.
  • 42-44. An attack on what we could call 'Vedic fundamentalism.' Those who do their Vedic duties hoping for reward, do get good karma, but they also get reborn. This both foolish and selfish to Krishna.
  • 45. 'The three Guṇas of Nature.' The theory of the guṇas, (see The Indian & Buddhist Elements, and the Guṇas), is characteristic of the Sankhya school, though later it is adopted by nearly everyone in the tradition. Salvation means becoming free of the guṇas.
  • 47. , Karmaṇy evâdhikâras te mâ phaleṣu kadâcana/, , mâ karmaphalahetur bhûr mâ te sango 'stv akarmaṇi, 'Set thy heart upon thy work, but never on its reward. Work not for a reward; but never cease to do thy work' [note]. This is the actual principle of the Yoga: to do one's dharma, but desire no reward for doing good. This is the kind of mental detachment that enables one to avoid karma even while continuing to physically act. Cross-culturally, this is an all but universal principle of the worth of moral intentions: from Confucius to Immanuel Kant, the proper motive of moral action is to do what is right simply because it is right. To do what is right out of hope for reward or for good consequences, even though that is the argument of philosophers like Plato and John Stuart Mill, simply reduces morality to a form of calculating prudence. In Catholic theology, doing good out of the hope of heaven and fear of hell will indeed get one into heaven, but nowhere near as close to God as from doing good for its own sake. God evidently has less respect for those who merely seem to be calculating the best return.
  • 50. 'Goes beyond what is well done and what is not well done.' Whether one does something well or not doesn't matter. All that counts is the effort to do one's dharma. Success is irrelevant.
  • 57. 'Who neither rejoices nor sorrows if fortune is good or is ill.' The mental attitude of the Yoga is indifferent to consequences as well as to rewards. All that counts, again, is that one does one's dharma.
  • 58. 'Even as a tortoise withdraws all its limbs.' A striking image, but as the tortoise withdraws its head and limbs, Arjuna is not being asked to physically withdraw from the battle. He is mentally supposed to withdraw, so as to become detached from his own actions.
  • 59. 'Pleasures of sense, but not desires, disappear from the austere soul.' The 'austere soul' refers to ascetics who withdraw from the world. Krishna disapproves of them because they avoid their dharma. His critique is that their withdrawal will not help if mentally they are still attached, still have desires. They will still acquire karma, despite their asceticism. But if mental detachment can avoid karma, then there is no good reason not to do one's dharma and continue to participate in the world. This is the aspect of the Gita that strongly appealed to Mahâtma Gandhi, who was engaged in political action that traditionally would have been thought futile.
  • 72. 'The Nirvana of Brahman.' Here Brahman is mentioned, though in the Gita Brahman is thought of as a personal God, and identical to Krishna. But 'Nirvâṇa' is more a Buddhist than a Hindu term. It literally means 'blown [vâ-aṇa] out [nis],' and so 'extinction.' This is appropriate for Buddhism, where there is no Self and salvation is to be free of such a delusion. But the Self is not 'blown out' in Hinduism. Brahman is indestructible. The use of 'Nirvana' here may reveal Buddhist influence. Even though Hinduism was always very hostile to Buddhism, it was strongly affected by Buddhist influence for many centuries.

• Chapter 3

  • 1-2. Arjuna asks a strange question. Krishna never said that 'vision is greater than action' in Chapter 2, and there were no 'contradictions' in his presentation. So what is happening here?
  • 3. Krishna introduces the contradictions in his answer. Now, suddenly, Sankhya has become a separate Yoga, jñânayoga (), and the Yoga of Chapter 2 becomes karmayoga (). In terms of the Gita, there is no reason why that should happen, and it confuses things from now on. What this change represents, however, is a real tension in the Indian tradition. While the idea of karmayoga is to participate in life, do one's dharma, and achieve salvation at the same time, there is a powerful sense in the Indian tradition that salvation can be achieved only by renouncing the world and becoming a hermit or wandering ascetic. Jñânayoga represents that sentiment. Besides the argument whether it is possible to achieve salvation through karmayoga, the problem then becomes whether it is even necessary to do one's dharma first. Buddhism and Jainism forcefully endorse the idea that renunciation should be pursued as soon as one wishes. The Buddha himself, after all, left his wife after she had just given birth to their first child. This involved a serious violation of his dharma as a Householder (see the theory of the 'four stages of life' in the essay about the Caste System), and was embarrassing to Buddhism when it was preached in China -- where Confucians had no use for a man who abandoned his family. Hinduism has tried to hold the line, not always successfully, against dispensing with one's dharma, but the sense now, indeed, is that salvation cannot be achieved through action. Thus, if karmayoga is not really a means to salvation, it is not really a yoga; and it actually can be found called merely the karmamarga, the 'way' of action, without the promise of salvation. That cannot happen, of course, in the Gita, where the whole point of the argument is karmayoga, the Yoga of Chapter 2, as the means of salvation.
  • 4-8. Having admitted there is another yoga, Krishna immediately must disparage it and explain why Arjuna must practice karmayoga. One argument is that 'not even for a moment can a man be without action' (5), so karmayoga must be practiced to deal with that anyway. Another point is that 'he who withdraws himself from actions, but ponders on their pleasures in his heart' (6), in other words, the 'austere soul' we heard about earlier, will not avoid karma. But finally, Krishna must simply claim, 'Action is greater than inaction' (8).
  • 16. 'Thus was the Wheel of the Law set in motion.' Another sign of Buddhist influence, since the 'Wheel of the Law' (Dharmacakra) is a profoundly Buddhist symbol: the Buddha set the Wheel in motion when he began to preach the Dharma, but, like a real wheel, the Dharma slows down and is expected to stop eventually, when it will be time for the Future Buddha (Maitreya) to appear. The Buddha himself said the Dharma would only last 500 years. After that time had passed, Buddhism found itself in a somewhat embarrassing position. By the Middle Ages, a theory was elaborated in China and Japan that the 'True Dharma' age had indeed only lasted 500 years, but after that would come a 'Counterfeit Dharma' age of 1000 years, and then a 'Final Dharma' age of 10,000 years. The difference between them was supposed to be that in the 'True Dharma' age, Buddhism would be preached and practiced and would deliver salvation, while in the 'Counterfeit Dharma' age Buddhism would be preached and practiced, but would not deliver salvation, while in the 'Final Dharma' Buddhism would merely be preached. This was also somewhat embarrassing, and various sects arose (e.g. Jôdô and Nichiren in Japan) on the principle that salvation could be achieved even under the 'Final Dharma.' None of this had anything to do with the Bhagavad Gita.
  • 27. 'But the man lost in selfish delusion thinks that he himself is the actor.' An important doctrine of the Sankhya School is that the true Self (the Âtman or Puruṣa) does not cause anything to happen in the world. The guṇas are the causes of all events. Salvation, therefore, is to overcome the 'delusion' that we have any effect on events, or that they can really affect us. Life is just like watching a movie: we can get caught up in it emotionally, but it really can't materially affect us.

• Chapter 4

  • 1. Krishna reveals that he has taught his Yoga to the Sun, who passed it on.
  • 4. Arjuna objects that Krishna isn't that old.
  • 5-8. Krishna now reveals that he is an Incarnation of Eternal God (traditionally taken to be Viṣṇu), who causes Himself to be born as needed to help humanity and righteousness.
  • 9. 'He who knows my birth as God....goes no more from death to death...' The promise of bhaktiyoga () -- faith in Krishna is a means to salvation. This is never called 'bhaktiyoga' in the Gita, and the implication is always that Krishna wants everyone to be devoted to him, even if they are practicing another yoga. The traditional interpretation of the Gita in Vedânta that bhaktiyoga may only be for those personalities dominated by the guṇa tamas (i.e. Vaiśyas, Śudras, Untouchables, and perhaps women too) really diverges from the sense of the Gita itself. Krishna never has anything good to say about tamas, or anything bad to say about bhaktiyoga. Contempt for devotionalism only occurs on the philosophical side of Hinduism.
  • 18. 'Who in his work finds silence, and who sees that silence is work.' Another translation has for this, 'He who in action sees inaction and action in inaction' (Radhakrishnan & Moore). That brings out the paradox better. How can inaction be action? It depends on what's doing it. It is the body that is acting, but with an attitude of mental detachment, the mind is not acting.
  • 20-22. Elaborates the implications of the mental attitude that goes with karmayoga. The yogi 'expects nothing,' 'relies on nothing' (20), 'only his body works' (21, as inferred in verse 18), 'in success or in failure he is one,' etc. This makes karmayoga very difficult. One must do one's dharma, whether it means killing relatives as Arjuna must, or merely having sexual relations with one's spouse to have children and fulfill the duty to one's ancestors. But that doesn't sound like the makings of a good marriage: to be the same in 'success or in failure,' in 'pleasure or pain' (2:38), while 'only his body works,' sounds like a very cold and distant way to make babies. Since pleasure (kâma) is otherwise regarded as one of the four 'aims of life' (dharma, wealth, pleasure, & salvation), it was hard for Hinduism in the long run to get very enthusiastic about karmayoga in this sense. This was one of the major reasons, I think, why karmayoga ceased to be very popular; but it may also have been another reason why it was popular with Mahâtma Gandhi, who was guilty about sexual desire and eventually determined to practice celibacy in his own marriage. In the four stages of life, Hinduism never required celibacy while still in marriage.

• Chapter 5

  • 1. Arjuna asks essentially the same questions that he did at the beginning of Chapter 3.
  • 2-5. Krishna must repeat many of the same disparagements of renunciation. 'True' renunciation is the mental attitude, 'craves not nor hates,' rather than avoiding 'holy work.' The 'end of the two' are indeed the same, but the 'paths' really are different if one avoids dharma through renunciation and the other doesn't.
  • 6. 'But renunciation...is difficult to attain without Yoga of work.' I do not think this is true. An attitude of mental detachment is much easier if the person is removed from demanding situations. Killing people or having sexual relations as part of one's dharma makes it very difficult to have 'evenness of mind.' An important reason, again, why karmayoga has not been very popular.
  • 7. 'I am not doing any work....he remembers: 'It is the servants of my soul that are working.' Again, as at 3:27, this passage, quite eloquently, expresses the Sankhya doctrine that the true Self neither affects nor is affected by anything in the world. The 'servants of my soul' are the guṇas, which constitute and cause everything that happens. Salvation is to see through the delusion and be free of the guṇas.

• Chapter 6

  • 1. 'Sanyasi.' A 'sannyâsin,' or Wandering Ascetic, who actually has entirely left ordinarily life and is dead to his family, is here defined in terms of karmayoga as merely one who mentally has become detached from action. A real 'sannyâsin' actually does 'light not the sacred fire or offers not the holy sacrifice' because he is formally beyond dharma and the requirements of ordinary life.
  • 8. 'To him gold or stones or earth are one.' A striking test for the Yogi: Viewing a pile of gold (at $390 an ounce) with the same emotion as a pile of stones or earth will really show the nature of one's mental detachment.
  • 10-14. An extraordinary passage. Usually, when Krishna mentions renunciation (jñânayoga), it is to contrast it unfavorably with karmayoga or to clarify that 'true' renunciation is the mental attitude of detachment, not the abandonment of dharma. Here, however, we have an entire passage describing a completely renunciatory practice: meditation, or dhyânayoga (). What Krishna says certainly sounds strange enough: To go to a 'secret place,' 'in deep solitude,' with 'a seat that is restful,' does not sound like the typical advice on the battlefield. As Arjuna, one might be tempted to shout, 'Yes! Let's go there now!' There is also the strange reference to the 'vow of holiness' (14). Radhakrishnan and Moore translate it as 'the vow of celibacy,' which is consistent with practicing meditation as a sannyâsin but is not consistent with Arjuna's status as a Kshatriya householder with two wives. Arjuna has not taken any 'vow of celibacy' -- it would be inconsistent with his dharma. This passage helps demonstrate the composite nature of the Gita. It really doesn't belong in the context.

• Chapter 8

  • 1-3. Arjuna asks about Brahman, Atman, and Karma. Krishna does not give a very good answer, but it is noteworthy that these ideas come up and are addressed in some manner.
  • 5. 'He in truth comes unto me.' A repetition of the basic promise of bhaktiyoga. Krishna speaks as a Savior.

• Chapter 9

  • 18. 'I am the Way.' Krishna again speaking as Savior. Sounds like Jesus at John 14:6, 'Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. '
  • 32. 'However weak or humble or sinful they may be -- women or Vaisyas or Sudras.' This condescending and patronizing passage, with the implication that women, Vaiśyas, and Śudras are weak, humble, and sinful, nevertheless represents an opening up of Hinduism: from the exclusion of Śudras from the Vedic religion (they could be put to death for speaking Sanskrit), to the provision in Jainism that only men who were naked monks could achieve salvation, Krishna now says that everyone can achieve salvation through bhaktiyoga. Note that Untouchables don't come in for mention.
  • 33. 'How much more the holy Brahmins and the royal saints [Kshatriyas]....' A good indication that Krishna regards bhaktiyoga as something that everyone should practice, even if they have enough on the ball to practice Jñânayoga or karmayoga. The later Vedânta interpretation is that the yogas suit the respective personalities determined by the guṇas, where bhaktiyoga would only be for those dull and stupid and lazy enough to be unable to practice jñânayoga or karmayoga.

• Chapter 10

  • 12. 'Supreme Brahman, Light supreme....' Krishna is now far more than Arjuna's friend. The language inflates considerably.
  • 19. 'Some manifestations of my divine glory....there is no end to my infinite greatness.' Krishna now reveals his divine manifestations.
  • 21. 'I am Vishnu.' Although Krishna himself was born and will die, and Viṣṇu is eternal, unborn, and undying, Krishna manages to make it sound like Viṣṇu is the minor aspect.
  • 23. 'Among the terrible powers I am the god of destruction.' Radhakrishnan and Moore translate, 'of the Rudras I am Śamkara (Śiva).' 'Rudra' itself is an alternate name for Śiva. Thus Krishna claims to be Śiva, since there can only be a single One God.

• Chapter 11

  • 5. 'By hundreds and then by thousands...' Krishna shows Arjuna, through most of the chapter, a visual manifestation of all his incarnations and manifestations.
  • 8. 'Divine sight.' In the middle of the battlefield, only Arjuna will see Krishna's manifestations.
  • 32-34. A chilling and historically significant passage. Verse 32 was remembered by Robert Oppenheimer, who was in charge of the Manhattan Project (which built the first atomic bombs), when he saw the very first bomb explode at Trinity Site in New Mexico (nearer Socorro than Alamogordo, where the wire service story was filed), on July 16, 1945. Oppenheimer was familiar with a different translation:

    'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' This seems more to the point, for the Atomic Bomb, than 'I am all-powerful Time which destroys all things.' The word , kâla, can mean 'Time, fate; death, god of death,' so both translations express part of the meaning.

  • 33. 'Through the fate of their Karma I have doomed them to die.' 'Karma' here could mean either 'action' or the 'apurva' which causes just desserts.

• Chapter 12

  • 1. Arjuna asks another one of his embarrassing questions. This time it is about the relationship of Brahman to Krishna. Do the 'best Yogis' seek union with Brahman, or depend on Krishna?
  • 2-4. Krishna must admit that those focused on Brahman will achieve salvation, but he likes those who love him better -- and he likes the thought that the goal of salvation is union with himself. Those actually focused on Brahman would not agree. This is the difference between (unqualified) Advaita Vedânta and Dvaita Vedânta: for Dvaita Vedânta, Krishna actually is Brahman, while the Advaita Vedânta we have been considering does not take Brahman to be a personal God. Instead Brahman is the Âtman, our own Self.
  • 5. 'Greater is the toil.' Indeed, Jñânayoga focused on Brahman is more difficult than bhaktiyoga, but then karmayoga is the most difficult of all.
  • 17. 'Beyond good and evil.' This was the title of a book by Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), a philosopher who to many people merely advocated creativity and individuality. But his claim was really that conventionality morality was a 'slave morality' that existed only to prevent the strong from going 'beyond good and evil' and doing what they liked. Nietzsche's Übermensch or 'Superman' (now often translated 'Overman') was then expected to create his own values and ignore conventional good and evil. These ideas were an inspiration for Leopold and Loeb (teenagers who murdered a child, Bobby Franks, in 1924 to show that they were 'beyond good and evil'), Adolf Hitler, and eventually the Los Angeles serial murderer the 'Nightstalker,' Richard Ramirez, who told the court at his murder trial that his victims were 'worms' and that he was 'beyond good and evil.' But does Krishna mean the same thing as Nietzsche when we see the same phrase in verse 17? Certainly not. When it comes to action, one must do one's dharma, which is to do what is right. Krishna is simply not talking about action. Brahman and so salvation are beyond action, beyond dharma, beyond karma, and so 'beyond good and evil.' Nietzsche's theory would be as horrifying to Krishna as it should be to us.

• Chapter 13

  • 24-25 Here is the only list of yogas in the Gita.
  • 24. 'Some by the Yoga of meditation' -- this is dhyânayoga -- 'some by the Yoga of the vision of Truth' -- this is jñânayoga -- 'and others by the Yoga of work' -- karmayoga. Here we already have three yogas, the traditional number for the Gita, before we even get to bhaktiyoga. Dhyânayoga is the anomaly. It is traditionally interpreted as part of jñânayoga, but obviously that move is not dictated by the text. The word 'dhyâna' is noteworthy because, in Buddhism, it is carried to China, where it is pronounced 'ch'an,' . That became the proper name of a Chinese school of Buddhism, which spread to Korea (pronounced Sõn [Seon] in Korean), Japan (Zen), and Vietnam (Thìên).
  • 25. 'Hear from others and adore....devotion to words of Truth' -- bhaktiyoga. Notice that this is not actually called a yoga, though 'they also cross beyond death.'

• Chapter 14

  • 5. 'SATTVA [], RAJAS [], TAMAS []' A whole chapter about the guṇas. 'Light, fire, and darkness.' The guṇas are more interesting on their psychological side: Sattva as the desire for goodness and knowledge (like Plato's Reason), rajas as the desire for action (like Plato's Spirit), and tamas as sloth, dullness, ignorance, etc. (comparable to Plato's Desire, though there is no reason why Desire should not be quite active and even intelligent -- the guṇas are all forms of desire). Note that even Sattva is a form of bondage, while Plato's Reason was the means to every good end.
  • 6-9. Description of the guṇas. The key term is 'bind' -- each guṇa is a form of bondage, as is then repeated in verse 9.
  • 20. 'When he goes beyond the three conditions of nature...' Liberation or salvation is then liberation from the guṇas. 'Birth, old age, and death, and sorrow.' Sounds like the forms of suffering specified by Buddhism.

• Chapter 16

  • 7. 'Evil men.' This looks like a reference to Buddhists, since the 'evil men' are described in the ways that Buddhists are elsewhere typically characterized. The only alternative is that despised 'materialists' are referred to, but they were not important enough to rate this kind of mention in the Gita.
  • 8. 'They say: 'This world has no truth, no moral foundation...' Radhakrishnan and Moore translate this, 'the world is unreal, without a basis.' Reality to Buddhism, indeed, has no substance, essence, or identity, and no dharma as understood by Hinduism. Buddhism was always characterized as producing instant social chaos and wickedness for denying the dharmas of the caste system. 'No God.' There is no Brahman, Âtman, or personal God in Buddhism. 'There is no law of creation: what is the cause of birth but lust?' Radhakrishnan and Moore say, 'Not brought about in regular causal sequence, caused by desire, in short.' In Buddhism, all of apparent reality, and all of suffering, is caused by desire. There is, however, a 'regular causal sequence' in Buddhism, the principle of Dependent Origination; but that might not be taken seriously by Hinduism, since it holds that everything causes everything else, while Hinduism wants a source with the Creator.

• Chapter 17

  • Another chapter on the guṇas. Since the guṇas constitute all of nature, there will tend to be three of everything: three kinds of faith (2), food, sacrifice, harmony, gifts (7), etc. In China, the five elements inspire similar ideas that there are fives of everything. This is not entirely consistent in India: there are often three of a certain thing (Vedas, varnas), but then with the fourth, slightly different in kind, added (the Atharva Veda, the Śudras).

• Chapter 18

  • 17. 'Even if he kills all these warriors he kills them not and he is free.' The final chapter gets back to the point of Arjuna fighting the battle, killing his relatives, yet achieving salvation at the same time.
  • 41-48. An extraordinary passage on the caste system. Brahmins and Kshatriyas sound engaged in noble undertakings, what Vaishyas are about is pretty prosaic, and Śudras have no more to aspire to than 'service.' Untouchables, of course, do not get mentioned.
  • 47. 'Greater is thine own work, even if this be humble, than the work of another, even if this be great.' A very different sense may be found in the Radhakrishnan and Moore translation, 'Better is one's own law though imperfectly carried out than the law of another carried out perfectly.' Certainly, if one isn't very good at what one does and can do something else better, one should change jobs. But, remember, work goes 'beyond what is well done and is not well done.' All that counts is doing one's own dharma, not someone else's. 'The work God gives him.' The work God gives you is the work that you a born with, since the caste system is a system of hereditary professions. Radhakrishnan and Moore like to argue that varna is not about birth, just about natural aptitude. 'The varna, or the order to which we belong, is independent of sex, birth, and breeding' (p. 117 note). But there was no social or legal recognition of natural aptitude in traditional India. You were born into a jâti, a caste, and this was already a traditional subcaste of a particular varna, if there was a varna at all (there wouldn't be for Untouchables). The desire to rationalize away the evils of the caste system is understandable, but it is historically inaccurate and so a dishonest representation of traditional India. It also misrepresents another reason why there is no reason to do another's work, even if it can be done better: good or ill fortune depends on karma, not on talent or productivity. We might think that life will get better if people do what they are good at, but traditional India did not believe in progress: if things are good or bad, it is because of karma, not because the GNP isn't growing fast enough.
  • 48. 'And a man should not abandon his work, even if he cannot achieve it in full perfection.' Same point. If he can't do it well and doesn't like it, he should be looking for a different job.
  • 72. 'Hast thou heard these words, Arjuna?' Krishna finishes his discourse and asks if Arjuna is now ready to fight.
  • 73. 'My doubts are no more...and now I can say 'Thy will be done'.'

Copyright (c) 1997, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2016, 2019 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved

Comments of the Bhagavad Gita, Note

I did not have a hope of understanding the grammar of this passage, or even of what words into which to divide it, without the help of the Sanskritist Herman Tull.

The first word is , karman, used in the locative case, karmaṇi. This means 'action' or 'work' (the familiar 'karma'). The 'i' gets written as a 'y' at the beginning of the next word. That word is , eva, an emphatic particle, 'so, just so,' etc. Next is , adhikâra, 'concern, striving, endeavour for' (which takes the locative, as here with karman). Next we get te, which is the genitive or possessive form of , tvam, the word for 'you.' , mâ, is the negative, 'not.' Then comes , phala, 'fruit, result, or reward,' used as phaleṣu, the locative plural. The line ends with , kadâcana, 'some time, ever,' which with the previous negative will mean 'never.'

Thus, the first line of the verse, Juan Mascaró's 'Set thy heart on thy work,' we could render more literally as 'your concern is with the act.' 'Never on its reward,' substitutes 'reward' for 'fruit,' which has the potential of sounding silly, and less to the point, in English. The most familiar example of something like this in English is Matthew 7:20, 'Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.' Jesus, however, appears to mean 'consequences' rather than 'reward.'

The second line of the verse begins with mâ again, and then , karmaphalahetur, a compound that would mean the 'cause/impulse for the fruit of action,' where karman and phala are already familiar and , hetu is 'cause, motive.' The next word, bhûr, is the aorist injunctive of , bhû, 'be' (and a cognate of 'be' itself). In both karmaphalahetur and bhûr the final 'r' is a euphonic transformation (Sanskrit sandhi) of nominative 's' because of the labials ('bh' and 'm') in the following words.

Then we get mâ and te again, followed by sango, from , sanga, 'desire, attachment' -- the 'o' is another euphonic transformation of nominative '-as' followed by (elided) 'a.' Next is , astu, the third person imperative of as, 'be,' which is cognate to 'is' in English (the Sanskrit 'a' was an 'e' in Proto-Indo-European, which turns up as 'i' in Germanic languages). The 'a' at the beginning of astu is elided with the avagraha sign, . As the 'i' in karmaṇi above becomes a 'y' on the following word, the 'u' here becomes a 'v' on the following 'a.' Finally, we find , akarmaṇi, the privative (with the prefixed a -- the 'alpha privative' in Greek, making a negative) of karman in the locative again.

The Gambling Match Mahabharata Summary 3

What Juan Mascaró translates as, 'Work not for a reward,' Dr. Tull suggests can be rendered, 'Let there not arise the impulse for the fruit of action.' 'But never cease to do thy work,' in turn, could be, 'For you let there not be attachment to non-action.' Mascaró's translation is not very literal, but it does not appear to distort the meaning at all.

The Mahâbhârata, (Mǝhabharǝt in Hindi), may be the longest epic is world history. And there is even a saying, 'Everything that ever happened is in the Mahâbhârata.' There is even a version of the companion epic, the , within the Mahâbhârata. Part of the reason for all this is the idea in the Indian tradition that all events are cyclical, so that anything that has ever happened happens over and over again, like Nietzsche's 'eternal recurrence.' Thus, 'history' does not consist of unique events and does not need to be recorded as such -- as indeed it wasn't, to the frustration of modern historians. The Mahâbhârata and the Ramayâna, as the 'Fifth Veda,' contain the archetype and the paradigm for any other history.

The Mahâbhârata is supposed to have been composed by the Sage , whose anomalous parentage is also recounted in the epic, and where he is a participant himself. The Indian equivalent of Homer, Vyâsa is thus likewise of legendary status, with elements of the miraculous that attend Indian sages.

The J.A.B. van Buitenen (1928-1979) translation of the Mahâbhârata at three volumes, for the University of Chiago Press remains incomplete due to his tragic untimely death (aged 51 years). The Press continued the task of completing the planned volumes by distributing them to different scholars, certainly with the hope to speed things along. However, completion of the project, which will render the unabridged Epic, as promised by the Press, has still been slow, with release dates for subsequent volumes getting postponed. Volume 7, containing Books 11 and 12 (Part 1), translated by James L. Fitzgerald, was published in 2003. I cannot find any other volumes yet, which seems like an extraordinary delay, since that was already fifteen years ago as I write.

A project closer to being complete is the edition of the Mahâbhârata for the Clay Sanskrit Library, which is published by the New York University Press and the JJC Foundation. Like the Loeb Classical Library with Greek and Latin, and in similar sized volumes, this gives the Sanskrit text and the translation on facing pages, although the Sanskrit is transcribed and not in Denanagari. The publications of the Library were begun in 2005. So far, the following volumes of the Mahâbhârata, from several different translators, are in print: Part II, 'The Great Hall'; Part III, 'The Forest' (volume four of four); Part IV, 'Viráta'; Part V, 'Preparations for War' (volume one); Part V, 'Preparations for War (volume two); Part VI, 'Bhishma' (volume one), Including the “Bhagavad Gita” in Context; Part VI, 'Bhishma' (volume two); Part VII, 'Drona' (volume one of four); Part VII, 'Drona' (volume two of four); Part VIII, 'Karna' (volume one); Part VIII, 'Karna' (volume two); Part IX, 'Śalya' (volume one); Part IX, 'Śalya' (volume two); Part X-XI, 'Dead of Night & The Women'; Part XII, 'Peace' (volume three of five). Thus, there are several missing volumes, but from different parts of the epic, perhaps giving one a better feel for the whole than what is available in the Chicago translation.

I am familiar with two video versions of the Mahâbhârata in Hindi, one from 1988 in 94 episdoes, produced by B.R. and Ravi Chopra, and one from 2013, produced by Swastik [! !] Productions Pvt. Ltd. The former was too early for much sophistication in special effects, which are generally cheesy and sometimes ludicrous. However, the casting and acting are brilliant, and the story is presented in some detail. The 2013 production, naturally, excels in special effects and is beautifully done, but it leaves out large parts of the story, perhaps to avoid the strange, uncomfortable, or embarrassing features of the original epic. There is a little of that in the 1988 version, which avoids the story of the odd origin of the Kurus and skips over the case of suttee on the part of Madrî. However, the 2013 version gives us almost no information about the birth of any of the major characters, without even the detail of Dhṛtarâṣṭra being born blind, or why that happened. Instead, we get largely irrelevant comments to the audience from Krishna, long before he is even introduced into the story. I do not find that helpful, or even interesting. Thus, the 1988 version remains superior, despite the demands it makes on more sophisticated viewers.

An ambitious version of the Mahâbhârata as a play was first staged, in French, in 1985. It was translated into English by director Peter Brook in 1987 and performed thereafter for two years, on world tours, in both French and English. The play was nine hours long, expanded to eleven hours with breaks. With an international cast, it transformed the story into a world, not just an Indian, epic. It contains some details that the Hindi versions do not have, including a treatment of the story after the battle, which the 1988 Hindi version completely skips. But the play also reduces the Bhagavad Gita to about five minutes, with little evident understanding of what it is all about. A six hour version of the play was produced for a mini-series in 1989, later released on video; and a three or four hour version was then given a theaterical movie release.

Copyright (c) 1998, 2003, 2004, 2010, 2013, 2018, 2019, 2020 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved