Understanding the Mahabharata

[Sirona]

I just finished reading (a condensed version of) the Mahabharata, and I have to admit I have a bit of trouble to understand the "message" of the book (apart from the "Krishna is God" issue). I came up with it "egotism leads to demise" (Duryodhana), "all human stiving is futile" (in the end, the Pandavas and Draupadi [almost] end up in hell) and "fighting for God/Dharma is good" (Krishna and Arjuna). I know the Mahabharata is from another age but I'm a bit queasy with "fighting for God/Dharma is good" given all the news one hears lately about religiously justified violence.
I appreciate your answers.

 

[Shantanu]

I just finished reading (a condensed version of) the Mahabharata, and I have to admit I have a bit of trouble to understand the "message" of the book (apart from the "Krishna is God" issue). I came up with it "egotism leads to demise" (Duryodhana), "all human stiving is futile" (in the end, the Pandavas and Draupadi [almost] end up in hell) and "fighting for God/Dharma is good" (Krishna and Arjuna). I know the Mahabharata is from another age but I'm a bit queasy with "fighting for God/Dharma is good" given all the news one hears lately about religiously justified violence.
I appreciate your answers.

The reality one faces needs to be dealt with in order to survive. The message of Mahabharrata is to fight for your rights to survive in dignity. Do not be a coward. Do not tolerate injustices. It is not about fighting for God, It is also not about fighting for some notion of dharma, be it man-constructed or imputed to God as sanatan dharma. It is about fighting for oneself. Do not be a coward and take all the bull**** that life has to throw at you from any or all quarters. Stay on the path of truth and justice. This is because God has given one a reality in which there are obstacles to overcome if a person is striving to lead a good life peacefully and without hindrance to one's scope for living a dignified existence. It therefore says that each individual has to fight for himself. If one stays on your path to guide ones life according to high principles of conduct that shows a sattvic heart then God will come to your assistance to aid the process. Thus the only dharmayudha that God assists is the one that the individual sets for himself in this way. That is how I read Mahabharrata.

 

[Sunstone]

"fighting for God/Dharma is good"

Isn't it more like "if your Dharma, or perhaps role in life, is to fight, then do it selflessly"? Or something along those lines?

 

[Sirona]

Isn't it more like "if your Dharma, or perhaps role in life, is to fight, then do it selflessly"? Or something along those lines?

Maybe you're right and I seriously misunderstand something but how to fight "selflessly"? I am sure that there are many soldiers out there fighting "just because it's their duty to fight". Still that doesn't say whether the cause you fight for is right.

 

[Shantanu]

Isn't it more like "if your Dharma, or perhaps role in life, is to fight, then do it selflessly"? Or something along those lines?

The curious thing about this is that the Bhagavad Gita which talks about dharma and detachment from actions was seemingly introduced into the Mahabharatta later than the original story. If this is correct than it is very significant.

 

[Sunstone]

Maybe you're right and I seriously misunderstand something but how to fight "selflessly"? I am sure that there are many soldiers out there fighting "just because it's their duty to fight". Still that doesn't say whether the cause for fighting is right.

If I recall, there's a verse in the Bhagavad Gita which advises us to "act without regard for goal or outcome". That seems to me to have something to do with acting selflessly, for how can you act selfishly if you are not concerned with the outcome of your actions? But please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Sunstone]

The curious thing about this is that the Bhagavad Gita which talks about dharma and detachment from actions was seemingly introduced into the Mahabharatta later than the original story. If this is correct than it is very significant.

That's very helpful. Thanks!

 

[sayak83]

I just finished reading (a condensed version of) the Mahabharata, and I have to admit I have a bit of trouble to understand the "message" of the book (apart from the "Krishna is God" issue). I came up with it "egotism leads to demise" (Duryodhana), "all human stiving is futile" (in the end, the Pandavas and Draupadi [almost] end up in hell) and "fighting for God/Dharma is good" (Krishna and Arjuna). I know the Mahabharata is from another age but I'm a bit queasy with "fighting for God/Dharma is good" given all the news one hears lately about religiously justified violence.
I appreciate your answers.

If a first reading of the Mahabharata does not leave you with a distinctly uncomfortable feeling and lots of questions about what was right and what was wrong, the book has failed its purpose. The Mahabharata is not a book with a neat message, its stories and characters are meant to instigate critical question on the meaning of ethics, goodness in its readers.

So to return to your question.
Fighting for ones kingdom is considered right and lawful for a king and his armies. What should Yuddhisthira have done instead?

 

[Shantanu]

If I recall, there's a verse in the Bhagavad Gita which advises us to "act without regard for goal or outcome". That seems to me to have something to do with acting selflessly, for how can you act selfishly if you are not concerned with the outcome of your actions? But please correct me if I'm wrong.

The Bhagavad Gita is a component of the Mahabharrata to motivate a person into the battle as a spiritual aspirant who questioned God in the melancholy of Arujna: the justification to fight inspite of the human emotions to be good and kind to all human beings especially one's relatives. God is saying there are higher principles at stake and one should lose ones attachment to ones relatives and people in order to fight for dignified principles.

The Bhagavad Gita tells a spiritual seeker the Nature of Reality and the Nature of God as something people might want to consider as being a pursuit worth pursuing. For example, the particular verse you are referring is telling a spiritual aspirant that the path to detachment that is necessary for spirituality is by 'taking the right actions without concern for the outcome or result of the actions' because this guides the individual to liberation through knowledge and oneness with God.

 

[Sirona]

The Bhagavad Gita is a component of the Mahabharrata to motivate him into the battle as a spiritual aspirant who questioned God in the melancholy of Arujna: the justification to fight inspite of the human emotions to be good and kind to all human beings especially one's relatives. God is saying there are higher principles at stake and one should lose ones attachment to ones relatives and people in order to fight for dignified principles.

The Bhagavad Gita tells a spiritual seeker the Nature of Reality and the Nature of God as something people might want to consider as being a pursuit worth pursuing. For example, the particular verse you are referring is telling a spiritual aspirant that the path to detachment that is necessary for spirituality is by 'taking the right actions without concern for the outcome or result of the actions' because this guides the individual liberation through knowledge and oneness with God.

To quote an example, I stumbled over Bhishma fighting for the Kauravas just because he had taken a vow to "protect the throne of Hastinapura" although Dhritarashtra had usurped the throne. I acknowledge that Bhishma is a great ascetic, but shouldn't the "right action" for him be to help the Pandavas, who have a rightful claim to the throne? How do you determine what the "right action" is?

 

[Shantanu]

To quote an example, I stumbled over Bhishma fighting for the Kauravas just because he had taken a vow to "protect the throne of Hastinapura" although Dhritarashtra had usurped the throne. I acknowledge that Bhishma is a great ascetic, but shouldn't the "right action" for him be to help the Pandavas, who have a rightful claim to the throne? How do you determine what the "right action" is?

Bhishma did the right thing. It was not his duty to help either the Pandavas or the Kauravas but to do what he needed to assist the throne whoever was in it. This is because no one has any duty towards any other person but only to himself or herself.

 

[sayak83]

To quote an example, I stumbled over Bhishma fighting for the Kauravas just because he had taken a vow to "protect the throne of Hastinapura" although Dhritarashtra had usurped the throne. I acknowledge that Bhishma is a great ascetic, but shouldn't the "right action" for him be to help the Pandavas, who have a rightful claim to the throne? How do you determine what the "right action" is?

Your analysis is correct. Bhisma took his own fidelity to the promise given to his father more seriously than his duties to the general welfare of the state.
Dhritarashtra did not usurp the throne, but became the king after Pandu died. Bhisma's loyalty to his vow caused him to obey Dhritarashtra and hence fight against Yuddhisthira.

I think Krishna says in someplace (I need to reread to find where) that human beings, unaware of the future course of the world, should not make unconditional vows in imitation of the gods.

 

[Shantanu]

Your analysis is correct. Bhisma took his own fidelity to the promise given to his father more seriously than his duties to the general welfare of the state.
Dhritarashtra did not usurp the throne, but became the king after Pandu died. Bhisma's loyalty to his vow caused him to obey Dhritarashtra and hence fight against Yuddhisthira.

The Bhishmas of this world should do what the hell they want to do to live their own lives to survive in dignity. Similarly, the Yuddhisthiras must fend for themselves: make their stupid mistakes and pay the price for them, not expect some kind hearted Bhishmas to come to his stupidity. That is the lesson of Mahabharatta.

 

[sayak83]

The Bhishmas of this world should do what the hell they want to do to live their own lives to survive in dignity. Similarly, the Yuddhisthiras must fend for themselves: make their stupid mistakes and pay the price for them, not expect some kind hearted Bhishmas to come to his stupidity. That is the lesson of Mahabharatta.

This is a mistaken analysis of the situation. Bhisma, the crown prince, disregarded his duties to his people as a crown prince when he chose to stand aside from his role in order to further the conjugal happiness of his father. The teaching of Mahabharata is consistent on this matter at least, giving up one's responsibilities for personal of filial virtue, piety or asceticism is not Dharma.

 

[Shantanu]

This is a mistaken analysis of the situation. Bhisma, the crown prince, disregarded his duties to his people as a crown prince when he chose to stand aside from his role in order to further the conjugal happiness of his father. The teaching of Mahabharata is consistent on this matter at least, giving up one's responsibilities for personal of filial virtue, piety or asceticism is not Dharma.

What teaching of Mahabarrata are you talking about: it is a story with different actors living their lives without any teachings. Who said Bhishma or Drona should be role models for anyone to follow. The facts on dharma come from Krishna and condensed in the Bhagavad Gita.

 

[sayak83]

What teaching of Mahabarrata are you talking about: it is a story with different actors living their lives without any teachings. Who said Bhishma or Drona should be role models for anyone to follow. The facts on dharma come from Krishna and condensed in the Bhagavad Gita.

The basic thrust of the story. Bhisma's love for his promise to his father, Drona's love for his son, Karna's for his promise to his friend created a vicious circle of personal piety that caused the civil war to occur. Krishna mentions this in Gita as well where he exhorts Arjuna to look beyond family and clan based virtues. Also Mahbharata contains multiple places where Dharma is discussed, Gita is just one such place.

 

[Shantanu]

The basic thrust of the story. Bhisma's love for his promise to his father, Drona's love for his son, Karna's for his promise to his friend created a vicious circle of personal piety that caused the civil war to occur. Krishna mentions this in Gita as well where he exhorts Arjuna to look beyond family and clan based virtues. Also Mahbharata contains multiple places where Dharma is discussed, Gita is just one such place.

It is Krishna who said to Yuddhishtira to fight a war to get the Pandavas right to their kingdom. That is the central thrust of Mahabharratta. Everything else is just individuals personal manifestations of their characters based on their gunas. There is no such thing as specified dharma in terms of duties and righteous actions. Each individual has the right to do whatever he or she wants to in life without moral impositions from secular authorities.

 

[sayak83]

It is Krishna who said to Yuddhishtira to fight a war to get the Pandavas right to their kingdom. That is the central thrust of Mahabharratta. Everything else is just individuals personal manifestations of their characters based on their gunas. There is no such thing as specified dharma in terms of duties and righteous actions. Each individual has the right to do whatever he or she wants to in life without moral impositions from secular authorities.

Are you talking of Mahabharata or libertarian ethics.

 

[Shantanu]

Are you talking of Mahabharata or libertarian ethics.

Why should God be anything other than fully libertarian, if He has created each and every one of us, and the plants and other animals on this planet for all of us to live harmoniously together with each striving to maintain what might be important as the dignity of the individual: what else is He saying to us Hindus through His interjection in the Mahabharrata?

 

[sayak83]

Why should God be anything other than fully libertarian, if He has created each and every one of us, and the plants and other animals on this planet for all of us to live harmoniously together with each striving to maintain what might be important as the dignity of the individual: what else is He saying to us Hindus through His interjection in the Mahabharrata?

Gita:- Chapter 3
While those who are unwise act
From attachment to action, O Arjuna,
So the wise should act without attachment,
Intending to maintain the welfare of the world.
-------
Therefore, constantly unattached,
Perform that action which is your duty.
Indeed, by performing action while unattached,
Man attains the Supreme.
--------
Aside from action as a yajna,
This world is bound by action.
Perform action as a yajna, Arjuna,
Free from attachement.

Gita praises self-less action for the benefit of the world as the ideal kind of action. What is libertarian about that?