Parashurama avatar – Brahmana, kshatriya and post-kshatriya phases

Sunday feast class at ISKCON, Chowpatty

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
So, I welcome all of you to today afternoon’s class on Dashavatar series where we are going to speak today about Parashurama.
So, I will speak about Parashurama in three parts. Basically dividing his life into three phases. It was his life as a Brahmana, then his life as an active Kshatriya and then his life as a Kshatriya as a, you could say, retired Kshatriya where he would make intermittent appearances.
And after my last couple of classes, several devotees told me that they like the question answers. So, I am going to keep a good amount of time for question answers. I will try to finish the class soon.
And of course, if you do not have question answers, I will continue the class. So, Parashurama, the word Parashu refers to a particular kind of weapon. He is often called in English as an axe, axe wielding avatar.
Parashu is a specific kind of axe, which is normally the word axe is used to denote a thing that is used to cut down trees. But Parashu is a special kind of axe, which is used not so much for cutting wood as a weapon in war. So, axes, lances, bows, arrows, maces, all these were different kinds of weapons that were used in the past in the warfare.
Now, Parashurama, the name etymologically is Parashu refers to the axe or a weapon like an axe used for fighting and Ram, the word Ram means Ramati, Ramayati, Itiram. Ramati means one who delights, Ramayati means one who gives delight. So, that Lord who delights and who gives delight, that Lord is called as Ram.
Madhvacharya in his Vishnu Tattva Vinirnaya, Vishnu Tattva Vinirnaya is a book which he has written explaining how to reconcile the various scriptural statements, which sometimes seem to talk about different Devatas as being supreme. Sometimes somebody may say, this Puran says that this Devata is supreme, this Puran says that this Devata is supreme. So, how do we reconcile it all? So, he explains that words in Sanskrit, like in other languages, they can be either common nouns or they can be proper nouns.
So, common noun means it’s a city. So, there can be hundreds of cities in India, there can be thousands of cities all over the world. Now within that, Mumbai is one particular city, Kolkata is another particular city, Melbourne is another city, New York is another city outside India.
So, when something refers to one particular object, it is a proper noun. Whereas a common noun is something which refers to a genre, to a category. So, city refers to a category in which there can be many places which can be referred to by the word city.
So, for example, now we refer to the word Shiva. Now Shiva as a common noun refers the meaning of the word, normally we think of Shiva means Lord Shankar. So, that is one understanding, here we are using the word Shiva as a proper noun.
That means we are using the word Shiva to refer to one particular person. Well, this is a valid usage, but if you look at the foundations of the words, Shiva has a particular Sanskrit meaning and Shiva refers to the one who is auspicious. Shivatva means auspiciousness.
So, the auspicious one. And if you look at Vishnu Sahasrana, one of the names of Lord Vishnu is also Shiva. Sarva, Sarva, Shiva.
So, Shiva. Now, how is it that normally we think of Vishnu and Shiva as to be two distinct persons. And sometimes there are sectarian fights between Vaishnavas and Saivites about who is particularly supreme.
So, we have to understand here that Shiva can be a proper noun and Shiva can be a common noun. Common noun means that it is referring to a particular category. So, when a particular name is referring to whom, we have to understand carefully.
So, when the scriptures talk about Shiva being supreme, they are not necessarily referring to Shiva, the person who is referred to by the proper noun, they are referring to the person who has the attribute of Shivatva, that auspiciousness. So, in that sense, the name Shiva does not always have to refer to Shankara. It can also refer to Vishnu.
Because the person who possesses the attributes, the maximum auspiciousness, if you look at the scriptures, that is Vishnu. Ganga is considered purifying and Lord Shiva takes the Ganga on his head and he understands that this is the Ganga which is coming from the Ram. Our subject here is not the subject of the Devatas and the supreme among Devatas, but I am talking about the word Parshuram and in that connection, I am talking about the word Ram.
So, the word Ram etymologically refers to one who gives pleasure and one who himself enjoys pleasure. Ramakti, Ramayati iti Ram. So, one who delights and one who gives delight, that person is Ram.
So, now from this perspective, if you look in the Padma Purana, there is a verse, satyananda chitatmani iti raapate raso parambrahma vidiyate. So, it is yogino ramante anantam, that absolute truth in which the yogis delight unlimitedly, that absolute truth is referred to as Ram. So, normally when we think of the word Ram, we think of that referring to Raghuvamshi Ram and that is the reference in terms of the proper noun and that is a perfectly valid reference.
But Ram, if we look at one who delights and one who gives delight, that can refer to any manifestation of the absolute truth. So, that is why we can have Balaram who is also in the 10th canto of Srimad Bhagavatam frequently referred to by the, in short as Ram. We have Krishna himself who is referred to as Radhikaraman Ram and we have Parashuram who is also at times in the Puranas referred to in brief by the name Ram.
So, many times when the antecedent is clear, that means say if I am talking about Parashuram and then I say he said this, then who am I referring to he, that is very clear. Because I am referring to Parashuram. But if I am talking about Parashuram said this, then Jamadagni said this and then this happened and then he said, immediately question who is he? So, if the antecedent who is being described previously is not clear, then it is required to specify if there is a description between Parashuram and Ram.
And then I say Ram said this, then normally people will think that Ram refers to Lord Ramachandra. But if I am going to refer to Parashuram as Ram, then I have to be clear whom I am referring to. So, in the Mahabharata also there is a sometimes some people create a confusion like this.
Now the Karna is a prominent character in the Mahabharata. He is the son of Kunti before her marriage. But there is also another Karna in the Mahabharata who is one of the brothers of Duryodhana.
So, among the 99 other brothers of Duryodhana, one of his brothers has the name Karna. So, now normally, this second Karna is not at all a prominent person in the Mahabharata. The second Karna is a fairly, he is just one of the brothers and he also is a part of Duryodhana’s nefarious schemes and he meets his death at the hands of Bhima.
So, now it is described whenever in the Mahabharata, it is that Karna spoke this or Karna spoke that or Karna did that. It is clear that who is the Karna that the Mahabharata specifically referring to? It is Duryodhana’s friend Karna. It is not Duryodhana’s brother Karna.
So, many times people who are in India, many people try to take the scriptures and they try to distort it for their own purposes. And they try to bring about some agendas within themselves. So, for example, there are different thinkers who perceive things in their particular ways.
Now it is said for those who have a hammer in their hands, everything seems to look like a nail. So, if with a hammer I can put something into a, I can hit a nail, but then once I get a capacity to fix a nail in the wall, I think a hammer will solve all my problems. So, they try to see everything as a nail and try to fit it.
So, people come to scripture with their own worldviews. They think, okay, this is the way to make sense of the world. This is the way to make sense of the world.
And when they come with that perspective, then they try to look at scripture also from that perspective. So, it is said, look at the world through the scripture. Don’t look at the scripture through the world.
That means that we have got certain experience in the world and we have a certain understanding which are useful for functioning in the world. But scripture, its true benefit comes to us when we open our head and heart to scripture and learn a different way of looking at things. When we let scriptures enhance our vision.
But say for example, if I have got some eyes, I have some defect in my eyes because of which I need to wear spectacles. Now, the spectacles, I should wear them so that I can look at the world. But if I start using my eyes to look at my spectacles, if my eyes are defective, then I cannot really see the spectacles also clearly, what to speak of anything else.
So, like that, right now, our vision is defective. And with this defective vision, if we try to look at scripture, then not only do we not understand scripture, but we misunderstand scripture. And it’s one thing to be in ignorance.
It’s another thing to be in ignorance about one’s ignorance. That means I am ignorant and I don’t know that I am ignorant. And the third thing is to be in ignorance about one’s ignorance and to claim that those who have knowledge are in ignorance.
That means I don’t have eyes and I can’t see anything and I have never seen anything. And somebody says, oh, you know, I have eyes, I can see this, I can see that. No, you are just bluffing.
There is nothing there to see. So, when we look at scripture through the world, then we often come up with a lot of misunderstandings. So, one of the misunderstandings about scripture comes in as in the Mahabharata, it is often depicted as if Karna was treated very unfairly on many occasions.
Now, yes, Karna did get a rod yield on various occasions, but then life gives a rod yield to everyone. The Pandavas, they also got a rod yield. Their father just passed away when they were young and he just came back to their kingdom.
And they had an envious cousin who was trying to poison them, who was trying to burn them alive. And they had not done anything wrong. So, we have to, you know, life is in one sense like a game.
Whatever cards we have got, we have to play those cards. We can’t lifelong keep complaining, oh, I have got this wrong, this wrong, this wrong. No, whatever it is, we have to start and play with that.
So, the point I am making here is about Karna and I am talking about nomenclature here before we go to the topic of Parashuram, which I will focus on as we move onwards. The point is, there are many occasions when Karna is defeated by various characters. Arjuna defeats him at least on five occasions.
Even Bhima defeats him thrice. He defeats Bhima once, but Bhima also defeats him thrice. So, one of the strategies that the partisans of Karna sometimes use to try to deflect away this defeat of Karna is they say, actually Bhima did not defeat the Karna who was the friend of Duryodhana, they defeated the Karna who was the brother of Duryodhana.
But there is no reason why the Mahabharata will suddenly refer to that Karna. If the Mahabharata were to refer to that Karna, it would say, okay, this is the Kuru Karna or this is Duryodhana’s brother Karna, some sort of antecedent will be given to describe that. So, similarly, with respect to Ram, normally within the culture, whenever we refer to Ram, the default reference is usually to Raghuvamshi Ram.
But if we are discussing about Parashuram, then if somebody talks about Ram, then that will understand that this is referring to Parashuram. So, now like that, if you look at the Bhagavatam, when he talks about Parashuram, it frequently refers to him as Ram also. And Parashuram is a character whom he is, of course, the Supreme Lord, but at the Bhagavatam, if we consider it as a book, his prominent role comes in the 9th canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam, wherein his appearance is described and his activities are described.
So, he is born, he appears in this world in a Brahmana family. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna talks about the world how janma karma cha me divyam. He says my appearance and my activities are transcendental.
And interestingly, this is 4.9 in the Bhagavad Gita where it says janma karma cha me divyam. But just three verses before that, in 4.6, he says ajopi sanavyatma. Ajopi sanavyatma means I am unborn.
Now, normally the word unborn, it is a little difficult to make sense of it. In today, if you look at the word in the dictionary, the word unborn is used normally in the sense of pre-born. That means unborn refers to the child who is in the mother’s womb.
And then the life of the unborn, maybe there is a document which shows how the child grows in the mother’s womb. So, the word unborn is used in the sense of pre-born. But when the Bhagavatam refers to the Supreme Lord as unborn, ajah, it is not referring to the state of being pre-born.
The word ajah is used here to signify the transcendence of the Lord. So, birth and death are considered to be complements. In the Vedic context, birth signifies the beginning of material existence, at least one term within material existence.
Birth signifies the beginning and death signifies the end. So, when some being is called as ajah, that means not that existence has not yet begun, not that it is referring to a pre-born state of existence, but rather it is referring to existence beyond birth, existence beyond the level of birth and death. And in that sense, both the Atma and the Paramatma, both are ajah.
So, Krishna refers even to the Atma as ajah. When he says in 2.20 that na hanyate hanyamane sharine, he says that, actually the other extreme, he says that the soul, when the body is destroyed, the soul is not destroyed. But in the same context, he says that soul is neither born, na jayate mriyate va kadachin, nayam bhutva bhavitavapne, huya ajo nityah sasvatoyam purano, na hanyate hanyamane sharine.
So, in 2.20, he says that the Atma is also ajah and the Paramatma is also ajah. But the difference between 4.6 Krishna specifies, ajopisan avyayatma bhutana eswaropisan, of all the other living beings, he is the eswara, he is the Supreme Lord. So, the point which I am making here is that the Supreme, that Parshuram comes in a Brahmana family, but he is not a Brahmana.
The Lord does not belong to any dynasty. All dynasties belong to him. The Lord, he may appear in a particular dynasty, but he does not belong to any particular dynasty.
Sometimes Ram is called as Raghuvamshi, Krishna is called as Chandravamshi. But it is simply their choice by which they descend in a particular dynasty. It is not that they belong to their particular dynasty.
It is not that their identity is determined by the dynasty in which they appear. Their identity is transcendental. They just choose to appear in a particular dynasty.
Similarly, the Supreme Lord is Parshuram is also transcendental. He chooses to appear in a Brahmana family. And as he appears in a Brahmana family, his father is Jamadagni.
And he grows up, he has several brothers, elder to him. And he has his mother, Renuka, and they are growing together. And as they are growing together, he lives a Brahmanical life.
But while living a Brahmanical life, he also has a martial side to him. Wherein he knows how to fight weapons, how to fight using weapons. Now, it is the Brahmanas, usually we sometimes think of Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra as something like water type divisions.
For example, here there is hot, in this container, if you go to a particular person’s house, in this tap hot water comes, in this tap cold water comes. So, it is like there are two different taps where two different kinds of water is coming. So, sometimes you think of okay, Brahmana is one category, Kshatriya is another category, Vaishya is another category, Shudra is another category.
Now, this is true, but actually, it is not a complete truth. Because no taxonomy can ever be translated into reality in literal terms. Taxonomy refers to system of classification.
So, within a system of classification, any system of classification that we take, when we, for example, if we look at the map of India, and okay, the India map is here, and here there is Pakistan, here there is Bangladesh, here there is Burma, here there is China. Now, on the paper when we have, the boundaries seem to be very clearly marked. But if we go down into the territory, it is not that clear.
Sometimes there may be a river, and now we say on this side of the river is India, this side of the river is Pakistan. But then if you decide, okay, how much of the river is India, how much of the river is Pakistan? You do not have a boundary in the water like that. So, any system of taxonomy, any system of classification that we have, it never translates directly into reality.
So, for example, the Pandavas are all Kshatriyas. But among the Kshatriyas, among the Pandavas, Bhima is an extremely Kshatriya-Kshatriya, whereas Yudhishthir is a Brahmana-Kshatriya. That means, they all are Kshatriyas, but within the Kshatriya, Bhima has an extremely bellicose attitude.
He is literally itching for a fight. He loves to fight. So, on the other hand, Yudhishthir is much more Brahmanical.
And that is why when we talk about a person being a Kshatriya or a Brahmana, it is not watertight. It is a continuum. And sometimes even a person who is a Brahmana might have, just like we have Yudhishthir as an example of a person who is a Kshatriya, but he has relatively more Brahmanical qualities.
Similarly, there can be Brahmanas who can have some extent of Kshatriya qualities. So, for example, Dronacharya was a Brahmana, but he knew how to fight and he fought. So, when he fought, usually his activity was to train people in fighting.
So, Brahmanas are usually teachers and he trained in fighting and when it was required, he was ready to fight, although he would not usually fight. So, now similarly, Parashurama, he knew how to fight. And yet at that time, he chose, he was born in the Brahmana family and he chose to act like a Brahmana most of the time.
So, at one particular point of time, now there are many incidents in his life, I would like to focus on particular points because we will not be able to go through his whole life. But suffice it to say that once by his obedience to his father, he pleased him and his father gave him special benedictions. So, the backstory is that his mother, she acted in somewhat of unchaste way and his father was angry.
Now the anger was more of a show of anger than the actuality of anger. And he wanted to demonstrate the principle of faithfulness and obedience. And when he wanted punishment for that indiscreet act, at that time, his other sons refused to act on that punishment and Parashurama acted.
So, then because he obeyed his father, Parashurama s father was very pleased and he blessed him specially. And then he became extremely powerful by that. At that time, there was a king named Kartiveer Arjuna.
Now in the Vedic culture, in any place, wherever there is power, there tend to be struggle, there can be power struggles. So, if there are different centres of power, if there is one person who is powerful, there is another person that is powerful, then often there are struggles between the different people who are having powers. So, in the Vedic culture, the two centres of power were the Brahmanas and the Kshatriyas.
So, the Brahmanas had intellectual power, they had spiritual power. The Kshatriyas had political power, they had administrative power. And the way both of them were harmonised was through a spiritual vision of things.
So, the Bhagavad Gita uses the word Rajarshi. In 4.2 it says, in this way, this knowledge was given to the Rajarshis. Now the word Rajarshi, it is a combined word, it is a compound word as it is called in English and Sanskrit.
Raja and Rishi, King and Rishi. So, now if you look at it from the Sanskrit point of view, Rajarshi, it translates as royal sages, Rajarshi. Now Prabhupada translates it as saintly kings.
So, saintly kings, if you take it literally, the Sanskrit for saintly kings will be Rishi Raj. So, the Sanskrit in the Bhagavad Gita is Rajarshi. But the point is whether it is Rajarshi or Rishiraj, the Prabhupada translates with the emphasis that they are kings.
They are kings, but they are saintly. Whereas the literal Sanskrit translation would be royal sages, the focus would be on the sages and royal would be an adjective describing them. But the point is that the Kshatriyas are not just meant to be outer rulers.
The ruler part is conveyed through the Raja. Along with that, they are also, they are not just meant to be material or outer rulers, they are also meant to be inner seers. So, the seer and the ruler, when the two are combined together, then they become transformers.
Now, when the seer and the ruler, when they are divorced, when there is a ruler who has no proper vision of how to do things, then they don’t become transformers, they become deformers. They make things worse and worse. So, the idea of how the two centres of power, the Kshatriya and the Brahmana, how they are to be brought together, the way to bring them together is by recognising that the Kshatriyas, if they develop spiritual vision, if they have spiritual knowledge, then they will understand what the Brahmanas are saying.
See, none of us has a complete picture of reality. So, for example, if I am looking at you, if something is behind you, I can see that. But if you are looking at me and something is behind me, you can see that, I can’t see that.
So, none of us, all of us are finite beings, and none of us has a complete vision of things. So, Kshatriyas view things from the practical, managerial, down-to-earth perspective. But, as we may see the down-to-earth practical perspective is very good.
But the fact of life is that at the practical level, problems are never going to end. At the practical level, things are always going to go on and on and on. So, we have to rise from the day-to-day level of reality to a spiritual level of reality.
So, the Kshatriyas, their vision is primarily focused on this world. Whereas the Brahmanas, their vision is focused on the other world, on the world beyond, and how to attain that world. So, now, if there are Kshatriyas who are Raja Rishis, then what does that mean? They know how to act in this world.
At the same time, they also know that the ultimate goal of life is beyond this world. And they don’t let the immediate practical considerations consume all their consciousness. They don’t take their decisions based on only what is relevant in the immediate future.
But they look for the long term and they make decisions based on that long term. So, that capacity to perceive the long term or to at least appreciate the long term, that comes when the Kshatriyas also have some Brahminical element. And the primary aspect of the Brahminical element is respect for Brahmanas.
So, when the Kshatriyas have respect for Brahmanas, then whatever the inputs in the Brahmanas give, the Kshatriyas can appreciate that and the Kshatriyas can decide how to apply it in real life. But when the Kshatriyas consider the Brahmanas to be just impractical, otherworldly, living in an ivory tower, not connected with anything practical, then there is a disjoint within the Brahmanas and Kshatriyas and that disjoint leaves the Kshatriyas with no protection against their own hunger for power. Everybody in this world, we are all conditioned souls.
So, we all have a hunger for power, we have a hunger for wealth, we have a hunger for pleasure. And this hunger for power can often make us do undesirable things. So, it is the Brahmanas who act as a check for the Kshatriyas’ hunger for power.
And conversely, the Brahmanas may tend to become too otherworldly, thinking only, ultimately we have to go beyond this world and do this, we have to do that. But we also have to contribute to this world. It’s not just that we have to go beyond this world, we have to go beyond this world, but while we are living in this world, we want to make positive contributions here.
So, Prabhupada said that we want Brahmanas with the Kshatriya spirit, because the Brahmanas will just be happy studying their Shastra and not doing anything for society practically. No, we study scripture, but we share scriptural wisdom with others. And sharing scriptural wisdom is not just a matter of giving classes.
Sharing scriptural wisdom also means helping people apply the scriptural wisdom in their own lives and creating systems by which people can apply that wisdom. So, for example, if we say that we should hear the Bhagavad Gita regularly. But suppose, there is no place within 100 kilometres where I am staying where I can hear the Bhagavad Gita.
Then what do I do? I want to hear the Bhagavad Gita. But if somebody is telling us we should hear the Bhagavad Gita, then there should be some classes going on in our vicinity. Then that’s where we can go and hear the classes.
So, that means the Brahmanas do the aspect of sharing knowledge, but there is a whole structure required for sharing that knowledge and that structure, social structure is created by the Kshatriyas. So, this is how traditionally there is a cooperation between the Brahmanas and Kshatriyas. But as I said, the Kshatriyas, there is always a possibility that because of their hunger for power, they may become domineering.
And this is what had happened to Kartavira Arjuna. So, this Arjuna is different from the Arjuna of Mahabharata. This Kartavira Arjuna was so drunk with his own power that he decided, he felt that whatever is good, that is meant for my enjoyment.
Whatever looks good to me, I should get it immediately. So, he went to the ashram of Jamadagni, who was Parashuram’s father and he received the hospitality of Jamadagni, who saw him as a Kshatriya, saw him as a king and offered him all respect. And then eventually, he had a Kamadhenu cow, cow which could give whatever was desired and with that cow, he satisfied him profusely.
But eventually, he got so greedy and hungry that he just grabbed the cow and he wanted to take it away for his own benefit. And then eventually, the whole conflict escalated to such a level that Kartavira Arjuna, he had, it all became a terrible conflict. And once it became a terrible conflict that Parashuram, he came to know about what had happened and he came and Kartavira Arjuna, he was, he actually, it is unthinkable that a Kshatriya would actually kill a Brahmana and a Brahmana sage who had just offered him wonderful hospitality.
But that’s what was done. And once it went on, became like a battle here, battle there and Kartavira Arjuna’s sons came and they took revenge and they wreaked vengeance on the hermitage and Parashuram became furious. Parashuram at that time said that not only will I destroy the Kshatriyas, he said that this is a symptom, that this mentality, the Kshatriyas is a symptom of a malaise, of a disease that is spread throughout the social body.
So, sometimes, we may have some small swelling on our body and then we have some swelling somewhere. You may think this is a small swelling, but suppose you go to the doctor and the doctor tells us, this is actually cancer. Now, we will be shocked if we have this cancer.
But then we may say the swelling might just be on our hand somewhere, but the cancer may be spread in various parts of the body. So, at that time, that one small swelling at one place, it signifies a disease that is present throughout the body. And then the surgery that may be required may not just be to remove that particular swelling.
The surgery that is required may be required at various parts of the body, wherever the cancer may be present. So, similarly, what Parashuram observed, when he saw this despotic mentality of the Kshatriyas, see for the Kshatriyas, relatively speaking, it is the Brahmanas whom they are meant to respect. And relatively speaking, the Vaishyas and the Shudras cannot really oppose the Kshatriyas much.
So, if the Kshatriyas are so, so, so ruthless, even in dealing with Brahmanas, then that is representative of how they will deal with others. If somebody is so powerful and still they are so ruthless with them, then those who are powerless, how they will deal with them? So, Parashuram saw that this was a very deadly cancer within the Kshatriya body politic. And therefore, he decided that this has to be purged.
And he decided that the Kshatriyas who have got this corruption because of the hunger for power, who think that they can do anything and everything and nobody is going to challenge them, this mentality has to be purged. And thus, he fought and it is said he destroyed 21 generations of Kshatriyas. Now, what does this 21 generations mean? We have to understand that the Bhagavatam is a book of poetry.
A book of poetry means that the Bhagavatam is, of course, scripture, it is a revealed book, but when it is a revealed book, it is revealed in a particular style, in a particular genre. So, what that means is that every single thing that is there in scripture, that we have to see the context to understand it. So, for example, when Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita 2.69, the Bhagavad Gita is also a poetic work of philosophy.
So, for example, in 2.69, when Krishna says that, यानिशा सर्वभूतानाम् तस्याम् जागति सय्यम् यस्याम् जागति भूतानि सानिशा पश्यतों मुणे That which is night for all living beings is day for the self-controlled and that which is the day for the self-controlled is night for all living beings. Now, what does this mean? How do you take it literally? Day is the same for everyone and night is the same for everyone, unless of course, Krishna is saying all people in India are self-controlled, all people in America who are at the other end of the globe. So, when it is day in India, it is night in America.
When it is day in America, it is night in India. So, is he talking about geographical time zones over here? Not at all. If you look at the context, what Krishna is referring to is in terms of self-control.
So, the day refers to the area of interest and activity and night refers to the area of disinterest and inactivity. So, people who are materialists, they are interested in sense gratification, in worldly pleasures and spiritualists are not so interested in those pleasures and spiritualists are interested in spiritual advancement, but materialistic people are not interested in that. So, the point is Krishna’s words here cannot be taken literally.
That which is night for all living beings, it is not that Krishna is talking about some twisting of the cosmic clock. He is simply talking about the area of interest and lack of interest. So, similarly, when it talks about 21 generations of Kshatriyas being killed.
So, it does not mean, as I told earlier that sometimes people look at scripture through the world and often when they look at scripture through the world, they say that, oh, scripture is so brutal. So, there is some person, some prominent Maharashtrian scholar only who has written a book, he is criticising Parashuram and he says, you know, how brutal that for the killing of, for one king’s activity, he killed 21 generations and they have created their own fantasy about 21 generations, you know, how he must have killed children, how he must have killed this, he killed everyone. Now, even when Parashuram is fighting, he is a principal Kshatriya.
So, a Kshatriya, today, you know, there is so much brutal violence in society or sometimes in the name of religion, that sometimes when we hear about violence in scripture also, people become very paranoid about any references to violence. So, for example, there is terrorist violence that happens and often religion is associated with violence. So, they say, oh, religion is causing so many wars in this world.
No, it is not religion that is causing the wars. You know, what we call as religion, it is not just one entity. Within the name of religion, there are so many things that are happening.
If we say religion is causing war, then that way we can say, you know, science is causing war. Because ultimately, even if we talk about terrorists, the terrorists, they are able to influence the world today only because they have so much science and technology. The science and technology would not have been there, then terrorists in one part of the world would not have been able to influence the world.
So, if we start judging all of science based on, say, the Hiroshima bombings or the eugenics, where certain races were tried to be annihilated, or certain disastrous projects within science, that is a misrepresentation. So, what happens in the name of religious violence, what happens in the name of terrorism, that is completely opposed to the Kshatriya principles of violence. The Kshatriya principle of war, what is it? Kshatriya principle of war is, you fight with an opponent who is equipped, who is equal and who is alert.
Who is equipped, it is not that when an opponent does not have any weapons, we attack them. And is equal, it is not that an armed opponent attacks an unarmed opponent. Sorry, equal means it is not that a Maharathi will attack an ordinary soldier.
And alert, it is like Ashwathama, he killed the warriors when they were sleeping and that is horrendous. So, Kshatriya warfare means, a Kshatriya goes and challenges other Kshatriyas, or both the Kshatriyas come together at a particular time, just like the Kurukshetra war, it was not that they attacked the other citizens and they ransacked the kingdom. No, they decided we are going to have a war, let us fight at this particular place in the war.
So, it was planned, this is the area and those who have been trained throughout their life, they will come and fight. So, they are equipped, they are equal and they are alert. Now, if you look at terrorists, it is exactly the opposite.
The terrorists attack people who are not equipped, who are not equal and who are not alert. So, it is completely opposite. And that is why we cannot equal the two in any way.
What to speak of equalling the two, it is completely the opposite. All religions may talk about that same one God, but different people have different conceptions of God. And often the conception of God that people have is more a projection of their own ideas rather than a revelation of scripture.
So, now scripture gives a certain description of God and we have to understand God from scriptural revelation. But we have often certain conceptions and we project our conceptions on God. And when we project our conceptions on God, then people get a particular conception of God, which can be horrendously wrong.
So, although all religions ultimately talk about one God, but the God of the transcendentalists is very different from the God of the terrorists. That means the terrorists may say we are fighting in the name of God, but what they are talking about is not the God who is the absolute truth. That their God is simply a projection of their own imagination, their own hunger for power, their own greed, their own brutal instincts.
And that is why that is a completely different genre. And we can know, so what is happening, why am I talking about all this? So, for example, this is such a brutal thing that there are these terrorists when they plunder, when they plunder a particular kingdom and after they plunder the kingdom, or plunder a particular city or a particular town or particular village, then they grab everything that is available as the spoils of the war. So, they either enslave the men, they violate the women, they grab the children, make them into slaves.
Now, when they do this, there are certain groups of terrorists who are so twisted in their minds that after they capture the women, before they violate the women, they pray to Allah thanking him and then they violate the women. So, what kind of God are they praying to if they are thinking that God is giving them a blessing to violate women? So, this kind of God is no God at all actually. This is not the God that is talked about in any scripture.
This is a God that is simply a projection of their imagination. That is why when we say that when people talk about religious violence, no, it is not that all religious violence is the same. There is religious violence, which is completely tamasic and what we see in today’s terrorists, what is done by today’s terrorists is totally tamasic.
And the Vedic culture talks about violence, which is not like the terrorist violence, rather this is a violence which is required to end this terrorist violence. So, Kartavir Arjuna was such a brutal person, that a sage, who was defenceless, who was not at all violent, Kartavir Arjuna and his sons went and killed such a sage. So, they were acting in terrorist ways.
And what did Parashuram do? Parashuram when it is said that he killed 21 generations, it is not that, you know, it is every house he went and he saw anywhere that a Kshatriya was going to chop off their head. No, what it means is, he challenged 21 generations, generation after generation after generation, he challenged them to a fight. And those who accepted the authority, that those who accepted his authority, actually one of the principles of Kshatriya is that if somebody surrenders, one gives them shelter.
And it is not a Kshatriya’s attack behind the back. It is not Kshatriya’s attack defenceless or unequal or unequipped persons. No, there is a fair fight and after the fair fight, whoever is the better fighter, the better fighter wins.
So, the point of Parashuram was not just to eliminate Kshatriyas. The point was to eliminate those Kshatriyas who were given to such hunger for power that they were ready to give up all principles. We see the Bhagavad Gita, it is a book which is spoken at the start of a war.
At the same time, there is not a single mention of any war strategy in the Bhagavad Gita. You know, if the enemy attacks like this, you attack like that. If you do like this, you do like that.
No, there is not a single war strategy mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita. So, the Bhagavad Gita, as I mentioned in an earlier class, the Bhagavad Gita is not a book of violence. The Bhagavad Gita is not a book of silence.
The Bhagavad Gita is a book of transcendence. Not violence, not silence, but transcendence. For the purpose of transcendence, sometimes violence will be required.
For the purpose of violence, sometimes tolerance will be required, whatever it is. But the purpose is transcendence. Similarly, Parashuram’s purpose in fighting and destroying 21 generations of Kshatriyas was to, in 21 generations, he destroyed all those elements of the Kshatriyas who were exploiting Kshatriya power and position.
And in this way, he brought order back in the world. This was his phase as an active Kshatriya. And subsequently, when every avatar of the Lord, he has a particular mission, and he has a particular phase within which that mission is executed.
So, by the time his period ended, then after that, the next one of the leader avatars is Ram. So, there are references to Parashuram in various Puranas. And Parashuram is also referred to in the Ramayana and in the Mahabharata.
So, I will just talk here from the Ramayana’s perspective, that in the Ramayana, it is mentioned that after Lord Ram went with Vishwamitra Muni to the forest and Vishwamitra Muni acted as a transcendental matchmaker. He took Ram to Sita and then he arranged for him to win the, he arranged for him to compete in the Swayamvar and he won the hand of Sita. Then after that, all the citizens of Ayodhya, all the heart was won by Ram.
All the citizens of Mithila, their heart was won. And then after that, that bow of Shiva, which was given, it was called the Trambaka Karmuka Bhanjaka. Lord Ram not only strung the bow, but he broke the bow at that time.
Then Sita offered her garland to Lord Ram. So, in the Nama Ramayana, this whole series of events is described till the point of the marriage of Sita. And after that, it is described, Bhargava Darpa Vinashaka Rama.
So, Bhargava Darpa Vinashaka, this is Bhargava, here refers to Parashurama. Parashurama was a Brahmana and many times in the Vedic tradition, people are referred to not just by their immediate proper names, but also by their antecedents. So, Arjuna is referred to sometimes as Kaunteya, sometimes he is referred to as Bharata Rashabha.
So, Parashurama is sometimes referred to by his reference to his father, Jamadagniya, Jamadagni, the son of Jamadagni, Jamadagniya. Or because he is a Brahmana, and the Brahmana dynasty comes largely from Guru, so he is referred to as Bhargava. So, here Lord Ram is glorified as Bhargava Darpa Vinashaka Rama.
So, Darpa is arrogance, Vinashaka is the destroyer. So, Lord Ram destroyed the pride of Parashurama. So, what happened here is that this particular Karmukha Bhanjaka Rama, that particular bow which Ram broke, that was a bow which most Kshatriyas were not even able to lift, what to speak of strength and what to speak of break.
So, when that news came up, and Parashurama, he descended. He was living in the Himalayas performing Tapasya, he was living on top of mountain performing Tapasya. And then when he heard that there is such a powerful Kshatriya who actually broke this bow, he came down and he intervened in the path of Ram.
So, actually, when he came there and he was furious, he says, who is this Kshatriya upstart who has come with so much power? He says, I will, I will crush him. And then he challenged Ram for a fight. And he says, you have lifted up this, you have broken this bow of Shiva, but greater than Shiva is Vishnu.
So, I have got a bow of Vishnu, Vishnu chaap. Let us see if you can use this, you can string this and you can shoot an arrow using this. So, at that time, Lord Ram just took that bow and took that arrow and he effortlessly strung it and he has pointed it straight at Parashurama.
And Parashurama saw the sheer prowess. So, when the Lord also appears, he does not always reveal his transcendental identity. So, it is not only that when the Leela is going on, it is not only that the ordinary people cannot recognise the Lord.
It is not just that sometimes even the devotees may not recognise the Lord. But it is sometimes that even the Lord cannot recognise the Lord. So, Parashurama is also Vishnu, Parashurama is also the Supreme Lord, Ram is also the Supreme Lord.
But sometimes the Lord may not recognise himself. So, we see something similar happening in Krishna Leela also, when Krishna takes, expands himself as all the Gopas. At that time, all the Gopas are Krishna, but for a considerable amount of time, even Balram does not recognise that all these Gopas are Krishna.
Eventually, at one particular time when the cows are on top of the hill and the cows at the bottom and suddenly the cows just rush down to be with the cows and the cows rush up and see this irresistible force of attraction between them, which is far, far more than the average attraction. So, at that time, seeing that attraction, Balram starts thinking, why are they attracted like this? And then he says, oh, these are actually, these cows are attracted to the cows, not because they are seeing the cows as their own children, they are seeing that this is Krishna, although they do not recognise it as Krishna, but it is Krishna who is manifesting as these cows. And then, what is going on over here? He goes and asks.
So, the point is, sometimes, by the Leela of the Lord, the way he wants his pastimes to go on, sometimes the Lord may not recognise another manifestation of the Lord. So, that is why here, when Parashuram comes in front of Ram, Parashuram does not recognise who Ram is initially, he just thinks it is another Kshatriya. But when Ram strings the Vishnu chaap and then he is ready to shoot arrows, at that time, he goes, oh, what is this? This is astonishing.
And then he recognises, oh, this is Vishnu. This is the Supreme Lord. And then he folds his hands and he offers obeisances to him.
And then, Lord Ram says that, you know, when I have strung a bow, strung an arrow on a bow, I cannot just let it go. What should I do? One of the names of Lord Ram is Amogh. Amogh Sharam.
Amogh Sharam means one whose arrows never go in vain. So, it is described, He is very beautiful. He has a very beautiful face.
He has a very beautiful form. He has a very beautiful heart. Extremely powerful.
And that Lord, Amogh Sharam, his arrows never go in vain. So, he says, Lord Ram says, I have strung this arrow on my bow. What should I do now? Where should I shoot it? So, you are a Brahmana and I have not shot at you.
But since you asked me to string this bow, tell me where I should shoot it. So, then Parashuram, he folds his hands and he says, please shoot it at all the fruity desires in my heart. At all the self-centred desires, selfish desires that are there in my heart, please destroy those desires.
And then Parashuram tells Ram that, now that the world has got a competent Kshatriya ruler, now my role is over. Now, you take over and you take charge of the world. So, then this way, Parashuram, he still stays on the earth and he reappears also in the Mahabharata.
But his prominent role in terms of disciplining the Kshatriyas, he ends it at that time. So, the avatar of Parashuram demonstrates primarily this purpose of the Lord to keep this world on the path of Dharma and those who are meant to be the protectors of Dharma, primarily the Kshatriyas and the Brahmanas. So, the Brahmanas are meant to be the martial protectors, Kshatriyas are to be meant to be the intellectual protectors and to keep both of them harmonised together.
So, he descends as a Brahmana, but he plays the role of the Kshatriya when it is required. And he again returns to the role of a Brahmana, performing austerities and teaching knowledge. And in that way, he demonstrates his concern for the world.
And these various avatars, they come for various reasons. Kunti Maharani in the prayers of Queen Kunti II in the 8th canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam, from 1.8.32 to 1.8.35, she talks about various reasons why the avatars descend. And the last reason she gives is, bhavesmin klishyamananam vidyakamakarmabhi shravanusmaranarhani karishyanitikechana She says that bhava asmin klishyamananam.
In this world, different people are suffering various kinds of miseries. But bhavesmin klishyamananam vidyakamakarmabhi. Because of ignorance when people are suffering, the Lord descends, not just to restore order at that time.
But when he performs pastimes in the world, those pastimes can be heard by people again and again. Shravanusmaranarhani. We can hear about them, we can remember them, and we can worship the Lord.
This way, he frees us from the misconceptions that bind us to this world, and our heart becomes attracted to him and then we can attain his eternal abode. So, the Lord descends for both these purposes, for establishing order in this world and for demonstrating transcendence in this world by which we can become attracted to him and we can attain him. So, I’ll summarise.
I started by talking about how Parashurana’s life, there is a Brahmana phase, there is an active Kshatriya phase, and then there is a withdrawn Kshatriya phase. And I discussed about the name Ram. Now, there is a proper noun and there is a common noun.
So, whenever the devatas are referred to as supreme, it is not in the sense of a proper noun referring to a particular person, but it is referring to a particular attribute. Like Shiva is not just referring to Lord Shankara, Shiva also refers to Vishnu, as the Vishnu Sahasranama says. So, like that, similarly, the word Rama as a common noun, it refers to the aspect of the absolute truth who delights and who gives delight.
And although the proper noun, commonly it refers to Lord Ramachandra, Gomeshi Ram, but Ram can refer to Parashurama, it can refer to Balarama, it can refer to Krishna also as Radhika Rama and Ram. And we have to look at the context. And then we discussed about how Karna, he is, there is another Karna who is Duryodhana’s brother, but the Mahabharata prominently refers to Duryodhana’s friend Karna, not Duryodhana’s brother Karna.
And we need to see the world through scripture, not see scripture through the world. Otherwise, whatever conditioning we have, we will impose our conditioned vision on scripture and then rather than scripture freeing us from conditioning, scripture study may reinforce our conditioning. And for that purpose, we discussed about how the story of Parashurama is a Brahmana, there are two centres of power, Brahmanas and Kshatriyas.
And the balance between them was through the point of the Kshatriyas being outer rulers, but they also be inner seers, Raj, Rishi, the combination of a seer and a ruler that makes them transformers, social transformers, you can elevate. But when they are not seers, then they can become extremely dangerous, because they have a hunger for power. And when that happens, then at that time, who can correct them? Those who are above them, Brahmanas, they have to take aggressive action to correct them at times.
So, that’s what had happened when although Parashurama was living as a obedient son of a Brahmana, doing his Brahmanical duties. But when he saw that the Brahmanas and Kshatriyas had become so despotic, that they had just killed a defenceless sage, then he saw that this was a symptom of a cancer that pervaded the whole Kshatriya body. And that’s why he decided to eliminate that cancer, all its traces.
And he challenged 21 generations of Kshatriyas and whoever was despotic, he killed them. And in this way, he rid this malice. So, in that connection, we discussed that all violence is not the same.
The God of the transcendentalists is not the same as the God of the terrorists. Many people’s conception of God is not coming from the revelation of scripture. It is coming from the projection of their own imagination.
And we discussed how Kshatriya violence and terrorist violence, they are completely different. Kshatriya warfare is based on fight between those who are equipped, those who are equal and those who are alert, whereas terrorists attack exactly opposite. Those who are not equipped, those who are not equal and not alert.
So, we cannot conflate or confuse the two. And eventually, after he fought and he rid the world of these power hungry Kshatriyas, then he withdrew. And when Lord Ram appeared, we discussed how the Leela of the Lord is such that sometimes even the Lord may not recognise himself when he comes in another manifestation.
But Parashuram initially challenged Ram. But when he saw the powers of Ram in effortlessly stringing the Vishnu chaap and pointing an arrow at him and being ready to shoot the arrow, at that time he recognised this is the Supreme Lord. And he said, now it is your time, it is your terrain.
And he says, I will withdraw now. So, please destroy. So, when he says that, please destroy any futile desires in my heart, what that means is that he was a Brahmana who had been acting like a Kshatriya.
But he says, now, there is no more need for me to act as a Kshatriya. Kshatriyas often have futile desires to go to heaven, to get power, to get fame. He says, please destroy those desires in my heart.
And in this way, we discuss how the Lord descends firstly to establish dharma in this world and thereby create a legacy of his pastimes by hearing which, by remembering which, we can become purified and we can eventually attain him. Thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments? Yes.
In the old Kshatriyas, there is a verse in the Rig Veda which describes the qualities of a Kshatriya. But it does not talk anything about that he has to protect religion. The verse discusses other qualities.
But it does not talk anything about that he has to protect religion. But essentially, Kshatriya has to protect religion, right? Okay. So, the Rig Veda verse that describes the characters of Kshatriya, it does not talk so much about how Kshatriya has to protect dharma.
Yeah. See, literally speaking, the word Kshatriya means Kshatrayate iti Kshatriya. Kshatra is heard.
Trayate means one who protects from hurt. So, now when we say Brahmana, Brahmana is Brahma janati iti Brahmana. So, now Brahma janati, one who knows Brahma.
See, no definition can be inclusive. Definitions have to be concise. So, when we say Brahma janati iti Brahmana, the definition cannot include what is a Brahmana or what is Brahma.
When you are talking about Brahma janati iti Brahmana, we are talking about Brahmana, at that time we cannot include what is the definition of Brahman. So, the primary protection, primary role of Kshatriya is to protect, protect from injury. Now, what is an injury? That will vary from time, place, circumstance.
So, usually we think of injury in terms of physical injury. Now, one person attacks another and beats them up. But there can be financial injury.
If somebody cheats, I mean, there can be somebody cheats and robs money, that is financial injury. If somebody maligns and spreads rumours, assassinates someone s character, that can also injure, that is also injury. So, similarly, if somebody just mentally tortures someone, not too much, speak bad, speak bad, discourage, even that can be a kind of abuse.
And similarly, there can be spiritual abuse. So, the word dharma, we often think of dharma in a very restricted sense. See, Prabhupada told us that dharma means that which is our nature.
So, that which makes us, us, that is dharma. But dharma, that is definitely as a foundational definition. But there are various aspects of dharma.
The Bhagavad Gita itself talks about kula dharma. It talks about jati dharma. It talks, the first chapter talks about kula dharma, jati dharma.
It talks about the essential conflict which Arjuna has is between his kula dharma and his kshatriya dharma. So, dharma in a broad sense means order. And there is order in nature.
And there are actions which we do, which can contribute to maintaining the order or there are actions which can disrupt that order. So, whenever that order is disrupted, in any way, that causes injury. So, whenever the order of nature is disrupted, that causes injury.
Some kind of injuries may be gross and visible, such as physical injury. But emotional injury, in a person who is emotionally hurt or emotionally wounded, they may externally appear to be healthy. But they may be terribly, terribly hurt.
So, there are various kinds of protection. And in the concise definition of kshatriya, although our universe is describing the qualities of a kshatriya, the specific point of the protection of dharma may not be mentioned. But the point is, protection from injury comes when order is maintained.
And maintenance of order is dharma. So, here, kshatatrayate iti kshatriya, or if you talk about the qualities of a kshatriya as mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita, there also, the focus is on preventing the injury, on protecting people in a resourceful way, in a gallant way, in a heroic way, by which they are protected from injury. So, in the protection from injury and the qualities required for protecting them from injury, the aspect of protection of dharma is implicit.
Okay. Thank you. Yes.
Where is the mic? Okay, it is gone. I have also two or three questions. First of all, the fight should, what was the rule of the warfare in that fight? Fight should be between two equals.
But in the battle of Kurukshetra itself, this rule was violated. So, would you like to comment on it? One question at a time. One question at a time.
Alright. So, in the battle of Kurukshetra itself, the rule of fighting between equals is violated. So, how is that? Yes, at the start of the Kurukshetra war, initially, when the Kauravas and the Pandavas were about to start fighting, by Kauravas and Pandavas, they are referring to the two armies basically.
So, at that time, Duryodhana came there. So, basically, there were two commanders who were meeting. The two commanders were Dhrishtadyumna on the Pandavas side and Bhishma on the Kauravas side.
And at that time, Duryodhana came there. And normally, when the commanders meet, Duryodhana has no business there, literally speaking. Just like, Dhrishtadyumna has no business there.
He can go and report. Just like you say, if in India-Pakistan, there is a conflict, it is not that when the two secretaries of defence or two heads of state, army generals are meeting, the Prime Minister does not have to go there. So, Duryodhana went there and he told the Pandavas, he told Dhrishtadyumna, remember the codes of war and you should always fight according to the codes of war.
So, Dhrishtadyumna was just about to nod. He said, of course. But then he started thinking.
He said, you know, the Kauravas themselves have acted so many times in horrendously unethical ways. You know, they are trying to burn the Pandavas when they were alive. What kind of a code is that? So, he said, he told him that we will not be the first to violate the Kshatriya codes.
But if you violate them first, we will not hold ourselves back. So, the first major violation, there were some minor infractions that might have happened in the heat of the war. But the first major, it is just like even in sports, sometimes in the heat of the movement, sometimes somebody may do something wrong.
So, it is like say one player is, one batsman is running between the wickets and they are running and suddenly the fielder comes in and the fielder just charges in between the batsman and the batsman gets knocked over and then the batsman gets injured or whatever. Now, at a particular time, it may be a little difficult to know whether a person did this intentionally or unintentionally. Or even if it was like in the heat of the passion, somebody did that.
That is one thing. But you know, if, say if you know a little bit about cricket history, there was a time when there was a body line series, where the team planned in such a way to attack the body of the batsman and to injure them. Now, that is not unintentional.
That is clearly unintentional and that was in violation of the code. So, the point is, what I am making is, in the heat of the passion, sometimes there might have been some minor infractions that might have happened earlier. But the first major violation of Kshatriya code happened on the 13th day, when Abhimanyu was singled out and killed by six warriors attacking simultaneously.
And that was a brutal violation. And once that violation took place, then the Pandavas did not hold themselves back. And it happened only once.
The next day, when Arjuna penetrated into the Kaurava rank in order to take revenge and kill Jayadratha, at that time also, so many Kshatriyas attacked him simultaneously. It was not just one after one after one. Multiple times they were attacking.
At one particular time, Arjuna’s horses got tired and Arjuna had to get off the horse so that Krishna could rest and rejuvenate the horses. And at that time, all his opponents who were on their horses, their chariots, their elephants, they kept attacking him. And Arjuna had to hold them back without any charioteer, without any chariot.
And he did that. He did not complain at that time. Oh, you are unfair, you are fighting.
No. So, once the Kauravas violated the codes and on two successive days, they violated brutally. On first day, they actually killed Abhimanyu.
Second day also, they tried to kill Arjuna. So, after that, the Pandavas did not hold themselves back. And they also checked it.
They also countered it later on. And again, there are also scales of violation. There are scales of violation.
That means, the kind of thing that the Kauravas did in killing Abhimanyu, that was a very maliciously planned operation. And because they did that, eventually, when Karna was on his chariot’s wheel, was trying to get his chariot wheel out of the ground, Krishna told him that, Karna, whatever morality you have used for fighting in this war against the Pandavas, Arjuna will use that same morality. That same morality and he fought and killed.
So, it is the Kauravas who had violated the Kshatriya codes right from the beginning, even before the war, and even in the war, they violated the Kshatriya codes first. And that’s how the Pandavas retaliated in kind. And that was the agreement of that particular war that if the Kauravas violate, then the Pandavas also violate.
Does it answer your question? Yes, sir. My second question is that one of the type of war is asymmetric war. By giving two instances of history, for example, the fight between Mughals and Marathas and the fight between Americans and Vietnams.
Would you like to comment on this? Okay. So, you are asking about asymmetric wars in history? Yeah. Modern Kshatriya, modern warfare is more about winning or at least not losing, whatever happens.
So, often nowadays in modern warfare, very little is followed according to proper principles of warfare. So, even what to speak of India, even if you go back 1000 years or a few 100 years, even in Europe, when the wars would be fought, people would have a certain sense of honour when they would fight. But unfortunately, that sense of honour is very much lost.
And now often, wars are fought for many reasons apart from any gain for the people in general. Often wars are fought because the weapon manufacturers want to have their have their business going on. Often wars are fought because a victory in the war can distract the people’s mind from other bigger problems that are there in society.
Wars are fought because the politicians want to gain political capital through the through the martial image that comes from fighting a war. So, often the war is fought against someone who is not at all equal in the fight. When this happens, this is unfortunate.
This is not the way war should be fought. But the point is we have to live in the world the way it is. So, when we talk about say asymmetric wars, we have Shivaji Maharaj, he had a very small army as compared to the army of the Mughals at that time.
But then he fought. And then if there is an asymmetric war and if that has to be fought, so that means if we are on the stronger side, it’s not that we use a disproportionate force to crush others. But if you are on the weaker side, then we have to have appropriate strategies.
So, one of the strategies of Shivaji Maharaj was that he instead of fighting on chariot, he would fight with horses. Although he was a Chhatrapati, he practically never used chariots because the strength of his attack was his speed and a horse itself can move much faster than a horse that has to drag a chariot along. So, there are various things.
So, one of the main reasons he could succeed was that because he was so fast in his attack and his retreat after the attacks or his moving from one place to another place to attack. So, if there is an asymmetric war to be fought, then there has to be appropriate strategies that have to be adopted. And that’s how there are principles.
But one of the main reasons of Mahabharata is that we should not ourselves violate principles first. But if the opponent is fighting dirty, then we cannot just think that I will stick to principles and then I will be destroyed. It doesn’t matter.
No, if at the ground level, if the opponent is fighting dirty, then we have to do the needful to protect. And the Pandavas could have won and Arjuna had demonstrated that he could have won by any means. If you want to talk about asymmetric wars, now Arjuna alone in the Virat battle, that is the greatest example of the asymmetric war.
Arjuna was all alone and the whole Kaurava army was there. And Arjuna, his skill and his progress was so great that he just defeated all of them. So, if somebody has the skills and progress to defeat a formidable enemy in an asymmetric war, they can do that.
If not, then if certain strategies are required to fight that war, so our ideals are not meant to make us utopian, unconnected with reality, just imagining that things will be alright. No, we have ideals and we also need to have practical steps by which we can either live according to the ideals or create structures, systems, create a social environment by which we can gradually live according to the ideals. So, there has to be practicality associated with the principles and both the practicality and the principles need to be balanced together.
Any other questions? Yes sir. You can speak a little bit. Karna was defeated by Arjuna many times.
How can you say that he was equal to Arjuna? Why did you select him as his equal opponent? The question is that Karna was repeatedly defeated by Arjuna. So, why is he considered to be an equal of Arjuna or why is he selected as his opponent? Actually, it is Duryodhana who primarily propped Karna as the opponent of Arjuna. Now, Duryodhana wanted to usurp the power from the Pandavas and he felt that the Pandavas had two primary strengths, Bhima-Arjuna Samayudhi.
Right in the start of the Bhagavad Gita also it says, there are warriors like Bhima and Arjuna. So, he considered Bhima and Arjuna to be like the gold standard. So, there is a cricket team, there is a top batsman and there is a top bowler.
So, we need some bowler who can get the batsman out and we need some batsman whom no bowler can get out. So, like that. So, he felt that Bhima is a very good warrior and I can deal with him.
Very good mace fighter, I can deal with him. But Arjuna is a formidable archer and who will deal with him? So, when he saw Karna, he thought that Karna can act as a foil for Arjuna and that’s how he groomed him like that. Now, time and time again, it was proven that Karna could not match Arjuna and that’s why the elders, Drona, Kripa, Bhishma, all of them reminded Duryodhana and Karna both that you will not be able to match Partha.
But rather than listening to that, Duryodhana actually started rejecting them only. So, his confidence was so great, his overconfidence was so great that he just felt that Karna will surely defeat Arjuna. And although, see, sometimes it’s said that there was an American joker who said that, a comedian, he said, I have already made up my mind.
Don’t confuse me with the facts. So, he was like that. So, he had already made up his mind that Karna will defeat Arjuna.
That was Duryodhana. Don’t confuse me. So many times, Arjuna has defeated Karna or Arjuna has defeated those who have defeated Karna.
But still he said, no, Karna will win. And that’s why on the 17th night, when Karna was killed, that time, Duryodhana was shattered. He was completely shattered.
Even when Bhishma had been killed, even when Drona had been killed, he was not as shattered as when Karna was killed. So, it was more of Duryodhana propping Karna as a rival, rather than Karna earning his position as an equal for Arjuna. Yes, any other questions? Hi Krishna, in Bhagavad Gita it is stated that we should not give up our natural work or duties.
So, the question is in two parts. First part, why did Lord appear as a Brahman to kill the Kshatriyas? And secondly, in history we see that, like the Peshwas who were Brahmanas, they also let their duties to become Kshatriyas. Okay.
So, the Bhagavad Gita says that one should act according to one’s nature. Then why did the Lord appear as a Brahmana and then fight as a Kshatriya? Yeah, the point here is that there is Dharma and there is Apadharma. Dharma is the normal activity that a person is supposed to do.
But Apadharma is emergency duty. So, when there is emergency, at that time one may adopt other forms of action, which may not be normally prescribed for oneself. And those emergency form of actions, they should be done as long as the emergency is there.
And after that emergency is over, one should stop doing that. So, similarly, we look at Parshuram’s life. Parshuram did not directly start acting as a Kshatriya.
So, he acted as a Brahmana. And he was living his life as a dutiful Brahmana, performing austerities, performing sacrifices. But when there was a grievous violation of the normal codes of conduct, of the dharmic behaviour by the king himself.
Now, where could he go to express his grievance? Who would do redressal of that grievance at that time? There was no one. So, that was Apad, that was the emergency. And in that emergency, for Parshuram, it was important that he himself take up the Apadharma.
So, in the Dharma scriptures itself, the Dharma Shuktes, they describe that actually, when a Brahmana is, when there is an emergency, a Brahmana can act as a Kshatriya. And a Brahmana can take up weapons. So, that may also happen in other historical incidents, when particular circumstances come up.
So, as I said that, after, in the history of Maharashtra, the Peshwas may have sometimes, they were Brahmanas, but they took up that role. So, that is what is required in particular situations. That is what can be done.
The specific context for the Bhagavad Gita’s declaration that one should act according to one’s nature, and one should not act according to another’s nature is that there is acting according to someone’s nature to evade one’s own duty and to avoid the unpleasantness that is associated with one’s own duty. So, Arjuna, in that context, in the context of the Kurukshetra war, when he wanted to avoid warfare, it was not that there was an emergency that there was no single Brahmana in the kingdom and that’s why he had to do the Brahmanical duty. So, it was more of he was giving up his duty because of the unpleasantness of the Kshatriya duty, not because of the emergency need of a Brahmana duty.
So, what the verse primary thrust is, don’t give up your nature, that which is natural for oneself, just because that is unpleasant. So, if we pursue through the pleasant and unpleasant, eventually, we will attain transcendence. That’s what the message of the Gita is.
Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Yes.
So, if a plant is giving poisonous fruits, we should destroy the plant, not the fruits. Now, Parshuram, he destroyed the Kshatriyas, but in their Kshatriya misbehaviour, that was coming from their lust, anger, greed. So, why did Parshuram not destroy that? There are degrees of lust, anger, greed.
See, lust is at one level, a natural human emotion. As long as you are in embodied condition, the attraction between male and female is natural. Greed in terms of wanting and possessing things, that is also a natural human emotion.
And we see that anger, anger is also, it is not that all anger is always undesirable. There are degrees of anger. So, for example, the Bhagavad Gita itself, if you consider, Krishna talks in third chapter, he uses the word karma and he says that karma is our enemy.
And he gives various analysis and strategies about how to control and conquer it. But in that same Bhagavad Gita, talks later in the 7th chapter, in the 11th verse, he says, I am karma that is not contrary to principles of dharma. So, there karma refers to that sexual desire, which is in harmony with the principles of dharma.
So, it is not that all lust is bad. Krishna is using the same word karma, he is using it in a negative sense, where it is unrestrained and adharmic earlier, and later on he is using it in a sense where it is dharmic. Similarly, Krishna talks about greed in a negative sense, when he talks about the demoniac mentality in the 16th chapter, he says that those who think that this much I have conquered and that I will conquer and I will destroy all those enemies who are going to come in my way.
So, he talks about greed as demoniac, possessiveness. But in that same Bhagavad Gita in 11.33 also tells Arjuna, So, he says that therefore Arjuna rise and win a flourishing kingdom. All your enemies are destroyed by my arrangement and rise and enjoy a flourishing kingdom.
So, later on Krishna is saying in the 16th chapter that wanting a big kingdom and destroying one’s enemies is demoniac. But Krishna is telling Arjuna, get this kingdom and I have destroyed your enemies. So, what is going on here? See, the point is that in this world God does not act directly.
So, that means that people in this world have to act in godly ways. It is not that God does descend periodically in this world. But the whole principle of dharma is to help people live in godly ways.
So, we are not the ultimate controllers. But it is not that Krishna is going to come and control things at a practical level here. It is we who have to make things orderly in a way in which things can be dharmic.
So, we may say we don’t have a possessive mentality. But somebody has to possess things and it is better that those who are godly possess things rather than those who are ungodly. So, any kind of ambition that is there, if you want to look at it negatively, you can call it greed.
But that ambition, if it is in the pursuit of dharma, that is not bad. So, lust, anger, greed, when we talk about it, Krishna, he tells Arjuna just before he is going to fight with Karna towards the last war, Krishna actually reminds Arjuna of all the grievous ways in which the Kauravas have insulted the Pandavas. And then he tells Arjuna, now you remember, this is the time for you to correct all those wrongs and fight.
So, what does that mean? He is wanting to bring out the intensity in Arjuna at that time. That is why he reminds him of all this. So, in that sense, anger is also not always bad.
So, there are degrees of lust, anger and greed. And when it is within the perimeter of dharma. So, if somebody has a desire to possess a lot, when one possesses a lot and uses that a lot in the spirit of service, gives it in charity, uses it for noble causes, then that possessiveness is not necessarily bad.
Because somebody else, somebody or the other has to possess. So, it is better that those who are dharmic possess things rather than adharmic possess things. So, those who are, there are people who are ready to regulate their lust, anger, greed, according to the principles of dharma.
And there are others who give in to their lust, anger, greed, and who give up their practise of dharma because of lust, anger, greed. And when those whose lust, anger, greed becomes so dominating that they give up everything else. यह शास्त्र विदि मुद्स्रिज्य वर्तते कामकारता। न सिद्धिमवापनोति न सुखमन परामगति। In 16.23, Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita that there are the ungodly who give up because they want to act according to karma alone.
Then they are undesirable. So, when people’s lust, anger, greed becomes so excessive that they completely reject dharma and they become, we have to become agents to channel, to regulate and channel lust, anger, greed. But when we become agents for lust, anger, greed itself, then that becomes counterproductive.
So, when that happens, then such people have to be destroyed. It is not that, you know, if we say that the Lord should destroy lust, anger, greed and lust, anger, greed are the seeds, but what we call as lust, anger and greed, these are ultimately misdirections of desire. And desire is a natural state of consciousness.
To be conscious means to be desirous. We cannot live without desires. Prabhupada says in a lecture that we are not meant to kill desires, we are meant to cure desires.
So, whatever desires we have, Prabhupada says, we have kama, we have desire. So, he says, how do you spiritualise kama? He says, whatever we desire, we desire it for Krishna. We desire, oh, this is so beautiful, maybe this can be offered to Krishna.
This dress is so nice, maybe we can make a dress like this for Krishna. This necklace is so beautiful, oh, I can offer this necklace to Krishna. This decorating style is so good.
Oh, we can decorate the Krishna like this. So, we had the Chandan Yatra festival where Krishna was decorated in such beautiful ways. So, what is happening? We have the tendency to look at beautiful things, we have the tendency to draw and depict beautiful things, we use them in Krishna’s service.
So, ultimately desire cannot be annihilated. So, there is desire that is spiritualised. And while it is being spiritualised, it is not that desire is completely eradicated at the material level.
But when it is at the material level, it is regulated. So, that means there are three parts to the power of desire. One is the direct spiritualization of desire where it is directly used in devotional service, by directly connection with Krishna.
The second is the desire for material things is regulated within the precincts of dharma. And then third is unregulated desire, kamam, ashitya, dushpuram. In 16.10, Krishna talks about the ungodly, the demoniac as those who instead of taking shelter of Narayan, instead of taking shelter of Narayan, they take shelter of kama.
And what kind of kama? Dushpuram, insatiable. So, when that happens, such people are antisocial. And they have to be destroyed.
So, it is not that, so the way to destroy the seeds of the tree of lust, anger, greed, that it is the seeds have to be destroyed not by the annihilation of desire, but by the purification of desire and the regulation of desire. By the purification, by redirecting it towards Krishna and by the regulation while we are functioning in the material world, regulation according to the principles of dharma. And those who, the Kshatriyas are meant to regulate and those Kshatriyas who don’t regulate, those who violate, those Kshatriyas need to be destroyed.
Does it answer your question? Thank you. Yes, please. Yeah.
Yes, yeah. You can speak, the mic is coming to you. Let me make it very simple.
I have also watched television and they show Krishna telling Arjun, if you look how they treated you people, they pulled your sarang, they stole your, took away your kingdom. So, you either surrender to them or fight with them. So, in today’s life, I see today, if somebody is bad with me, he has done very bad treatment towards me.
Now, I don’t go and sit down and fight with them, but I don’t surrender with them. I stay alone. I get away from them and I cry to God and I see that, that the house has got a burn or they have lost me to them.
Something or the other, God teaches them a lesson. You know, I am a Brahmin and when I was born, my father became a witch. And my astrologers also say that she has loved me.
So, I use my intellect. I don’t go and fight with people now. Ever since I was a small girl.
So, fighting is not everything. You have to talk to God and you do good for the time. Yeah, right.
So, the question is that if somebody is misbehaving with us, do we, is it necessary to always fight with them? No, not at all. See, there are different options and it’s all a matter of strategy. So, we all have to choose our battles at different times.
Broadly speaking, when we find ourselves in a situation that is miserable, that causes misery to us, that causes stress to us, we have broadly speaking three options. We tolerate the situation, we change the situation, or we walk away from the situation. We have broadly three options.
And at different times, based on time, place, circumstance, different strategies may be required. So, the Pandas also, for a large time, they tolerated. Initially, when Bhima was poisoned, at that time, Yudhishthira told them, you know, don’t, let’s not create any conflict in the house, don’t tell anyone about it.
We’ll just be vigilant. Don’t tell them, they tolerated it. Later on, when the house of Lak was burned, they just walked away, they went into the forest.
They did not just decide to stay and tolerate, they walked away. But later on, when Draupadi was violated, Draupadi was actually dishonoured, at that time, a particular line was crossed. And the Pandavas said that now, they are going too far.
And then they decided to fight. So, it’s not that we have to fight at all times. There are just, all of us have finite resources.
We have particular focusses and priorities in our life. And based on our awareness of our strengths and weaknesses, based on understanding of our priorities and purposes, and by praying to God, by taking guidance from our spiritual mentors, we can decide what strategy to use at what time. Certainly, the Mahabharata illustrates that fighting should not be the first resort.
Now, the various other strategies need to be tried out. And it is all the more so, it’s instructive because Kshatriyas often love to fight. And even being Kshatriyas, the Pandavas did not choose to use fighting as a first course of action.
So, the Shanti Parva, which comes before the Bhishma Parva, where the Mahabharata war starts, not the Shanti Parva, the Udyoga Parva. So, there it exhaustively describes all the peace efforts the Pandavas did. So, it’s not that we have to fight every time.
We can fight to change the situation. That’s one option. Or we can tolerate the situation or we can just walk away from the situation.
Tolerate the situation means we just endure it and later on, by some higher arrangement, some things may change. So, we have to choose our battles wisely. It’s not that fighting is the only course of action that is available.
But the Mahabharata demonstrates why at that particular course of action, in that situation, the fighting was the only honourable way for the Pandavas to act. Thank you. Any other questions? So, if a person has transcended the three modes, can they act in Kshatriya at that time? Yes, there are three different ways in which we may interact with the modes.
One is that we are used by the modes. Second is that we regulate the modes. And third is we use the modes.
It means we use the modes means, sometimes somebody speaks something to us and then we just become so angry. Just blast out. What happened? Why did I speak like that? So, at that time, what is happening is we are being used by anger.
But on the other hand, an advanced devotee, they may get angry, but they get angry in a measured way for a particular purpose. So, they are using anger. Sometimes, if we always remain very calm and cool and undisturbed, then people may not take things seriously.
So, sometimes a show of anger may be required to make people take things seriously, to drive home the gravity of certain things to people. So, at that time, anger can be used. So, for most of us, we try not to be used by anger.
And it’s very difficult for us to use anger. So, it’s like a battle for us. So, we usually start off thinking that maybe I will speak a few strong words so that the person understands what is the gravity.
But then the definition of few becomes elastic for us. And in the name of few strong words, we speak many strong words. And not just strong words, we speak harsh and hurting words.
So, it’s always better to err on the side of caution, especially when we are dealing with devotees. It’s better to err on the side of caution. Better to become less angry than more angry.
And we learn by experience whatever is appropriate. So, yes, but pure devotees and advanced devotees, they can use even the mode of passion in Krishna’s service. Okay.
So, okay. Mr. Mathews. Actually, you were describing that how the four varnas are not necessarily be like qualified compartments.
My question was that it seems, it appears that this discrimination or this categorisation of varnas also is based on the abilities of individuals. One could be a good administrator, one could be a good, you know, can be a Kshatriya. So, you often, you know, one doesn’t have the abilities of a Kshatriya, but one has the desires to have the abilities of a Kshatriya.
So, and also it is said that, you know, one should become, in spiritual life, one should try and become Brahminical or, you know, Brahmin. So, is there a possibility that there is some kind of a conflict between trying to acquire the qualities which are not, you know, naturally oneself? So, could that take you out of balance? Yeah. So, can it happen that we try to get qualities that which are not really according to our nature? Sometimes some people may want to become Kshatriyas because that gives a lot of power and position.
Or sometimes in spiritual life, we try to become Brahmanas, Brahminical, but we may not have that Brahminical disposition. There are two distinct aspects to this. First is that a certain amount of Sattva Guna is essential for the practise of Bhakti.
And that is something which we all must cultivate. So, for example, say hearing classes, doing our Japa, studying Shastra, associating with devotees. To do this, a certain amount of goodness is required.
So, of course, these activities are transcendental, but we are not transcendental right now. And to practise these activities in a sustainable way, we require a certain amount of goodness. And that goodness is something which we all need to cultivate, whatever happens.
And that is not an excessive amount of goodness, we all can cultivate that. Especially if you associate with devotees, then it is much more possible. So, for example, I just can’t, I just can’t sit and chant for two hours.
It’s just not in my nature. Well, if you can’t, then you walk and chant. We associate with other devotees also.
No, some people, it’s just natural. There’s one devotee who told me that initially for six years, this is a non-Indian, American devotee. I’ve just been to last year to America.
So, he told me that for six years, the only way he could chant was when he was jogging. So, then devotee told him, no, you have to sit and chant. He said, I cannot chant.
So, then he said, I want to jog. He said, no, you should not jog. You can have other time for jogging.
So, then what he did was, for the first one year, he would jog and chant. Next five years, he would stand at one place and jog and chant. So, he just had so much passion.
It’s not a bad thing in the sense that, you know, we are what we are. We have to start from where we are right now. We cannot just imagine that I am somewhere else and start from that point.
So, we may have a certain amount of passion in us, which may make certain aspects of Bhakti difficult. But for the practise of Sadhana Bhakti, whatever Sattva Guna is required, that we must cultivate. But along with that, in the rest of our life, we all have our educational background, our own mental orientation, our social, socio-economic position.
And according to that, we may engage in particular professions. And within Bhakti also, we may do various kinds of services. So, these can largely be according to our, what is natural for us.
So, natural does not necessarily mean only what is what we feel good doing. Natural also may be in terms of certain things, certain systems are well set up and I can do this. So, when we talk about nature, it is not, because actually when 5000 years ago, in the Mahabharata, it is said that the Varna is difficult to identify.
Because Maharaj Vidishtha tells Yayati, who is in the form of a snake, Nahusha in the form of a snake, he tells him that because there is intermixing among the various Varanas, and he is saying this 5000 years ago. So, Varana is difficult to discern. The primary way to discern it is by behaviour.
So, if this was 5000 years ago, this is much more now. So, the point is that rather than worrying too much about some nature that I might be having, no, it is like we think that okay, sometimes you have these games, where you know, it is like a jigsaw puzzle, you have to fit this in this part, you have to fit this in this part and then everything gets fit and becomes perfect. We should not think that okay, my nature is something mysterious, you know, I have to adjust this part, I have to adjust this part and then life will be perfect.
No, it is not like that. No, we just have a particular understanding of our nature right now. We have a particular situation around us right now.
And within that, we serve in the best possible way. So, whatever situation we are, with whatever disposition we have, we try to serve. And while serving, if you feel okay, if the situation worked out this way, maybe I can serve better.
And if we can adjust that situation well and good, or while serving, we observe ourselves and we see okay, this is my disposition. And I am more suited for this than for this. And gradually as we keep practising bhakti, we will gravitate towards that which is more and more natural for us.
So, rather than worrying too much about what is my nature, we focus on doing service in a way that is least conflict inducing for us, internally or externally right now. And while doing that, gradually, if you feel okay, this is what I feel good at doing, then I can try to cultivate those abilities, I can try to create those circumstances. But there is no need to have a major flip flop or change of situations, just because we don’t feel something is natural, that sort of thing should always be done gradually.
And then we can move onwards steadily in bhakti. So, this is one of the necessary sattva guna for practising bhakti, sadhana bhakti, that is important. But apart from that, we can always serve according to that which is least conflict inducing for us.
So, thank you very much. Thank you. Hare Krishna, thank you very much.
Not only you gave us an insight into Dr. Vishwamitra’s personal character, but also we had a lot of questions. There are a few important announcements.