In Gita the subject matter is simply the realization of Brahman and the means thereto;the battle is only the occasion for its teaching.One can say,if one likes that the poet used it as an occasion because he did not look upon was as morally wrong.On reading the Mahabharta I formed quite a different impression.Vyasa wrote his supremely beautiful epic to depict the futility of war.What did the Kauravas' defeat and the Pandavas'victory avail?How many among the victors survived? What was their fate?What was the end of Kunti,mother of the Pandavas? what trace is left today of the Yadasva race?
Since the Gita's subject is not description of the battle and justification of violence,it is perfectly wrong to give much importance to these.If,moreover,it is difficult to reconcile a few of the vewrses with the idea that the Gita advocates non-violence,it is still more difficult to reconcile the teaching of the works as a whole with the advocacy of violence.
When a poet composes his work,he does not have a clear conception of all its possible implications.It is the very beauty of a good poem that it is greater than its author.The truth which poet utters in his moment of inspiration,we do not often see him following in his own life.Hence the liuves of many poets are at variance with the teaching of their poems.That the overall teaching of the Gita is not violence but non-violence is evident from the argument which begins .Voilence is simply not possible unless one i driven by anger,by ignorant love and by hatered.The Gita,one the otherhand wants us to be incapable of anger and attain to a state unaffected by the three gunas.Such a person can never feel anger.I see even now the red eyes of Arjuna every time he aimed an arrow from his bow,drawing the string as far as his ear.
But,then had arjuna's obstinate refusal to fight anything to do with non-violence?Infact,he had fought often enough in the past.On the present occasion,his reason was sudenly clouded by ignorant attachement.He did not wish to kill his kinsmen.He didnot say that he would not kill any one even if he believed that person to be wicked.Shri Krishna is momwntaly darkening of Arjuna's reason.He,therefore tells him "you have already commited violence by talking now like a wise man,you wil not learn non-violence.Having started on this courswe,you must finish the job."If a passenger travelling in a train which is running at a speen of forty miles an hour suddenly feels aversion to travelling and jumps out of the train,he will have but commited suicide.He has not in truth realized the futility of travelling as such or of travelling by train.Arjuna was in similar condition.Krishna,who believed in non-violence,could not have given from this that the Gita teaches violence or justifies war is as unwarranted as to as to argue that,since violence is some form or other is inescapable of maintaining the body in existence,dharma lies only in violence.The man discriminating intellect,on the other hand,teaches the duty of striving for deliverance from this body which exists through violence,the duty,that is ,of striving for moksha.
But whom does Dhritarashtra represent,and likewise Duryodhana,Yudhishthira or Arjuna?Whom does krishna represent? Were they historical personages/does the
Gita relate their actual doings?Is it likes that Arjuna should suddenly,with out waning ask a question whin the battle was about to commence,and that Krishna shoud recite the whole Gita in reply?And then,Arjuna,who had said that his ignorance had been dispelled,forgets what he was taught in Gita,and Krishna is made to repeat in the Anugita.
Personally,I believe Duryodhana and his supporters stand for the satanic impulses in us,Arjuna and others stand for Godward impulses.The battlefield is our body.The poet-seer,who knows from experience the problems of like,has given a faithful account of the conflct which is eternally going on within us .Shri Krishna is the Lord dweelling in everyones's heart who is ever murmuring His promptings in a pur chitta like a clock ticking in a room.If the clock of the chitta is not wound up with the key of selfpurification,the in-dwelling Lord no doubt remains where he is,but the ticking is heared no more.
I do not wish to suggest that violence has no place at all in the teaching of the Gita.The dharma which it teaches does not meand that person who has not yet awakened to the truth of non-violence may act like a coward.Anyone who fears others,accumulates possessions and indulges in sense pleasures will certainly fight with violent means but violence does not,for that reason,become justified as his dharma.There is only one dharma.Non-violence means moksha,and moksha means realising Satyanarayana.But this dharma does not under any circustances countenance running away in fear.In this world which baffles our reason,violence there will then always be.The Gita shows the way which lead us out of it,but it also says that we cannot escape it simply by running away from it like cowards .anyone who prepares to run away would do better,instead,to kill and be killed.
I am sure no one doubts that god,who is omnipotent,is,and must be ,the Creator,the Preserver and the destroyer of the Universe.He who creates has certainly the right to destroy.Even so,He does not kill,for He does nothing.God is so merciful He does not violate the law that every creature that is born will die one day.If HE were to follow His fancies and whims,Where should we be?
No comments:
Post a Comment