So the general regulation is that woman should remain under the protection of husband, er, father, husband and children. Just like these Pāṇḍus, their mother, Kuntī, she was very, very qualified lady. But still, after the death of her husband, she always remained with the sons. The sons are going to the forest; the mother is also going. Also the wife is also going, Draupadī. This was the... So two parties... Dhṛtarāṣṭra was the eldest son, but he was blind, bodily defect. Therefore he was not awarded the throne. His next brother, Pāṇḍu, he was offered the throne, but he died very early age, a young man. When these Pāṇḍus, the five sons, Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja, at at that time not Mahārāja, Yudhiṣṭhira, Bhīma, Arjuna, Nakula, Sahadeva, they were very small children, so they were taken care of by Dhṛtarāṣṭra and other elderly family... Bhīṣmadeva. He was the grandfather of the Pāṇḍavas. He was the elder uncle of Dhṛtarāṣṭra. Bhīṣma was elder brother of Dhṛtarāṣṭra's father. He was so old. But he was... Actually, the kingdom belonged to Bhīṣma, but he remained a brahmacārī, he did not marry. There was no issue of Bhīṣmadeva. Therefore his nephews, Dhṛtarāṣṭra and Pāṇḍu, they were inheritor.
Two parties (Lectures)
Lectures
Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures
And not that in modern days the fighting takes place—the poor soldiers, they come to fight, and the leaders, they remain in safety place. It is not like that. All of them came out, kṣatriya. Bhīṣmadeva came, Duryodhana came, Arjuna came. And face to face, they had to fight. Not that the poor soldiers would fight and they would remain in a secure place, no. So tasya sañjanayan harṣaṁ kuru-vṛddhaḥ. Kuru-vṛddha, the oldest man in the dynasty, Kuru dynasty, pitāmaha, he's the grandfather of Arjuna and Duryodhana. The Dhṛtarāṣṭra's elder uncle, his father's elder brother. He was very old man, brahmacārī, and in that old age also, he was taking the risk of fighting. This is kṣatriya spirit. Not that only... Dhṛtarāṣṭra was escaping. Not escaping, because he was physically incapable, blind, therefore he did not come in the battlefield. Otherwise even Bhīṣmadeva, in such old age he also came. This is kṣatriya spirit. When there is fight, there is no rest. And fight means "Either the other party should be killed or I shall be killed." Not that without any decision the fighting will be stopped. No, that cannot be. When there is two parties, must be belligerent, one party. So decision is that "Either you kill me or I kill you." Not that without killing... "Without being killed one of us, the fighting cannot be stopped."
Therefore we see two prakṛtis: para prakṛti and apara prakṛti. But all of them are controlled; none of them are the controller. And that is the difference between puruṣa and prakṛti. Puruṣa means controller. And prakṛti means controlled. Puruṣa means predominator, and prakṛti means predominated. This is the difference. So Kṛṣṇa does not fall from his position of predominator. Therefore He is addressed as Acyuta, Acyuta. Senayor ubhayor madhye rathaṁ sthāpaya me acyuta (BG 1.21). Another meaning of Acyuta... Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and Arjuna knows that "I am not controller; I am controlled." He is devotee, he knows his position. Therefore he is now trying to control Kṛṣṇa. He is ordering Kṛṣṇa. Senayor ubhayor madhye rathaṁ sthāpaya: "My dear Kṛṣṇa," he is not addressing as Kṛṣṇa-Acyuta, "now you place my chariot between the two parties." This is ordering. That means Arjuna becoming controller. And Kṛṣṇa becoming controlled. Just the opposite. Therefore Arjuna knows his subordinate position and he is ordering to Kṛṣṇa. So indirectly he is begging to be excused: "My dear Kṛṣṇa, I cannot order You. Order must come from You. But because You promised to carry out my order, You wanted to become my chariot driver, therefore I am ordering. Therefore I am ordering. I am not in position of ordering to You and You promised to carry out my order, and I think You are fixed up in Your that promise. Therefore I am asking you, Acyuta. You don't fall from Your promise." This is the... senayor ubhayor madhye rathaṁ sthāpaya me acyuta (BG 1.21).
So this is the picture of the Battlefield of Kurukṣetra, and Kṛṣṇa is ordered by Arjuna to place the chariot in between the two soldiers. Now, after seeing the soldiers and the kings and other party, Arjuna is aggrieved, so much so that he did not like to fight, and he was crying. Now, Dhṛtarāṣṭra asked Sañjaya: "Then what happened next?" Dhṛtarāṣṭra was very much anxious. He said: dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre samavetā yuyutsavaḥ (BG 1.1). "Now these two parties, yuyutsavaḥ, they, they, they were, both of them were desirous of fighting, yuyutsavaḥ. So one party is māmakāḥ, my sons, and the other party is Pāṇḍavas, the sons of my brother, Pāṇḍu." Māmakāḥ pāṇḍavāś caiva (BG 1.1). Now, the word is used: yuyutsavaḥ. "They assembled for fighting." Then what is the use of asking: kim akurvata, "Then what did they do?" It is natural to conclude that when they assemble for fighting, there must be fighting. But why he was asking: kim akurvata? The suspect was that because the parties assembled in the dharma-kṣetra, so they might have changed their ideas. Still, in India, if there is two fighting parties, they go to a temple and ask that "You say the right thing." So in the temple, still, in the villages, they do not dare to speak lies. Yes. The fighting and the misunderstanding becomes settled up. So Dhṛtarāṣṭra was thinking whether the two parties, they have settled up. He did not like that. He wanted that "These Pāṇḍavas should be killed, and my sons," I mean to say "the Kauravas, they should come out victorious so that there will be no enemy." He was very much anxious to place his sons on the throne. Because he was blind, he could not acquire the throne. His younger brother was situated on the throne. Now, after the death of his younger brother, he thought that "I missed the opportunity of sitting on the throne. Why not my sons? They have got actual right." That is the background of this Kurukṣetra battle.
So He has got individuality, you have got individuality, everyone has got individuality. Where is the question of impersonalism come? There is no possibility. And if you don't believe Kṛṣṇa, you don't believe Vedas, apart from anything else, Kṛṣṇa is accepted as the supreme authority, the Personality of Godhead. Then if we don't believe Him, then where is the possibility of advancing in knowledge? There is no possibility of it. So there is no question of individuality. This is the statement of authority. Now, apart from statement of authority, you have to apply your reason and arguments. Can you say anywhere there is agreement between two parties? No. You go, study. In the state, in the family, in the community, in the nation, there is no agreement. Even in the assembly, even in your country. Suppose there is Senate, everyone has got country's interest, but he's thinking in his individual way. One is thinking that "My country's welfare will be in this line." Otherwise, why there is competition during election of president. Everyone is saying that "America needs Nixon." And another person, he also says, "America needs me." So, but why two? If America you, and you are both... No. There is individuality. Mr. Nixon's opinion is something else. Mr. another candidate's opinion is something else. In the assembly, in the Senate, in the Congress, in the United Nations, everyone is fighting with his individual view. Otherwise why there are so many flags in the world? You cannot say anywhere impersonalism. Personality is predominating everywhere. Everywhere, the personality, individuality, is predominant. So we have to accept. We have to apply our reason, arguments, and accept the authority. Then the question is solved. Otherwise it is most difficult.
Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you very much for your coming here and participate in this great movement. So this evening I shall present before you topics between Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna. I think most of you know the Bhagavad-gītā. The subject matter of Bhagavad-gītā is talking between Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna. Kṛṣṇa was driver of the chariot. Both of them were in the Battlefield of Kurukṣetra. Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He played just like an ordinary human being as friend of Arjuna. And when Arjuna was little disturbed... Because this battle was arranged between two parties of cousin-brothers... And when Arjuna saw the other party, all his relatives, family members, so he hesitated to fight, and there was some argument. Kṛṣṇa said that "You are a kṣatriya. You are king. It is your duty to fight."
So hṛṣīkeśaḥ, prahasann iva. Kṛṣṇa began to laugh, smiling, "What a nonsense this is, Arjuna." First of all he said, "Put me." Senayor ubhayor madhye rathaṁ sthāpaya me acyuta (BG 1.21). "Kṛṣṇa, just put my chariot between the two parties of soldiers." And now... (coughs, aside:) Bring me water. He was so enthusiastic in the beginning that "Put my chariot between the two armies." Now this rascal is saying no yotsya, "I will not fight." Just see the rascaldom. So even Arjuna, Kṛṣṇa's direct friend, māyā is so strong that he also becomes a rascal, what to speak of others. First of all very enthusiasm: "Yes, put my chariot between the two armies." And now in the..., na yotsya iti govindam (BG 2.9), "I am not going to fight." This is rascaldom. So he was smiling, that "He is My friend, direct friend, and such a big, and he is now saying that 'I will not fight.' "
Just like we have got experience in India, say, 20 years or 25 years ago, there was no Pakistan. But some way or other, there is another division of Pakistan. So actually, long, long years ago there was no division of this planet. The planet is one, and the king was also one, and the culture was also one. The culture was Vedic culture, and the king was one. As I told you that the Kuru dynasty kings, they ruled over the world. It was monarchy. So there was a fight between two cousin brothers of the same family, and that is the theme of this Bhagavad-gītā. Bhagavad-gītā was spoken in the battlefield. In the battlefield, we have got very little time. This Bhagavad-gītā was spoken when the two parties met on the battlefield. And Arjuna, after seeing the other party, that the other party, all of them belonged to his family, all family members, because it was fight between cousin brothers, so he became compassionate. Compassionately, he said to Kṛṣṇa, "My dear Kṛṣṇa, I don't wish to fight. Let my cousin brothers enjoy the kingdom. I cannot kill them in this fight." This is the subject matter of Bhagavad-gītā. But Kṛṣṇa induced him that "You are a kṣatriya. It is your duty to fight. Why you are deviating from your duty?"
The Īśopaniṣad teaches us, īśāvāsyam idaṁ sarvam: (ISO 1) "Nothing, nothing belongs to you. Everything belongs to God. Everything belongs to God." There is a story that God laughs when two party fights for the land. Actually we have seen. In India, when there was partition day, the Hindu, Muslim, fought. Hindu, Muslim, fought, and when both of them died and lied on the street and strewn all over the street and ask them, "Now, whose land it is?" now nobody replied. Nobody replied. The God's land will remain here. And we simply fight that "This is my land. This is my land." These are all these, I mean to say, paraphernalia of our illusion. Illusion.
So Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, He created. Now, this Mahābhārata... Mahābhārata... You have heard the name of Mahābhārata. It is a history of the fighting between two parties, Kuru-Pāṇḍava. So this Mahābhārata was especially made, I mean the story... Just like expert writer, they will pick up some historical facts and put it into fiction, so, to create more interest. In Bengal there is a famous writer who is compared with (Sir Walter) Scott of England. So Bankim Chandra Chatterjee. Oh, all his novels are picked up from some historical facts, historical facts. That makes the fiction very interesting. Similarly, Mahābhārata, this is a history of fighting between two parties, and that was written especially, strī-śūdra-dvijabandhūnāṁ trayī na śruti-gocarā (SB 1.4.25).
So this Bhagavad-gītā was spoken to the rājarṣis, the great kings who were just like saints and sages. They were on the throne, but they were all, I mean to say, dedicated souls for the peace and prosperity of the people. Just like Mahārāja Parīkṣit. When he was born, this Mahārāja Parīkṣit is the... What is called? Posthumous son? Born after the death of his father? What is called, English word? Posthumous. So his father died before his birth. In the Battle of Kurukṣetra there were two parties, cousin-brothers fighting. So Mahārāja Parīkṣit's father, Abhimanyu, the son of Arjuna, he was only sixteen-years-old boy, but he was fortunately married. His marriage is also very peculiar. The daughter was... Uttarā was offered to Arjuna, but Arjuna said that "This girl, I have treated her as my student." He was teacher. "I cannot marry. She is my daughter." So then Arjuna said, "I have got grown-up son. I'll arrange her marriage with my son." So Uttarā was married with his son at the age of sixteen years. The boy and the girl, both were sixteen years old, and they were married. Fortunately, when the battle was going on, this boy was also called to fight, and the girl was pregnant. But the boy never returned. He died in the battlefield. So Parīkṣit Mahārāja remained in the womb of his mother.
Just like Lord Kṛṣṇa is taking part with Arjuna, and He's taking part in the battlefield of the Kurukṣetra. Just like ordinary man. When there is war between two parties, somebody takes part with this party, or somebody takes part, or some nation takes part with one party or another nation takes part with another nation. So here also, we see that Kṛṣṇa is taking part with Arjuna. Partiality. It appears that Kṛṣṇa is partial. So Kṛṣṇa is not partial. But it, externally, it appears that "He is partial. How He can be God?"
Just see, the Arjuna. Arjuna is fighting, and the other party, Duryodhana, is also fighting. Now, how you can understand that Arjuna is free from reaction but Duryodhana is not free from reaction? The fighting is both... Both parties are fighting. Externally, ephemerally, we can see simply that they are fighting. But who is bound up by reaction? Who is not bound up reaction? Arjuna is not bound up by reaction. Why? He is fighting under the order of Kṛṣṇa. So we have to see like that, who is working with Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Anyone who is working in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, we should see that he is not being bound up. This is called karmaṇy akarma. Akarma means which has no reaction. So although I see somebody is working, but because he is working in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, therefore it should be understood that his work is not producing any reaction.
Now spiritualism, spiritualism means that we should identify ourself as God's party. That's all. That is spiritualism. They ask so many things, that, why the materialists are called crazy by the spiritualists? Oh, that is also partyism. These materialists also call, say to the spiritualists, they are crazy. Just like we are, we have formed some Society of Kṛṣṇa Consciousness, and, and those who do not like it, they say we are crazy fellows. We are assembly of crazy fellows. And, similarly, we call others who do not associate with us, they are crazy fellows. So there is, we have written pamphlet, booklet, "Who is Crazy?". Now how to decide? You are thinking the Swamiji and the party, they are crazy. And we are thinking those who are materially engaged, they're crazy. Now how to decide it? Can you suggest any way how to decide it, how, who is crazy? Who will decide it? Everyone, two parties, when there is something disagreement, the two parties will say that, "You are in wrong," the other party will say, "You are..." Now who will decide it? That who is wrong? Can you suggest any one of you who'll decide? The world is going on in partyism and each opposite party is thinking that the other party is crazy. Now who will decide who is actually crazy? The actual... Then you have come to the point of reason, who is crazy?
There is no use of interpretation. Interpretation is required when you cannot understand one statement. In the law court if one statement is ambiguous then two parties argue on it. "I think it is this," "I think..." But when it is clear there is no question of interpretation. Unfortunately the Bhagavad-gītā is being interpreted by unauthorized persons unnecessarily, and people are kept into darkness. We are trying to protest against this process.
Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures
One should be aware of the Battle of Kurukṣetra very nicely. It was dharma-yuddha. Dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre samavetā yuyutsavaḥ (BG 1.1). Why they settled up that the fighting should take place in the dharma-kṣetra? They are to fight, yuyutsavaḥ. It was settled they will fight, but why they selected the dharma-kṣetra? This is Vedic system. Even up to date, in villages, not in the cities... In the cities, as soon as there is some misunderstanding between you and me, we go to the court, either criminal court or civil court, to settle up, and it takes years to settle up the business. It goes on. I have seen for generation. One generation passed another generation; the fighting is going on in the court. But if people are Kṛṣṇa conscious, it could be settled within few minutes. Still among the villagers the system is current in India: when there is some fighting, they go to a saintly person or in a temple to settle up. Just like when Sanātana Gosvāmī was there in Vṛndāvana, so in that area, whenever there was some fighting between two parties, they would come to Sanātana Gosvāmī: bābā, ap isko phars lakharji.(?) Bābā means saintly person. So they would come to Sanātana Gosvāmī, and they would ask him to become mediator, arbitrator, to settle up. And whatever verdict or judgment he will give, they will accept that "Bābā has said. That's all right." Therefore Śrīnivāsa Ācārya has prayed the Gosvāmīs, dhīrādhīra. Kṛṣṇotkīrtana-gāna-nartana-parau, dhīradhīra-priyau.
So this knowledge can be attained by sat-saṅga. Sat-saṅga. Sat-saṅga means... This is sat-saṅga, associating with devotees of the Lord. So sat-saṅga. Sat-saṅgān mukta-duḥsaṅgaḥ. You cannot make association with two parties. If you want to associate with the devotees, then you have to give up the association of the nondevotees. That will be natural. Just like our, these students, although they are very young... They are not only young, but coming of very luxurious families in America, Europe. Here, the boys, they cannot even imagine how much luxury they enjoyed. Here, they have no employment, our young men. Mostly unemployed. And in Europe, America, especially in America, there is no question of unemployment. Anyone can go and earn immediately ten dollars. Ten dollars means hundred rupees. He's prepared. One of my students, Trayādhīśa, he was, morning, he was absent. So I asked him, "Why you are absent?" "Now I required some money, so I went to get some money." "How you got money?" "Now I went to the shoe brushing shop. So I brushed some gentleman's shoes. I got some money, five dollars." So they know how to earn money. There's no scarcity of money. Even in a hotel, one goes, he washes the dishes—immediately gets ten dollars. So money and woman. So there enough they enjoy, but now they have given up everything. Why:. Due to this sat-saṅga. Due to this sat-saṅga. Sat-saṅgān mukta-duḥsaṅgaḥ. No more. No more association with money and woman. This is so powerful, sat-saṅga. Sat-saṅga is so powerful.
Just like Sarvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya. He argued with Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu as a scholar. But when he became defeated, he accepted His discipleship. This was the method, that two persons may argue, but one who is defeated, he must become his disciple. Not that simply waste time arguing and no conclusion. Formerly this was the system, to come to a conclusion. If two parties are arguing on a subject matter, the one party will be defeated, he must become his disciple, under control.
Now, this is śāstra. Five thousand years ago, what was written, that is now becoming true. Now there is no marriage as it was taking formerly, Vedic marriage. The father (and) mother will select the bride, bridegroom, and there will be gorgeous ceremony and marriage. The father will spend... Both parties, the girl's father and the boy's father, will spend. Still in India, there are cases like that. They'll spend their hard-earned money during the marriage ceremony of their son and daughter. But in this age, gradually, it is said, svīkāra eva codvāhe. Udvāha means marriage, taking the charge of the girl. The boy takes charge of the young girl from the custody of her father. This is marriage. Woman, according to Vedic civilization, they are not recommended freedom. They should be taken care just like children are taken care of. You cannot give independence to the children. That is not possible. Then it is not good for them. Similarly, woman also should be taken care of. They should not be given freedom. That is not good for them. They should be protected by the father in childhood, by the husband in youthhood, and by the grown-up children in old age. Three stages. But in this age, women are trying to take independence of father, husband or children. That is not good. That is described in the śāstra.
And this Kurukṣetra is dharma-kṣetra. Not because the fight was there and Kṛṣṇa was on the battlefield, therefore it is called dharma-kṣetra. Sometimes it is interpreted like that. But actually Kurukṣetra was dharma-kṣetra since very, very long time. In the Vedas it is stated, kuru-kṣetre dharmam ācaret: "If one wants to execute ritualistic ceremony, he should go to Kurukṣetra." And it is the system still now in India, if there is some disagreement or quarrel between two parties, so still they would go to the temple—temple is dharma-kṣetra—so that one may not dare to speak lie in front of the Deity. This was still going on. Even one is very low in mentality, still, if he is challenged that "You are talking this false. Now speak before the Deity," he will hesitate, "No." This is India still. You cannot speak lies before the Deity. That is offense. Don't consider that Deity is a marble statue. No. Svayaṁ bhagavān. Just like Caitanya Mahāprabhu. As soon as He saw Jagannātha Deity, He immediately fainted. "Oh, here is My Lord." Not like us: "Oh, here is some statue." No. It is the question of appreciation. So you appreciate or not appreciate, the Deity is the Supreme Personality of Godhead personally. We should always remember. So we shall be very careful before the Deity, not to commit offense. In serving Him, in offering Him prasādam, in dressing Him, we should always think, "Here is personally Kṛṣṇa." He is personally, but due to our lack of knowledge, we cannot understand it.
So two parties, Yamadūta and the Bhagavad-dūtā. So this human life is the junction, which way to go, to the Yamadūtas or to the Bhagavad-dūtās. There is no three. Two alternative. In the Bible also it is said, "Either you go to hell or go to heaven." Is it not? This is right. Yamadūta means go to hell, and Bhagavad-dūtā means go to Vaikuṇṭha. This is the junction.
This is the conclusion, that etāvatālam agha-nirharaṇāya puṁsāṁ saṅkīrtanaṁ bhagavato guṇa-karma-nāmnām. Therefore Yamarāja is recommending that by our fruitive activities we are implicated in so many sinful reaction of life, so saṅkīrtanaṁ bhagavato guṇa-karma-nāmnām. Not only the chanting of Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra is called saṅkīrtana of the holy name of the Lord, but here it is said, guṇa-karma-nāmnām. Saṅkīrtanaṁ bhagavato guṇa-karma-nāmnām. Not that when you read Kṛṣṇa, the book which is full of Kṛṣṇa's activities... That is also saṅkīrtana. That is also saṅkīrtana. Saṅkīrtana does not mean simply chanting the holy name of Kṛṣṇa. Saṅkīrtana means you discuss Kṛṣṇa's activities, that is also saṅkīrtana. That is not different from saṅkīrtana. It is clearly stated here that bhagavato guṇa-karma-nāmnām. Nāma means name, and guṇa means quality, and karma means activities. That is not ordinary karma. Just like when we read Kṛṣṇa book, Kṛṣṇa is killing so many demons, He is kidnapping somebody, He is... So many things. It appears just like ordinary, I mean to say, malpractices in the material world. It appears like that. "So what is this God? He is killing so many persons, He is kidnapping some woman. What is this God?" they may say. But they do not know that that is also transcendental. That is as pure as chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra. It is as pure as. Otherwise, what interest we have got to read Bhagavad-gītā? It is in the battlefield. Senayor ubhayor madhye. Combination of two parties, soldiers, and they are fighting, they are killing.
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures
So Caitanya Mahāprabhu is stressing that to read Vedic literature, Vedānta, Upaniṣad—these are principal literatures in the Vedic knowledge—then Bhagavad-gītā, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, all these books should be studied from the direct meaning. Don't try to interpret. According to ordinary, I mean to say, dealings, suppose in the law court there are two parties. Two lawyers are fighting on the principle of one clause or section in the lawbook. One is interpreting in a different way, one is interpreting in a different way, and the judges give their judgment. Now, the opportunity for interpretation is there when the meaning is not clear. A very good example is given by the grammarians, or Sanskrit scholars, that gaṅgayaṁ ghoṣapali, that "There is a neighborhood which is called Ghoṣapali on the Ganges." Now somebody may ask, "How there can be a quarter on the Ganges? Ganges is water." So there is interpretation required. So somebody says, " 'On the Ganges' means on the bank of the Ganges." That makes it clear. "On the Ganges" does not mean that in the middle water there is a, I mean to say, residential quarter. No. "On the Ganges" means on the bank of the Ganges.
Śaṅkarācārya wanted to establish the difference of Buddhism and Hinduism is that Buddhism, Lord Buddha did not accept Vedic authority. He did not accept Vedic authority. But according to Hindu culture, if somebody does not accept the Vedic authority, then he's not a authority. Vedānta philosophy, there are different parties in India. The Māyā... Generally, two parties: the Māyāvāda philosophers and the Vaiṣṇava philosophers, or the impersonalists and the personalists. Otherwise, there is no difference. Ultimately, the Māyāvādī philosophers they say that God, the Supreme Absolute Truth, is impersonal, and the Vaiṣṇava philosophers, they say in the ultimate end, the Absolute Truth is Person and He is, He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28). This is little difference, and they stick to their position and they fight. Fight means by philosophical arguments. That is going on since a very long time. But both of them belong to the sanātana Hindu dharma because both of them will talk on the Vedānta philosophy. They'll simply, they can give different interpretation, but they cannot say that "We don't accept Vedānta." Oh, that will..., then it is at once rejected. So one must give an interpretation on the Vedānta philosophy; then he'll be accepted as ācārya. Three things: Vedānta philosophy, Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. One must be able to explain these three books. Then he'll be accepted ācārya. These are the principles.
So this Sanskrit scholar, Keśava Kāśmīrī, he came from Kashmir to challenge the learned scholars in other parts of the country. There were four celebrated places where highly educated scholars were there. One was at Benares. Benares still, it is considered to be the center of Sanskrit scholars place. Similarly Navadvīpa, where Caitanya Mahāprabhu was born. And in Bihar there was a place, Darbhanga. That is also a scholarly. So Benares, and Berhampur (?), Berhampur in East Bengal near Dacca. So some of the places in India, they are very famous for learned scholars. Still they are continuing. So Sanskrit scholars would come in such celebrated places, and they would challenge for arguing on the śāstras. So the rule was that two parties will argue, and the defeated party will become the disciple of the victorious party. That was the system. So Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu, when He was sixteen years old, this Keśava Kāśmīrī came to Navadvīpa to challenge. In other places he was victorious. He became champion. And then, at last, he came to Bengal, Navadvīpa. So that scholarly discussion will take place.
Very nice. In this way we are being kicked up. The freedom of football. The football is kicked from this party and thrown to the other party. The other party kicks and it comes. The football thinks... If the football thinks that "I am in freedom movement," so what is that freedom? Kicked from this party to that party and that... So here the same thing is said, kāma-krodhera dāsa hañā tāra lāthi khāya. Just like the football players—the football is under the kicking method of two parties—similarly, we are under the kicking method of two things, lust and anger. We are lusty, and when our lust is not fulfilled, then we become kicked by anger. Two things. Just like the football is kicked by this party and that party, similarly, our position is we are being kicked sometimes by lust and sometimes by anger. So we are going on leading our life in this way.
General Lectures
Now we are, everyone, searching after some standard of life where we will have no anxiety. That is the aim of everyone. Why we are struggling? We are trying to approach a certain point. Just like two parties playing on football, they are, each one of them, trying to approach the goal. That is victory. So everyone is trying to gain something, according to different position, according to different idea. Not everyone is searching after the same thing. Somebody searching after material pleasure, somebody searching after intoxication, somebody is searching after sex, somebody is searching after money, somebody is searching after knowledge, somebody is searching after so many things. But there is one thing. If we can get that, attain to that perfection, then we shall be satisfied and we shall say that "We do not want anything." Svāmin kṛtārtho 'smi varaṁ na yāce (CC Madhya 22.42). There are many instances. So there is like that, and that is Kṛṣṇa. If you can simply understand Kṛṣṇa, then your knowledge is perfect, you understand everything. You understand science, you understand mathematics, you understand chemistry, physics, astronomy, philosophy, literature, everything. It is so nice. So Bhāgavata says therefore that saṁsiddhir hari-toṣaṇam (SB 1.2.13). Whatever department of knowledge or whatever department of activities you are engaged in, it doesn't matter. But if you can find out the Supreme by your pursuit of knowledge, that is your perfection.
So there is sanātana-dhāma, the living entity is sanātana, and God is sanātana. Kṛṣṇa is sanātana. So these three sanātanas... Just like we have our dealings. In Bombay, there are so many businessmen. The place is Bombay, and two parties, business parties, they're dealing. Similarly... But these are all temporary. Our staying in Bombay city is temporary, the dealing is temporary. But there is another place, which is called sanātana-dhāma. That place is eternal, and the parties, namely God and the living entities, both of them eternal, their dealing also eternal. That eternal dealing is called nitya-līlā, eternal pastimes. These descriptions are there in the Vedic saṁhitā, Brahma-saṁhitā.
Kurukṣetra is dharma-kṣetra, and historical fact is māmakāḥ pāṇḍavāś caiva yuyutsavaḥ (BG 1.1). Two groups of cousin brothers, they wanted to fight to settle up. Formerly the war was declared—the leader of the war, if he is killed, then the other party is victorious. Not that unnecessarily killing the civil citizens, no. This was nonsense. If there was fight between two kings, the citizens, they were unaffected, not that there is fight now between two parties, there is immediately siren, (imitates siren:) gaw, gaw, gaw, gaw, now bomb and the civil..., the most uncivilized way of war. In those days—those days means at least five thousand years ago—they selected a place, and "Let us fight and decide our fate," kṣatriyas. Why the public should suffer? So in this way Kurukṣetra was selected to fight between the two parties. And still it is existing. It is a great field. And dharma-kṣetre... Just try to understand that there is no need of our imperfect comments on the Bhagavad-gītā. That is my point.
Yuyutsavaḥ, it is called yuyutsavaḥ. So yuyutsavaḥ means when two parties are fighting, they are called yuyutsavaḥ, "Desiring to fight, they prepared." So actually these two groups of brothers, cousin brothers, they assembled there for fighting to decide their fate. So everything is clear. Dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre samavetā (BG 1.1), assembled, yuyutsavaḥ, for fighting. And who are they? It is the question of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, the father of the Duryodhana, and he is asking his private secretary, Sañjaya. Sañjaya was relaying the fight in the battlefield, and Dhṛtarāṣṭra was blind. Just like television. So he was seeing the fight from the heart. It means there is still more finer science, that you don't require machine to see it by television, what is going outside. You can see within your heart. So this Sañjaya was seeing the battle, and he was relaying to Dhṛtarāṣṭra.
Understanding Kṛṣṇa means, as it is stated, tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti mām eti kaunteya (BG 4.9). We have come from God; we again go back to God if we simply understand Kṛṣṇa, or God. This is the whole instruction of the Bhagavad-gītā. And when Arjuna was perplexed that "How shall I kill the other side?" then Kṛṣṇa informed him in the beginning,
- evam uktvā hṛṣīkeśaṁ
- guḍākeśaḥ parantapaḥ
- na yotsya iti govindam
- uktvā tūṣṇīṁ babhūva ha
- (BG 2.9)
"He completely became silent. 'Kṛṣṇa, I am not going to fight.' " Therefore,
- tam uvāca hṛṣīkeśaḥ
- prahasann iva bhārata
- senayor ubhayor madhye
- viṣīdantam idaṁ vacaḥ
- (BG 2.10)
Then Kṛṣṇa was smiling, that "Arjuna is my friend, and he is so much overwhelmed with material consciousness of life." Therefore it is said, tam uvāca hṛṣīkeśaḥ prahasann: He was smiling, that "You are My friend. You should not have done like this." Prahasann iva bhārata senayor ubhayor madhye: "Between the two parties of soldiers," viṣīdantam, "he was lamenting."
This is the question by Dhṛtarāṣṭra. Dhṛtarāṣṭra was the father of the Kurus, and the Pāṇḍavas were the five brothers, the sons of the younger brother of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, Mahārāja Pāṇḍu. So Dhṛtarāṣṭra was blind, born blind. Actually he was to inherit—the eldest son of the family. But on account of his blindness the throne was given to his younger brother, Pāṇḍu. So the sons of Pāṇḍu is known as Pāṇḍavas, and the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra are known as Kurus or Dhṛtarāṣṭra. So after all, politics, it is always very intriguing in all times. So Dhṛtarāṣṭra was very sorry that he could not become the emperor. At least his son should be. Because he was blind, that's all, but his sons were not blind. So naturally father wants... So this is the whole history of Mahābhārata, intriguing, politics, and ultimately there was fight between the two parties, Kurus and the Pāṇḍavas, to decide. By logic, by morality and other things, everything failed. Then there was declaration of war. The Bhagavad-gītā is spoken in that warfield.
Philosophy Discussions
Śyāmasundara: So by "conflict" you mean the mind's engagement with...
Prabhupāda: No. I mean to say that... Just like two parties fighting on some point. They come to the court and the judgement is given by the judge. So the decision is made on the judgement. Not by simply conflict. If two parties are fighting for life together, they cannot come to the conclusion because they are fighting on the wrong basis.
Śyāmasundara: So this theory of Mao Tse Tung actually rises out of Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest.
Prabhupāda: Whatever it may be. Darwin's theory we have already discussed, and that is nonsense.
| Page Title: | Two parties (Lectures) |
| Compiler: | Visnu Murti, Serene |
| Created: | 16 of Jul, 2012 |
| Totals by Section: | BG=0, SB=0, CC=0, OB=0, Lec=35, Con=0, Let=0 |
| No. of Quotes: | 35 |