Gita 01.01 – The transcendental manifests as the geographical

Audio Link 1: Gita 01.01 – The transcendental manifests as the geographical – The Spiritual Scientist

dhṛtarāṣṭra uvāca

dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre

samavetā yuyutsavaḥ

māmakāḥ pāṇḍavāś caiva

kim akurvata sañjaya

 

In this series of short talks on each verse of the Bhagavad Gita, we will discuss the meaning of the verse and an introductory understanding of its context. These talks are meant primarily to gain a quick grasp of the verse, and especially for those devotees who want to memorize these verses, these can give an intellectual template on which to ground their efforts for memorization. Normally, when we memorize, it exercises our recollection faculty, which is an important intellectual muscle, but if we also exercise our contemplation muscle – understanding and meditating on the meaning – it becomes easier to connect with the verse. It’s like if I have to lift a weight, I can easily lift with both hands instead of one.

 Similarly, when we connect with the verses, not simply as something to be memorized by rote, but as meaningful guides to shape our thoughts and actions, verses that we can use for our own personal application as well as for our outreach, memorization becomes easier. More of our intellectual, recollection, and contemplation muscle will also be involved.  We will try to involve our emotional muscle too and see if some of these verses can be rendered as prayers. We can invoke our devotional emotion by converting Krishna’s instruction into a prayer. While taking darshan of the deities, we can recite that verse and pray: “Krishna, you have instructed me to do this, but I have no strength to do it, please give me the strength to do it.” That way we can engage our emotional muscle, rote memorization and thoughtful contemplation. By connecting with the verses in all these ways, our connection will be much stronger.

 This is the first verse of the Gita and actually this is the only verse spoken in the Gita by Dhritarashtra. Although it’s just one verse, it’s seminal.  As semen produces a full child eventually, similarly a seminal question leads to extensive discussion later.

 Dhṛtarāṣṭra uvāca: Dhritarashtra speaks. What does he say? Dharma-kṣetre: At the place of dharma, a holy/sacred place. Which was the sacred place? Kuru-kṣetre: The place where the battle was to take place.

Historically, kuru-kṣetra is known as dharma-kṣetra because great sages performed austerities there. Parashuram, after killing the wicked Kshatriyas, performed atonement at the Samanta Panchak in the Kurukshetra area. Kings performed sacrifices over there in the past, so there is adequate historical reason for referring to kuru-kṣetra as dharma-kṣetra.

 Along with that, an important point is that the transcendental is being manifested in the geographical. That is the characteristic of Gita wisdom at large: The spiritual becomes manifest in the material to raise us to the spiritual level. Dharma, our eternal nature and the set of activities that take us to our eternal nature, is transcendental. Dharma is not religion; it’s our essential nature which is to love and serve. This remains the same regardless of whether we are Hindus, Muslims, Christians, or non-believers. Dharma refers to this nature.

 The point of the Gita is that the transcendental, which is not restricted by its relevance to any specific group of people, is being manifested at a particular geographical level.

 Dhritarashtra may not be aware of all this, but when the Lord performs His pastimes, he uses people even without their consciously being aware of what they are doing and how it is assisting in the Lord’s pastimes. Dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre means the transcendental is being manifested in the geographical. The knowledge of dharma will become manifested at Kurukshetra, gaining greater fame than earlier because the knowledge of dharma will be spoken over there.

 

samavetā yuyutsavaḥ: They assembled to fight.

 

māmakāḥ pāṇḍavāś caiva, māmakāḥ: My sons and the Pandavas.

 

Dhritarashtra’s partiality is evident. Generally, people have natural affection for some people and lesser affection or apathy towards others, based on how they deal with one another. For Dhritarashtra to have a special sense of affection for his own sons is natural, but to have antipathy (negative feelings, anger, resentment, hatred, etc.) towards his nephews, the Pandavas, is definitely unnatural and is all the more undesirable/unworthy of a person who is in the king’s position. A king is expected to be like a father for all the citizens, what to speak of one’s own nephews, and what to speak of nephews who are fatherless.  Dhritarashtra was expected to act like a father, but his partiality was caused by excessive bodily attachment.

 Reciprocity is normal human nature; we tend to reciprocate affection which in turn leads to a deeper relationship.  However, we tend to develop a slightly distant relationship where reciprocity is absent.  Dhritarashtra’s partiality was not due to reciprocity. Actually, Pandavas gave him more respect and affection than his own sons.  On the other hand, his own son, Duryodhana, would call him a “blind old king” and laugh at him behind his back.  Duryodhana knew which buttons to press so that he could manipulate him. Dhritarashtra realized all this after the war was over and felt very regretful of what he had done earlier.

 His partiality was based on the blindness caused not by his physical deficiency but by his emotional attachments to his own sons. Therefore, his question kim akurvata sañjaya, “O Sanjaya, what did they do?” Sanjaya had been given mystical vision by Vyasadeva by which he was able to visualize the events on the battlefield of Kurukshetra and narrate them to Dhritarashtra.

 Dhritarashtra’s question to Sanjaya, “What did they do?” is self-answering or self-defeating since he has already said that they have come there to fight a war (yuyutsavaḥ), and then to ask, akurvata (what did they do) seems to be redundant. This question is like asking what people did at a restaurant—they ate. Why would somebody ask a question like this? They might suspect that there is something unusual at the restaurant that may cause the normal course of events to be jettisoned. For instance, if someone knew that terrorists had planted a bomb under a table in the restaurant and then saw people sit at that table, they might naturally ask, “What happened?”

 

In such a scenario, the expectation isn’t just that people would eat; there’s apprehension that something else, like the bomb exploding, might occur. The people went there intending to eat, but certain factors could alter the normal course of events.

 

Dhritarashtra suspects a similar torpedoing/sabotaging of the expected course of action because there is dharma-kshetra. He is apprehensive that his adharmic sons, under the influence of the holy place, may decide to arrive at a reconciliation. At one level, he doesn’t want the war because he knows that his sons being impious, vicious, and sinful are going to be destroyed as warned by the sages repeatedly, as also by Krishna who came as a peace messenger.  At one level, he does not want the war to take place, wondering whether dharma-kshetra will somehow prevent it.  He hopes that the holy place might somehow trigger his sons’ conscience which might still be present, leading them to arrive at some peace agreement. At another level, he also wants to win the war since his forces are stronger than the Pandavas.

 

Dhritarashtra is trapped between denying the inevitable (his adharmic sons’ defeat) and desiring the impossible (their victory). He is fearful that the war may not go off as expected and his sons, under the influence of the place of dharma may arrive at some armistice/peace treaty, hence his question, “kim akurvata?”

 

However, the place of dharma could not affect the adharmic Duryodhana who was beyond redemption. If the personal presence and persuasion of the person who makes all holy places holy, that is Krishna, could not change Duryodhana’s heart, then the holy place was unlikely to. In that direction, Dhritarashtra’s inquiry was not very substantial but still it is true that events did not transpire as expected.  Instead, it was Arjuna who had a pang of conscience, not Duryodhana. Because of the tailspin into which his emotions went, he refused to fight and that’s how the Bhagavad Gita was spoken.

 

“Kim akurvata”, what happened? is answered as Sanjaya starts narrating from the next verse.

 

This verse essentially states:

 

“At the holy place kuru-ksetra, with the troops assembled for fighting, what did my sons and the Pandavas do, O Sanjaya?”