For Brother, Avinash

Dear brother, please allow me to use this new thread to address my questions on the text of Gita to you. You may answer these at your convenience. You may even give a hyper link for me to see, to save your time.

 

My first question is with reference to 1:35, which says:

 

"I am not prepared to fight with them even in exchange for the three worlds"

 

What is meant by 'three worlds' referred to here?

The three worlds include heavens, Earth and the space in between.

If you read the scriptures of Hinduism, you will find seven worlds mentioned somewhere, fourteeen worlds somewhere else and theree somewhere else. It may appear as if these are contradictory. But in reality these are not. It is just that the criteria for division are different. As an example, somebody may say that there are three parts of our planet: core, mantle, and crust. Some may say four: inner core, outer core, mantle, crust. Some may talk about lithosphere and asthenosphere. Depending on how they divide, they will give different number of divisions. The same is the case with the number of divisions of universe in Hinduism. Arjuna used the criteria by which the number is three. He counted Earth as one, all the planets as another and the intermediate space as third. In that sense, the complete universe is included in the 'three worlds'.

 

So, what Arjuna wanted to say was that even if he was given the dominion over all these worlds (i.e. over the complete universe), he would not fight. He was trying to point out how much he hated fighting his own relatives.

Thank you very much brother. I understand.

 

Just one point of clarification. When you interpret such phrases, what is the method you use? Do you refer to the literature of the time? Any other method?

 

Verse 1.36 says:

 

Sin will overcome us if we slay such aggressors. Therefore it is not proper for us to kill the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra and our friends. What should we gain, O Kṛṣṇa, husband of the goddess of fortune, and how could we be happy by killing our own kinsmen?

 

What is meant by 'husband of the goddess of fortune'? Is it literal or figurative? Please also comment on the following variant translations, what is the reason for this variation, with reference to this phrase:

 

1.36 O Janardana, what happiness shall we derive by killing the sons of Dhrtarastra? Sin alone will accrue to us by killing these felons.

 

1.36. Nothing but sin would slay these desperadoes and take hold of us. Therefore we should not slay Dhrtarastra's sons, our own relatives.

 

1.36. By killing these sons of Dhritarashtra, what pleasure can be ours, O Janardana? Only sin will accrue to us from killing these felons

 

1.36 If we kill the sons of Dhrtarastra, what joy will be ours, O Krsna? Sin alone will accrue to us if we kill these murderous felons.

 

Thank you.

 

When you interpret such phrases, what is the method you use? Do you refer to the literature of the time? Any other method?

Most of the times I read already existing interpretations by knowledgeable people. There have been many experts on Gita who have written beautiful commentaries on it. I also combine what Gita says with what is written in other scriptures of Hinduism. The concept of three worlds is mentioned in many Puranas. It is also there in Mahabharat. Gita is a part of a very big epic called as Mahabharat. But Gita is so important that it is also published as a separate book.

 

What is meant by 'husband of the goddess of fortune'? Is it literal or figurative?

Both. In Hinduism, Laxmi is called as the goddess of fortune. It is also figurative in the sense that all fortunes come because of grace of Krsna.

 

Please also comment on the following variant translations, what is the reason for this variation, with reference to this phrase:

1.36 O Janardana, what happiness shall we derive by killing the sons of Dhrtarastra? Sin alone will accrue to us by killing these felons.

1.36. Nothing but sin would slay these desperadoes and take hold of us. Therefore we should not slay Dhrtarastra's sons, our own relatives.

1.36. By killing these sons of Dhritarashtra, what pleasure can be ours, O Janardana? Only sin will accrue to us from killing these felons

1.36 If we kill the sons of Dhrtarastra, what joy will be ours, O Krsna? Sin alone will accrue to us if we kill these murderous felons.

I also see variation in wordings but no essential variation in meaning. Please let me know if you see any variation in meaning. The variation in wordings is quite common if two people translate the same thing from one language into another. So, in the beginning, in order to avoid confusion, it is good to concentrate on the translation by one author. Later, as you become more confident in your knowledge of Gita and if you are interested, you can read other translations. There are many translations available. The translation which many in this forum (including the moderator) prefer is in a book named "Bhagavad Gita As It Is". It is by Swami Prabhupada. The translation is available online: www.asitis.com

 

Both. In Hinduism, Laxmi is called as the goddess of fortune. It is also figurative in the sense that all fortunes come because of grace of Krsna.

You mean Krsna is literally the husband of Laxmi? Does God, literally, have a wife?

 

I also see variation in wordings but no essential variation in meaning. Please let me know if you see any variation in meaning.

I was referring to the phrase 'husband to the goddess of wealth' not being noted in the four other translations. Isn't that a clear variation, not just in words.

Thank you, my brother.

 

Does God, literally, have a wife?

If God incarnates in a human form, then he may do many things which a human does. As an example, he may even marry. However, what is more relevant in the current context is the meaning of the wife of God even when He is not in any incarnated form. The answer to this i.e. who really is the goddess of fortune and what is her relation with God is very detailed. I remember in the past there were some threads on this topic. I will post the link here if I find those threads.

But, as of now I can say that the meaning of the phrase "wife of God" is not exactly the way we understand this phrase in this world. It will be more accurate to say that the goddess of fortune is non-different from God in the sense that she is a female manisfestation of God Himself. This is a very brief response. But for the purpose of the Gita verse you have mentioned you can say that, in that verse, Arjuna wants to say that all fortune ultimately comes because of Krsna's grace.

 

I was referring to the phrase 'husband to the goddess of wealth' not being noted in the four other translations. Isn't that a clear variation, not just in words.

Krsna has many names (besides name 'Krsna'). One of those names is Madhav. This name has been used in verse 1.36. The literal meaning of Madhav is "husband of the goddess of fortune". Therefore, some translators translate the word Madhav as "husband of the goddess of fortune". Some translators feel that irrespective of whatever 'Madhav' means, let us use the word 'Madhav' itself in the translation also. Some feel that since 'Madhav' is a name of Krsna, let us use the word 'Krsna' in the translation.

Thank you brother,Avinash.

 

So I understand that God does not have a wife, in His unincarnate form. The deity referred to as the goddess of wealth is also, actually Krsna, incarnated as a female.

 

Thank you.

BG 1.43 says:

 

"I have heard by disciplic succession that those who destroy family traditions dwell always in hell"

 

Firstly, what is the disciplic succession referred to here. Do we have any record of this succession with us, now? Can we see this disciplic teaching regarding 'family tradition'?

 

Secondly, what is meant by "family tradition"? Are 'all' family traditions as sacred as BG 1.43 implies?

As of now whether I say God has a wife or I say He does not have - bith will be misleading because, as if quite natural, you may try to draw an analogy with what we see in this world. That is why I will refer you to the threads that discuss this issue after you have known some other things in Hinduism. Moreover, this knowledge is not a prerequisite for understanding Gita.

 

Firstly, what is the disciplic succession referred to here. Do we have any record of this succession with us, now? Can we see this disciplic teaching regarding 'family tradition'?

Secondly, what is meant by "family tradition"? Are 'all' family traditions as sacred as BG 1.43 implies?

When Arjuna says he heard by disciplic succession, it means that he heard it from his guru who, in turn, heard from his guru and so forth. Yes, the record of the succession is there. In Mahabharata (Gita is a part of it), the succession is mentioned.

The phrase "family tradition" means the tradition followed in a family over generations. But it is a very generic meaning. In light of verse 1.43, the meaning is more specific. Here "family tradition" means the dharma (right conduct) followed in a family by tradition. Those traditions which comprise righteous conduct are, by definition, sacred.

 

As of now whether I say God has a wife or I say He does not have - bith will be misleading because, as if quite natural, you may try to draw an analogy with what we see in this world. That is why I will refer you to the threads that discuss this issue after you have known some other things in Hinduism.

I understand brother. Whenever you consider me able to understand that...

 

Moreover, this knowledge is not a prerequisite for understanding Gita.

I understand that. I just wanted to understand that from the perspective of trying to understand the concept of God in Hinduism.

Thank you.

As a summary of the first chapter, I see that the narrator has actually mentioned the reservations of Arjuna to fight the war and, thereby, be a cause of killing his dear ones.

 

Would you not consider this to be a very natural reservation, for a morally inclined soul. Don't you agree that taking any life is, in fact, one of the most unjustified thing to do (leave alone the life of dear ones) unless we have a clear and unquestionable justification of doing so?

 

Thank you.

 

As a summary of the first chapter, I see that the narrator has actually mentioned the reservations of Arjuna to fight the war and, thereby, be a cause of killing his dear ones.

Would you not consider this to be a very natural reservation, for a morally inclined soul. Don't you agree that taking any life is, in fact, one of the most unjustified thing to do (leave alone the life of dear ones) unless we have a clear and unquestionable justification of doing so?

Yes, it is true that any conflict should be resolved through peaceful means so far as possible. But sometimes all other methods fail and war remains the only way out. In Mahabharata it is mentioned how Pandavas tried a lot to prevent war and find solution through dialogs. But Duryodhana (eldest Kaurava) did not agree. Then war was inevitable. Arjuna (a Pandava and a very great warrior) came to the battlefield prepared to fight. However, when he saw his relatives, he was overcome by compassion and did not want to fight.

In Mahabharata Arjuna is shown as a great person (both as a warrior as well as a human being). His arguments carry lot of weight. He gives many good arguments as to why he should not fight. But, under the circumstances, fighting was the right thing to do. As you have mentioned, taking life should be adopted only when we have a clear and unquestionable justification of doing so. In fact the justification did exist. Lord Krsna gives justification to Arjuna in further chapters. Gita is full of dialogs between Krsna and Arjuna. When Arjuna expressed his unwillingness to fight, then Krsna explained to him why it was his duty to fight. But convincing Arjuna to fight is not the only teaching that Krsna gave him even though this caused the discussion to start. In the process Lord Krsna taught Arjuna many other things as well.

Thank you, brother Avinash,

 

This is with reference to BG 2.2:

 

At the reservations expressed by Arjuna, which are clearly indicative of a morally enlightened soul, Krsna says:

 

"My dear Arjuna, how have these impurities come upon you? They are not at all befitting a man who knows the value of life. They lead not to higher planets but to infamy."

 

Can you please elaborate why are these reservations considered to be so despicable, especially when apparently Arjuna finds the consequential loss of life to be unjustified?

 

Thank you.

 

This is with reference to BG 2.2:

At the reservations expressed by Arjuna, which are clearly indicative of a morally enlightened soul, Krsna says:

"My dear Arjuna, how have these impurities come upon you? They are not at all befitting a man who knows the value of life. They lead not to higher planets but to infamy."

Can you please elaborate why are these reservations considered to be so despicable, especially when apparently Arjuna finds the consequential loss of life to be unjustified?

Thank you.

The reason is mentioned by the translator Sri Prabhupada in his purport. As he writes:- Although Arjuna was a ksatriya (of warrior class), he was deviating from his prescribed duties by declining to fight.

Under the given circumstances it was Arjuna's duty to fight. Often it happens that we have to stand against even our close relatives in order to do our duty. But Arjuna was giving more importance to personal relations than to duty. This is what Lord Krsna did not approve of.

Thank you, brother Avinash.

 

This is with reference to BG 2.9

 

After expressing his reservations, Arjuna says:

 

Arjuna, chastiser of enemies, told Krsna, "Govinda, I shall not fight," and fell silent

 

Firstly, Is 'Govinda' the same as 'Krsna'?

Secondly, Does Arjuna know that Govinda - i.e., Krsna - is God?

Thirdly, Does Arjuna know that Krsna - i.e., God - wants him to fight?

Fourthly, How would you explain Arjuna's refusal, if he knew that God - standing right next to him - wanted him to do something?

 

Thank you.

Yes, Govinda is the same as Krsna.

Arjuna knew that Krsna was a great personality and had divine qualities. He had also heard about many great feats achieved by Krsna. From some knowledgeable sages he had even come to know that Krsna was supreme. However, there is a different between hearing something from others and realizing it by seeing it oneself. Later Krsna showed (as you will read in further chapters of Gita) to Arjuna who He was.

Even though Arjuna did not know as much about Krsna as he came to know later, he trusted Krsna's gudance. One can ask if this is the case, then why Arjuna refused to fight even though Krsna (whom he trusted) wanted him to fight. For this, let us take an analogy:-

Let us assume that there is somebody whom you respect a lot and whose opinions you trust. He wants you to do something but your judgement says that it should not be done. It is possible that you will still do it because you think that he must have a valid reason for you to do that. But you do not know what that reason is. If still you do, then you may not be able to put your heart to it (at least not as much as you would if your judgement also asked you to do so). So you put your doubts to him. He clarifies your doubts. Now you also feel that the work should be done.

If you are fully convinced - without any doubt - that your judgement is right, you will just not do that work. You won't even put your doubts to that person and listen to his explanations. But if you listen to his explanations, it means you feel that you may be wrong but you do not know how. And you will not listen to the explanation of just anybody but only of those whom you trust.

Arjuna said, "Govinda I shall not fight." and fell silent. But he listened very attentively to what Krsna explained afterwards and asked questions on whatever doubts he had. This proves Arjuna knew that he (Arjuna) could be wrong and that he trusted Krsna.

It is possible that Arjuna had fought even if Krsna had not given any explanation. As you will read further in Gita, Krsna said to Arjuna, "As per your nature, you will anyway fight". This could happen because of various reasons. As an example suppose Arjuna decided not to fight and left the battlefield. Later he came to know that the enemy was striking his people (for example his brothers). Seeing that the enemy was striking his people and confident that he could protect his people (being a great warrior that he was), Arjuna could not help but fight. But he would not have been able to put as much heart to the fight as he could if all his doubts (because of which he was initially reluctant to fight) got clarified.

So, the answer to why Arjuna expressed his unwillingness to fight even though Krsna wanted him to fight is that Arjuna's analysis told him that it was bad for him to fight. He put his doubts to Krsna so that Krsna could clarify his doubts and explain to him what he should do.

My brother Avinash, thank you for your answers. You have explained everythiing brilliantly. The basic point, as I see it, is that at this time Arjuna was not fully aware of the fact that he was in the presence of God, had he known that, I am sure, he would not even have questioned him. All questions relating to God and His likes and dislikes are, in fact, only because we hear them through others, who, after all, are fallible humans like ourselves.

 

I feel very good with 'I shall not fight'. To me, this shows that Arjuna refused to act, untill the time that he was convinced that whatever he was told to do was, in fact, the right thing to do. Please allow me to take the liberty to say that this clearly signifies the great importance of "understanding" preceding all actions, however, trusted the person one is talking to may be.

 

Would you not agree, my brother?

This is with reference to BG 2.15

 

O best among men [Arjuna], the person who is not disturbed by happiness and distress and is steady in both is certainly eligible for liberation.

 

This seems to be one of the targets that man should aspire for, in this life, according to the teachings of the Gita. Would that be correct?

 

Liberation, here, means liberation from the cycle of birth. Right?

 

The basic point, as I see it, is that at this time Arjuna was not fully aware of the fact that he was in the presence of God, had he known that, I am sure, he would not even have questioned him.

Arjuna knew that Krsna was not an ordinary person but at that he had not seen from his eyes who Krsna truly was. He got that realization later (as you will read in chapters 9, 10, 11). So you are right in saying that he was not "fully aware" where ny "fully aware" we mean having knowledge of something through personal experience.

 

All questions relating to God and His likes and dislikes are, in fact, only because we hear them through others, who, after all, are fallible humans like ourselves.

Yes, that is right. But there may be some people who are highly knowledgeable. Many devotees have one or another knowledgeable person as their guru.

 

I feel very good with 'I shall not fight'. To me, this shows that Arjuna refused to act, untill the time that he was convinced that whatever he was told to do was, in fact, the right thing to do. Please allow me to take the liberty to say that this clearly signifies the great importance of "understanding" preceding all actions, however, trusted the person one is talking to may be.

Yes, this act of Arjuna was very good. He knew that Krsna's guidance could be trusted. But still he wanted to really understand what was the right thing to do rather than just doing what somebody said. But he was ready to listen to Krsna. This shows Arjuna's humility. Even though his knowledge told him that it was wrong to fight and he was very emotional in this respect, still he accepted that he could be wrong. This is a rare quality. Krsna also was an excellent teacher because he did not just say things like "I know better than you, so just do as I say" etc. as many people often say. He very patiently clarified all the doubts of Arjuna.

It is very important in a good communication to speak as clearly as possible and even more important is to listen attentively to what the other person says (this listening part is often not given its due importance). On both accounts, the dialog between Krsna and Arjuna is an excellent communication.

 

This is with reference to BG 2.15

O best among men [Arjuna], the person who is not disturbed by happiness and distress and is steady in both is certainly eligible for liberation.

This seems to be one of the targets that man should aspire for, in this life, according to the teachings of the Gita. Would that be correct?

Liberation, here, means liberation from the cycle of birth. Right?

Yes, that is right. As Sri Prabhupada explains in the purport to this verse, one should aspire for liberation from material bondage. And a person will keep coming to this world again and again unless he is free from material bondage. So, liberation from material bondage gives liberation from the cycle of birth and death.

So I believe that according to Hinduism, the sole target given to a follower is to purify himself from all attachments to material bondage so that he can be liberated from the cycle of birth. Would this be correct? Can we safely say that this statement is accurate?

So I believe that according to Hinduism, the sole target given to a follower is to purify himself from all attachments to material bondage so that he can be liberated from the cycle of birth. Would this be correct? Can we safely say that this statement is accurate?

Yes, the target is to get liberated. For that attachment to material bondage has to be got rid of.

To be accurate, I would not generalize this as the common goal for all Hindus.

 

There exist a significant number of Hindus for whom the Gita is not an authority (Shaivas, for instance) and therefore they do not have such goals. In other words, there are a number of people who do not care about bondage/liberation and are stiill Hindus.

 

Their interest in God is mainly related to solving/avoiding real world problems like health, finance, success, etc., in this life. They do not have long term plans of liberation ranging over multiple lifetimes as proposed by the Gita. This would be true for many Vaishnavas as well. In fact, I would boldly say the category I am talking about will net most Vaishnavas too.

 

Cheers

 

To be accurate, I would not generalize this as the common goal for all Hindus.

There exist a significant number of Hindus for whom the Gita is not an authority (Shaivas, for instance) and therefore they do not have such goals. In other words, there are a number of people who do not care about bondage/liberation and are stiill Hindus.

Their interest in God is mainly related to solving/avoiding real world problems like health, finance, success, etc., in this life. They do not have long term plans of liberation ranging over multiple lifetimes as proposed by the Gita. This would be true for many Vaishnavas as well. In fact, I would boldly say the category I am talking about will net most Vaishnavas too.

Cheers

I agree. The problem is that there are so many (I do not know how many) different groups of Hinduism. There are many Hindus who give nor little importance to scriptures. But my answer to Imranhasan is not based on what Hindus as individuals like but what the main scriptures followed by majority of Hinduism groups say. I did not mention this anywhere in this thread because in another thread started by Imranhasan I clarified that I would give answers as per what I have read in scriptures.

In the thread titled "purpose of life" started by Imran, I mentioned that I would be using the word liberation to mean getting into supreme abode. I also mentioned that the detailes of supreme abode vary from one group of Hinduism to another.

You have mentioned Saivas. It is true that they do consider Gita as authority. But they do consider Siva Purana as authority. In that Purana getting the grace of Siva and eternally living with Him on Kailasa is a goal cherished by Siva's devotees. So, even Siva Purana considers getting liberation as the ultimate goal but the details of what happens after liberation according to this Purana is different from what Vaisnavas believe in.

I am assuming that Imranhasan is reading my replies in this thread in combination with what I answered to him in other threads.