What is the basis for saying that Arjuna engaged in contemplation according to Gita 2.62-63 when he did not fall down as the verse predicts?

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
So the question is that, I mentioned that Arjuna also went through the cycle of from dhyayato, from contemplation to nearly fall down because he contemplated on the opposite party and he developed attachment to them and he almost fell.
So what is the reference for this? So my answer would be in two parts about universal principles over here. So even for a devotee when the devotee develops attraction to Krishna and when there is obstacles the devotee also becomes angry. That anger may not take ugly forms but there is anger and Narottam Daya Shakur also says that krodha bhakta dveshi jane.
So certainly it will not lead to fall down but the principle is universal and that’s why the whole principle of the principle that by contemplation attraction develops it is the essence of sadhana bhakti. Padma Purana says that that always think of Krishna somehow or the other. So the principle of contemplation leading to attraction is universal and it is the basis of sadhana bhakti and the first chapter goes into substantial detail in describing how Arjuna observed.
Now the word pashya comes several times in the pashya and its variants come several times and if we look at 1.2425 Arjuna is first telling I want to look at those people who are assisting this evil-minded Duryodhana. 21 has the word niriksheham that I want to see. I want nirikshe is clearly eyes.
Then again 23 has the word aveiksheham I want to see. Yotsemanan aveiksheham. 23 again the comes and then Krishna takes Arjuna right in front of the chariot and then he says pashya.
Pashyaitan. So now if you see before this in 23 Arjuna is saying dhartarastrasya durbuddher the evil-minded sons of Dhritarashtra. But immediately after he does pashya what happens to him is he says his phrase changes and he immediately says sarvan bandhu navasthitan and he sees all of them not as evil-minded associates of Duryodhana.
He starts seeing them as as his bandhus sarvan bandhun and if we see the list of people he describes he is not just he is not just describing Bhishma and Drona over there. He describes different kinds of relatives also. The Bhagavad Gita describes that Sanjay is narrating that.
So the point is we can see from the speech of Arjuna there is a dramatic change in his perception in his thought process after the perception. So that means he looks he thinks and his perception radically changes. So before that he’s ready to fight and after that he not only is not ready to fight but he starts thinking that fighting is immoral.
So I feel that the scriptural principles can be applied in various situations according to time-place circumstance and the Bhagavatam also describes about say now we talk about in the seventh canto when Prabhupada is translating Prahlad Maharaj’s verse that the tongue is attracted to delicious items and the ears are attracted to music. So Prabhupada not even in the purport in the translation Prabhupada says that the ears are attracted to film songs to radio songs and the tongue is attracted to eating halwa. Now actually there are no radio at the time of Prabhupada.
So and similarly there was no actually according to some historians halwa is not a traditional indigenous item whatever that’s a different issue. But the point is that Prabhupada for example in 15.7 Prabhupada also puts that 15.6 that abode is not limited by sun, moon or fire. Prabhupada adds electricity over there.
So that means you know Prabhupada often gives the application of those principles beyond what is necessarily talked about in the text. So now we can see Arjuna’s delusion at two levels. One level is that it was all arranged by the Supreme Lord and then Arjuna is just being orchestrated by Krishna’s yoga maya and that’s why he is going into illusion.
At the same time at that level we don’t learn anything from scriptures. And for our learning that certain patterns of behavior are beneficial certain patterns of behavior are not beneficial. Now we can look at scripture at a lower level also.
For example now at absolute level we know that the Gopis can never become proud and Krishna left the Gopis in the Raas Leela just to glorify Radharani. And then Krishna left Radharani not because Radharani was proud because other Gopis were too much in separation and Radharani was concerned about them also. So Anand Vrindavan Champu describes this level.
But you know we also say that actually even if the Gopis become proud Krishna leaves them. So we should not become proud. So all the scriptural pastimes especially involving the intimate associates they can be understood at two levels.
One level is that it’s completely the orchestration of the Supreme Lord. The second level is that although it’s the orchestration of the Supreme Lord there is something that someone does wrong. And when somebody does something wrong that has its consequences even if it is associated with Supreme Lord.
So for example we may also talk about how Sita is attracted to the deer and then how Sita steps outside Lakshman Rekha. And then we understand that we should not get attracted to things other than Krishna and we should not disobey the instructions of Guru. So now the goddess of fortune Sita cannot commit any mistakes.
But if we absolutize all the characters in the scriptures then the scriptures lose all their moral value in terms of teaching us certain principles for action. And Srila Prabhupada doesn’t adopt this approach. In the Vritharasura pastime when Srila Prabhupada is talking about who is to be blamed.
First Prabhupada says that actually Chitraketu was a little proud. He did not have to criticize Shiva like that. It was Marayada Vatikraman.
And then afterwards when Parvati starts speaking, Parvati is amazed by Chitraketu’s calmness and then Lord Shiva speaks Narayana Parasarvena Kutaschana Vibhate. So there Prabhupada writes in the purport that Lord Shiva is telling Parvati a little bit sarcastically that you are beautiful but you are beautiful only in your form. Chitraketu is beautiful in his devotion and that is why he is not disturbed.
So now we wonder who is right and who is wrong. But Prabhupada uses both perspectives because ultimately the pastimes of the Lord are not meant for us to judge who is right and who is wrong. It is for us to learn values for living.
And Srila Prabhupada applies this even in the Bhagavad Gita to Arjuna. For example, in 2.1 purport, Prabhupada says that all the symptoms of Arjuna are symptoms of material lamentation. Tears and all that are symptoms of material lamentation.
And then later on Srila Prabhupada further talks about how Arjuna was ready to give up even heavenly pleasures and ready to live by begging in a forest. And this indicates that Arjuna was a very detached, mature person and he was qualified for knowledge. So now Prabhupada is himself giving both perspectives to us.
So in 2.6 Prabhupada purport is saying that all these considerations of Arjuna definitely proved that not only was he a great devotee of the Lord but he was also highly enlightened. But in 2.1 purport, Prabhupada says these are symptoms of material emotions and they are undesirable. To save the dress of a drowning person is undesirable.
So I would say that Prabhupada himself has given us both perspectives and rather than absolutizing everything that happens in the Lord’s pastimes as perfect, which prevents us from learning any lessons, we accept that level also. At the same time, we also understand from the pastimes that there are certain things that we can learn. That these are ways we should act and these are ways we should not act.
For example, many devotees when they are ready to join the Brahmachari ashram, they are ready to cut off the bonds and everything. But then they get a phone call from their mother or they go and meet their relatives and when they start contemplating on them, start thinking about them, contemplating on them, then what happens to them is that all their determination evaporates. So we see this principle applying in other places also.
So I wouldn’t see this as a, I will say that okay, it’s not mentioned directly in scripture that Arjuna did dhyayato. But if you look at the narrative of scripture and if you look at other connected purports, I wouldn’t say it is anti-scriptural. So, I mean, if some devotees feel a little objectionable, they need not use it in their… All the steps should be identified, but I would say that Krishna doesn’t say that this whole process from dhyayato to pranashyati is irreversible.
Now that is how it progresses, but our great hope is that it is checkable. You know, it is best if we can check it at dhyayato level, but even if it becomes at a kama level or a krodha level, we can still check ourselves. It is not irreversible.
The example that is given is that, it’s like a person on a chariot and the horse, we have a chariot body analogy, so the chariot sees, the horse sees some fruit on the side of the street and then the horse gets attracted to that fruit and the horse moves his head in that direction, starts running in that direction. Now, as soon as the horse moves his head in that direction and starts focusing on that, if the charioteer pulls the head away, it’s easier to control the horse. But if the horse starts galloping in that direction, off the road into a ditch where the fruit is, at that time to pull the horse back will require much, much more effort.
But it is possible even in that stage. It will require more exertion. You know, in the 18th chapter, when Krishna is talking about the characteristics of a brahmana, in verse 42, he talks about two characteristics, shama and dama.
So, shama is mind control and dama is sense control, shama is peacefulness. So, actually, that means what Krishna is telling is, ideally the brahmana should control his mind only, so that there is no agitation. But if the brahmana cannot control the mind, then at least he should control his senses.
That means the mind is agitated, but don’t let the indulgence happen at the sensual level. So, for us also, sometimes dhyayato may lead to sanga and kama, but if there is no facility for sense gratification, then the whole pranashyati may not happen, pranashyati may get checked. So, there are instances in the scripture also of, say, somebody about to fall down, but some other person intervenes.
For example, you know, when Dhruva Maharaj was fighting with the yakshas, at that time, he started killing everyone ruthlessly and he came under krodha, but then at that time, Swayambhu Manu came and gave him good instruction and then he did not commit a mass slaughter over there. So, if there is intervention, then the pranashyati may not happen and that is our hope and in the Bhagavad Gita, the same thing happens. Arjuna goes to the level of, we could say, dhyayato happens, the sanga happens, he feels attached to them and because of that attachment, he feels, I cannot fight and then he is, if you see, Arjuna also uses the same word, similar word, samudha chetaha, samudha chetaha is used in the word.
So, smriti brahmashad buddhina, smriti brahmashad buddhina, what is the word before that? Krodhad bhavati sammoha. So, mudha and sammoha is similar. My point is that this process is not necessarily irreversible once it starts off.
The great hope is that if Krishna or Guru or some Vaishnava intervenes, then even when one has gone to the level of kama or krodha, Dhruva Maharaj went to the level of krodha, but he was checked before he went to pranashyati or for that matter, there is the example of, say, some person who gets agitated by, say, Brahmaji got agitated and started chasing after his daughter. But then the Kumaras and others started speaking to him, what are you doing? And then he actually, there is no description in the Bhagavatam that he actually indulged with his daughter. He felt so embarrassed that he gave up his body, which he felt was contaminated and took up a new body.
So, that means that there was surely dhyayato and at one level we can say that there was kama and everything was there, but there was no direct fall down, there was no direct