Krishna in Mahabharata – Treachery at Kurukshetra
Of the many aspects of Krishna in Mahabharata, one of the most confusing is his use of deceit during the war. In this story, we look at the basis behind these actions through some vividly narrated incidents from the battle.
 
Battle of Kurukshetra, Manuscript Illustration - Krishna in Mahabharata – Treachery at Kurukshetra
 

Of the many aspects of Krishna in Mahabharata, one of the most confusing is his use of deceit during the war. In this story, we look at the basis behind these actions through some vividly narrated incidents from the battle.

Questioner: Krishna in Mahabharata, always talked about dharma and adharma, but during the Kurukshetra war, he used deceit to kill most of the great warriors, such as Bhishma and Dronacharya. Did he not practice what he taught?

Sadhguru: What Krishna did in the battlefield was not just deceit – it was absolute treachery. There were intricate strategic formations in which the warriors fought. One such formation, called chakravyuha, was almost impossible to penetrate, unless you knew its intricacies. Arjuna used to be the only one of the Pandavas who had this knowledge. When his wife Subhadra was pregnant with Abhimanyu, Arjuna spoke in the presence of his unborn son about how to penetrate a chakravyuha, and even in his mother’s womb, Abhimanyu grasped it. But Arjuna did not talk about how to come out of the chakravyuha. Many years later, when the Kaurava army formed itself into a chakravyuha and was about to slaughter the whole Pandava army, Abhimanyu, 17 years of age but already a great hero, broke like a furious arrow through the chakravyuha, because he knew how to penetrate it. Bhima and Yudhisthira tried to follow him to save him, but when Abhimanyu went into the center, immediately, the chakravyuha closed again. In the middle of the chakravyuha, with no one else to support him, he killed many key people of the Kaurava army. Then his chariot went down. All his weapons were broken. You are not supposed to kill an unarmed person, but the Kauravas thought, “Even if he is just 17 years of age, he causes too much devastation.” They felt they must put an end to Abhimanyu and attacked him. Abhimanyu picked up a chariot wheel and fought with that. No one person alone could kill him, so many of the Kaurava heroes gathered around Abhimanyu, which was totally against the laws of the battle. They all surrounded the boy and killed him.

Abhimanyu enters chakravyuha - stone carving at the Hoysaleswara temple, Halebid, India.

It was a rule of the war that when the sun sets, they must stop fighting. In the evening, when Arjuna came back to his camp, he saw his people mourning and realized that Abhimanyu had been killed in such a way. In straight battle, only very few men could have defeated Abhimanyu. Someone described how they had surrounded him from all sides and slain him. Arjuna took a vow: “By tomorrow sundown, I will have killed Jayadrada. Otherwise, I will kill myself.” Hearing this, Duryodhana was overjoyed. He thought all they have to do was to completely protect Jayadrada, and Arjuna would die that night by his own hand, because he would stick to his word. Jayadrada was terrified. He wanted to quit the battle and go home. Duryodhana told him that this would not be good for their reputation. He said to Jayadrada, “Don’t worry. We will deploy all our forces to protect you.”

The next day, they formed a huge protective formation for Jayadrada so that he would not get killed. But from the first moment of the battle, Arjuna started penetrating through the opposing army towards Jayadrada, because if he did not kill Jayadrada, he would have to kill himself.

At the same time, Satyaki and Burishwara got into a fight. Satyaki, a close friend of Krishna and Arjuna, had an old feud to settle with Burishwara, who was over 70 years of age but still a great warrior. Satyaki was supposed to protect King Yudhisthira. But overcome by personal emotions, he left Yudhisthira’s side and went towards Burishwara to attack him. When Arjuna saw that the king was left unprotected, he got concerned. But he could not divert his attention, since his own life was at stake. He continued to go towards Jayadrada. Satyaki attacked Burishwara, but after some time, Burishwara knocked down Satyaki from his chariot. Satyaki lost all his weapons and almost fainted. Burishwara descended from his chariot and put his foot on Satyaki’s chest. Krishna saw this. Satyaki had been a staunch and a reliable lieutenant to him for many years. Krishna knew his abilities and limitations, and that Satyaki could not defeat Burishwara.

Map showing the place Kurukshetra, in the state of Haryana, India.

Krishna told Arjuna, “Burishwara is going to kill Satyaki. You must get Burishwara first before he kills Satyaki.” Arjuna said, “How can I do that? Burishwara is fighting with Satyaki. Shooting him now would be against the Kshatriya dharma.” Krishna told him, “Satyaki has come here only to fight for you. How can you let someone kill him now? Save him.” Arjuna said, “No. It is against the law.” Then Burishwara pulled out his sword in order to decapitate Satyaki. Again Krishna said, “Your friend, who put his life at stake for you, will be slaughtered now if you don’t reach out to him. Will you let him die like this? What kind of dharma is this?” All this time, Arjuna’s arrow was aimed at Jayadrada. When Burishwara was about to decapitate Satyaki, Arjuna turned and shot the arrow at Burishwara. Burishwara’s right hand got severed. He looked around and said to Arjuna, “How could you do this? While I was fighting with another man, you shot me from behind and severed my hand? Anyone who has Kshatriya blood in him wouldn’t do such a dastardly act. I know you wouldn’t have done this by yourself. This cowherd with whom you are must have influenced you.” Arjuna’s anger flared up, and he said, “Yesterday, when you, a great warrior, joined many others to surround my son, a 17-year-old boy, and stab him from behind, where was your dharma? What are you talking about now?” Ashamed of the act that he had committed the day before, Burishwara put his head down. He went next to his chariot and sat down in lotus posture.

Satyaki became conscious again and looked around, completely bewildered. He did not know what had happened. When he saw Burishwara sitting there, his old emotions and rage took over. Burishwara’s severed hand, still holding his sword, was lying there on the ground. Satyaki threw the hand away, picked up the sword, and went towards Burishwara. Both Krishna and Arjuna were screaming, “Stop! Don’t do this, Satyaki!” But Satyaki loped off Burishwara’s head, while the latter was sitting with eyes closed. Krishna put his head down; he had not wanted this. Arjuna was totally aghast about what Satyaki had done. But Satyaki was exalted, because he had been able to take revenge at last.

Day by day, as the war went on, all dharma was broken. The first day, they fought by the law. The second day, they started breaking the law, and by the fourteenth, fifteenth day, all law was broken. People did what they wanted and killed each other at will.

Arjuna slays Jayadrada.

Arjuna continued to penetrate towards Jayadrada, but it looked like Jayadrada was out of reach for him. The whole Kaurava army had rallied around to protect him. When Krishna saw that there was no way for Arjuna to defeat Jayadrada in this situation, he used his magic and made a huge cloud appear, so that it looked like it was sunset. Seeing this, Jayadrada was absolutely thrilled and relieved, because he thought the battle was over for the day, and he had survived, which meant Arjuna would die that day. The whole Kaurava army was exalted and shouted slogans of victory. Everyone had put their arms down. But the sun came back, and Arjuna shot Jayadrada and he fell. One more deception.

As if that was not enough, when Karna and Arjuna came to fight, Krishna interfered again. Karna and Arjuna were evenly matched in their martial arts. For everything that Arjuna did, Karna had an answer. But Karna had one special weapon, the astra, for which Arjuna had no answer. Karna aimed it at Arjuna’s forehead, and was about to shoot and kill him. When Krishna saw this, once again using his magic, he made Arjuna’s chariot sink a few inches into the earth. The weapon knocked off Arjuna’s crown and made him faint for some time, but it did not enter his head as intended. Many times, Krishna did such things. This was much more than just deception.

Pandavas lose the game of dice, Draupadi is presented in the court.

What is the justification? It is not that his dharma is higher and someone else’s is lower. What they were facing in the war was colossal evil. The level of injustice that Duryodhana, Shakuni, Karna, and all the others created from day one was too high, from the time they tried to murder Bhima by poisoning him, and by tying him up and putting him in the river. Then the game of dice, which was total cheating, and the disgrace of trying to disrobe Draupadi in public. Then trying to burn the Pandavas in the palace that was built of lac and sulfur, and again cheating them out of their kingdom. There was an endless number of events that led to this war. Everywhere, they used deceit without any qualms. When they were at an advantage, there was no dharma for them. When they were at a disadvantage, they were talking dharma as a tool to benefit from. But the next moment, they were the same again.

Krishna in Mahabharata says, “What they are doing is adharma; what we are doing is also adharma, but we are doing it with an intention of establishing dharma. They are doing it with the intention of establishing adharma.” It is not a question of right and wrong. It is a question of purpose, and of whether you would be successful within the limitations of the law or not. He did not say what he was doing was right – he knew it was wrong. But what he was trying to achieve was right. That is why he did all this.

Editor's Note: Watch the Leela series, where Sadhguru explores the life and path of Krishna.

 
 
 
 
  44 Comments
 
 
Login / to join the conversation1
 
 
4 years 4 months ago

Read the answer. But I still do not find it right.
Both Kauravas and Krishna tweaked the rules for their advantage. Because Kauravas did so first, does it justify the tweaking by krishna next? How can an avatar be opportunistic and claim godliness? From kauravas point of view, Krishna was an enemy. If they do, it is a crime. But when Krishna does, how does it qualify as leela? All good and bad are relative to something. Both sides can argue to be right, so in that sense, can not accept what Krishna did. In fact, many of Ram's, Krishna's actions are not understandable.

4 years 2 months ago

Let us put this conversation to an end with this excellent remark I heard in an English movie long back: " Justice cannot be done without a little bit of injustice". This applies to Rama's killing of Vali in Ramayana and many incidents in Mahabharata as well as in everyone's life on this earth if one carefully analyses them. In the world of 'dwaita', it is the rule. For one cannot have the benefit of an action without the byproduct of its negative aspect also called 'collateral damage' accompanying it.

4 years 5 months ago

with due respect to all. few questions Mr Jaiswal :"truth has multiple levels and is relative to situations" - how do we know this? May I ask "what is truth" first.. also sadhguru himself said that truth is not relative. thought i dont know what is truth. Dorin "Why should we be concerned about images of sadhguru". - he is just another human like you and me, isn't it.. what i just questioned was 2 contradictory thoughts that he spoke off". Vijay R "How does sadhguru know why krishna did what he did". With no disregard to Sadhguru, I dont think this blog of his is consistent to what he said in the past. Sanjeev " how do you know that krishna was established in present". may i ask you what is "present" first. Eshwari " Sorry i could not grasp your arguement as i really dont know what is athma".

2 years 4 months ago

What is important....rule or justice.....decide yourself...Rule can be broken...but justice is something which should be given....thats what krishna did...he broke some rules...to give justice.

4 years 4 months ago

It is so easy to say that means is no justification to end. But what costs are acceptable ? Is suffering of whole generation of people acceptable for the benefit of a greedy handful who cannot be rooted out except by using deception ? I think here Krishna's actions cannot be compared to chi guevara's policies of eye for an eye. When we are talking eye for an eye the focus is on a tactical retaliation coming out of not knowing what else to do.

Krishna's actions are not tactical. Everytime he took dharma in his hands he had waited for a long time (be it with Kamsa or with Kauravas) and tried various means and given scores of chances for the other party to correct their actions. However when injustice seems to overshadow justice and a large number of innocent people suffer then the only dharma I see is to protect the innocent and put an end to evil. I think dharma is not inflexible set of rules but is an intelligent way of living. I dont think dharma means you oppose only by going on a fast when the opponent is waiting to chop off your head the moment you sit for fasting. In this context I totally agree with the point that Krishna's intention was to uphold dharma whereas Kauravas always used dharma as a excuse and were adharmic all through their life. So putting an end to such injustice is far dharmic than just watching talking dharma. Just think of this .. Krishna had nothing to lose even if Pandavas lost. Why would he give up his dharmic badge to help a handful of warriors in exile ?

And many a time Sadhguru has said the intention is important because action could be limited by the outside and this article is very much consistent in ideas.

4 years 5 months ago

I think there is confusion in this arguement. The idea that the any good purpose/ motive to be established by any means is correct is a question itself. sadhguru himself says so that you cannot choose any means for the end even if the end is good. refer his video on chi guevara and how he said that an eye for an eye would mean that the world would be blind. It is difficult to accept that this article has been written by sadhguru.

3 years 10 months ago

half knowledge is always harmful.... Krishna has already declared before the war dat war would be played by mind games nd cheating. ..nd yes dey wanted pandavas to win..coz dey wanted to teach a lesson to kalyug people wat should b the punishment nd result of any typ of physical harrasment of a grl..coz 1st sign of appearing of kalyug was wen day by day grls would b killed nd phyical harrased by people..

4 years 5 months ago

The means justifying the ends. A little evil here and there for a greater good. The entire war happened because of the adharmic attitude of the Kauravas. Anti-venom administered to save life of a snake bite victim is also prepared using the same poison. So is the case with all preventive medicine. inoculations.

Where else will you find such an epic so gallantly told
Of much good and greater evil in the story's fold
Of high logic and of even higher idealistic shores
Of great sinners and of very brave and true heroes
Kurukshetra - It is happening now in all our lives
Fight , fight and we can the battles win
Guided by Lord Krishna the charioteer within
Holding the five horses (senses) in our body whole
And racing towards liberation with our eternal soul................

2 years 4 months ago

The Supreme Lord Krishna only reveals Himself to His Devotee.. Else with speculations and concoctions one can never understand the Supreme Lord..You have to fall in Love with Krishna to know Him... HARE KRISHNA

4 years 4 months ago

Basically what is dharma and what is adharma?

4 years 5 months ago

Unbelievable !!!!! The way he answered the question with such ease, He made such a complex situation look so simple.

3 years 9 months ago

If you live for the establishment of Dharma as Krishna did you can't be limited by philosophy or belief in doing so. This would create an easy vulnerability for any enemy to exploit and result in defeat. So the choice was not only correct but essential.

Where this hits a raw nerve is the historic tendency of governments and leaders to falsely invoke noble causes (ie supposed liberation of the vanquished) to get buy in for mass murder (wars) for the ultimate benefit of the ruling classes.

The only solution is for every individual to make their own decisions based on their own God given conscience and sense of collective humanitarianism. Any other rationale would run counter to Dharma. Dogma has no place in such a monumental decision. What's needed instead is maximum vigilance for the truth.

4 years 5 months ago

sumit, I really appreciate something about you, and that is you have many
questions and you don't just take things as have been written or said,
you want to know why and how. That's not a small thing, in my view this
is a great virtue, or a great step for higher possibilities of knowing.

I couldn't find the video about Che Guevara to see how Sadhguru said
that, but from your context: "you cannot choose any means for the end
even if the end is good (I think the correct sentence here is: even if
the intention is good, not the end, or assumed end, because the end was not good in the example you mentioned). refer his video on chi guevara and how he said that an eye
for an eye would mean that the world would be blind".

How I see that is
like this:

Sadhguru gave the example of: an eye for an eye, which usually for
people seems like a fair deal, or something good. But the consequence of
that is: if you go by that as a general rule, the whole world may
become blind. So, someone has a good intention, but he/she sees only
steps 1 and 2 that look good apparently, without seeing the final major
consequence of that which may be disastrous. So in that context I think
Sadhguru said that, about apparently good intentions that are not based
on a large vision and deep understanding about the respective subject
and about life. Won't you agree with that? For me this makes perfect
sense. And what he said about Krishna also makes sense. Because Krishna
did what he did in order to establish Dharma. They were fighting a
colossal evil and as the story is presented, it was a necessary evil as a
tool to prevent a far greater evil from happening. But he was talking
about Krishna :-). I don't take this as Sadhguru's advice for the world
as: "you can choose any means for the end, if you think the end is
good". He was just talking about Krishna here, explaining why he did
those things in order to create a big good result. But in that video, he
was talking about a different thing, about examples as Che Guevara who
thought they were doing a good thing in their limited perception, and
proved to be a big fail in the end. And there he probably said that one should not go by any means for the end, even if they see the end as good. And I agree with that, because we won't find many Krishnas among ourselves :-). Ofcourse there are many people who think they have great ideas to implement in the world, but along the history we have seen what did those who appealed to any means for their "good" intention. We saw what a Che Guevara did, what a Hitler did and so on. Actually, in my opinion they did also a good thing: they proved how limitless human stupidity and ignorance can be. But I think we had enough of them, there's no need for such proofs anymore. Now I think we need more Krishnas, more Sadhgurus and more people with deep understanding about life, people with long term visions and not with "good" short ambitions to prove their childish ignorance.

Now, the two examples - do they make any sense now? If I miss something here, then please tell me, because I really don't see where is the contradiction in what Sadhguru said. Thank you. Namaste.

4 years 4 months ago

Brilliant analogy.:):)

4 years 5 months ago

The idea that the any good purpose/ motive to be established by any means is correct is a question itself, IS YOUR IDEA. Sadhguru is not saying this. Krishna is a man established in present. The one who is in present can decide to do anything for establishing DHARMA, as far as possible within the legal framework but if it is must will break the law also but in very selective and do or die situations.

3 years 8 months ago

CONFUSION & CONFUSION, all around.

WHY?

BECAUSE we say that Lord Krishna is an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, BUT WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT, and our Dharm Gurus also do not want that to happen.

After all history is easy to understand as it is narrative , so who will come to Dharm Gurus if we start believing ABSOLUTELY that Lord Krishna was incarnation of Lord Vishnu.

If Krishna was an Avatar, every action of HIS would constitute a Dharm. SO, would HE give you as Dharm, something IDIOTIC(like do not do that , etc, etc… it would deceitfully kill the enemy..NONSENSE), or that which is PRACTICAL, POSSIBLE, USEABLE & USEFUL TOO.

AND THAT DHARM IS TO WIN THE WAR...........>>>>>>>>> There is NO OTHER RULE(DHARM), ... EVER...Repeat..>>EVER on battlefield .

4 years 5 months ago

Anything done to stop the progress of adharma (even adharmic means) is a part of dharma. Sometimes you need to fight with evil with weapons and not words to prevent self annihilation even on the dharmic path. Non violence is in the fact of not being the one to initiate trouble in the first place. Reacting to adharma is also a part of Karma yoga where you do not do it for yourself but with a sense of detachment for the greater good.

4 years 4 months ago

BE A ROMAN IN ROME

4 years 5 months ago

Che Guevara? Which video are you refering to?

3 years 3 months ago

Namaskaram really the tile song written by Sadhguru is mind blowing amazing performance by sounds of isha, I bow down

4 years 5 months ago

I think there is a small correction needed. It was Krishna and not Arjuna who explained to Subadra about the Chakravyuha when Abhimanyu was still in the womb.

4 years 4 months ago

OK..lets have an example.

Q1: If killing is right or wrong?.
A1: Wrong.

Q2: But the victim was a dacoit, is it fine now??.
A2: Then its right he must be killed.

Q3: If killing is right or wrong?.
A3: Right.

Q4: The one who killed doesn't know that victim was a dacoit, is it fine now??.
A4: fine, but not 100% fine.

Q5: He was killed by a mercenary, a dacoit himself, is it fine now??.
A5: fine, but not 100% fine.

Q6: Victim actually wanted to convey a dacoit plan to public and avert a great tragedy, is it fine now??
A6: Alas, thats cruel.

Q7: If killing is right or wrong?.
A7: Very Wrong.

Currently the Dharma of people depends on how may questions they are capable of thinking.
One who thinks through asking all questions is the one eligible to decide what is dharma.

4 years 5 months ago

u see not only with ur eyes it is because u have athma u see .
This is wat he mentions as the eye [eye for an EYE] when u see with that eye there is no world only athma so he refers as blind in vision with normal eye

3 years 2 months ago

Dharma and Adharma all belong to the supreme. Neither the Pandavas nor the Kauravas were completely just nor were they completely unjust.
The war of Kurukshetra itself was the great act of Adharma and it belonged to both sides. It was the war that brought about the onset of the Kali Yuga and ever since, the world has been enmeshed in terrible acts of Adharma that reflect the events of the Mahabharata. Such as the burning of forests, the massacre of tribal people, wars of horrific destruction using terrible weapons and the deaths of millions of innocents.
Krishna as the supreme Vishnu wills the changes of the Yugas. That is all that happened.

4 years 5 months ago

What "present", everything in present only, i don't see anything in past or future, everything i experience is present, i can experience only the present. Everything i think could be past or future. "Multiple level of truths" yes there is multiple of truths, whatever you experience that is truth for you. For example, various kind of people going to Dhyanalinga one who don't know anything he sees Dhyanalinga as just a stone, it is his experience and it is absolute truth for him, but for somebody else it is their Guru, moment they enter the temple they feel the energy and bliss of their Guru. In both way i experienced it. The man who experienced it as stone can argue endlessly with man who experienced it as absolute bliss. Both are true but there are multiple levels in the way you experiencing it. "How does sadhguru know why krishna did what he did" - How does HE
knows? Sadhguru once said that in a way he downloaded Krishna, Krishna
is a part of him. Here also you have no choice either you can believe or
disbelieve him, both not going to help you in spiritual growth.

4 years 4 months ago

this makes lot of sense

4 years 5 months ago

There is no confusion. Krishna has always tried to avert the war. But, when the inevitable has happened he ensured that the result is complete.

2 years 11 months ago

Its very simple: Adharma(evil) must be finished by hook or by crook. that's the golden rule.

4 years 4 months ago

Raj.. ur first statement is in itself contradictory.. it seems u r repeating what others have told u. How can anyone experience just present without knowing past and future. If u dont know past and future u will not know present, but only if u know past and future then u know present. Think abt it friend.. it is much deeper.

4 years 3 months ago

The way I can understand.. It is not about future establishment of dharma.. It is about the intentions in the moment.. The kauravas were fighting the war out of a complex arrangement of envy and hatred towards the pandavas which was a development from childhood days.. moreover they also had lust and greed for the land.. Krishna was fighting for dharma which means in the moment he would not allow the party which is lost in unconscious intentions collectively to achieve a position of victory or power..

4 years 5 months ago

Hello sumit, I see what you're saying but..."an eye for an eye would mean that the world would be blind" So it seems that the ultimate outcome is definitely not good. Where is the end good in that context?
And whatever Krishna did was to establish Dharma, but he was one of the qualified ones that were beyond good and bad and were able to see very far. He didn't see only steps 1, 2, 3, but the very end, or probably a certain stage that people needed to face in that period of time, in that era. I doubt that a Che Guevara would be qualified for such a thing. That is how I see this situation. But if I need to talk about myself, to be honest I would never jump to such judgements about good and bad because I'm not qualified for this. I may see 1, 2... maybe 3 but not too much more. I think someone who has not reached yet the ultimate, someone who still lives in his/her personal ideas and impresions imposed by a certain society about right and wrong, good and bad, is definitely not qualified to act in the world towards this aspects.
And about the post, personally I quite recognise Sadhguru writing here :-) whether directly or indirectly doesn't matter too much. But I think one should not get too much attached to a certain image of Sadhguru because he is never the same. Ofcourse he is maintaining a certain equilibrium and a certain personality for whatever purposes he has, but he is never the same. He personally said that during his stay at Isha, he changed his personality 3 times, accordingly for what was needed. And many people got confused and left :-). In my view he is one of the "qualified" ones, because of everything that he is :-). But you should not just take it like that, you just see if it makes any sense to you or not. I hope you see my point. Love and respect.

2 years 11 months ago

Every one in the story as far as i read, did a mistake willingly... even if they know that it's wrong (adharma) but, Abhimanyu...who's just a 17 year old boy, who never made a mistake as far as the story is up to, died in the war. He never deceived anyone, he even tried to save his relatives and was always in a right path. why didn't krishna save him? He knew that would happen... but, he didn't save him

4 years 4 months ago

I think there is no need to find justification of what krishna or someone did then bcos first of all we dont know whether such a thing happened and even if it happened we r trying to justify someones action bcos we assume tat person to be our god and hence in the process solidifying our fundamentalist roots further. I dont think it demands any explanation for what krishna did. It is only a fundamentalist mind which xannot accept anything of this kund from its god so looking for a valid reason behind it. I dont think it helps anyone on any spiritual path.. personally I think it is rubbish to find explanation for such things as it seems to be a vulgar activty.

4 years 3 months ago

Dear Sumit,

Che guevara was working for achieving something in which he had self-investment.. In one of the letters from South America to his parents he has said that he wanted to prove to the world that he was right at any cost, even if that meant he had to die.. That is brave and saintly indeed..
Krishna on the other hand did not want to prove anybody anything.. he acted on the moment as was needed with no self investment.. He knew he was right as he was a realised being and did not divide the world between who are capitalist and who are proletarians.. Even at the beginning of the War he was open to join both parties.. he just acted as was necessary/dharmic in that moment..

4 years 5 months ago

There is no written rule of Dharma and Adharma. It all depends on the situation in which a person is placed. Sadhguru always emphasizes on acting to the extent it is needed for the situation. Krishna acted the way he acted, because he was in a situation that he was in. To accept it or not depends on the way our minds are.

2 years 11 months ago

what about adharma that happens to common man in today's world inflicted by corrupt minds, corrupt co-workers, governments and armies? Alas there is no krishna I see to saving them daily! : (

4 years 4 months ago

Dorin.. I hv an ugly mind which does not need appreciation. U tried hard above.. but it does not cut ice with me. Anyways I m not interested in such discussions beyond a point as it leads no where but just strengthening our personal resolve to ourwit others. And I dont want to be part of this game

4 years 2 months ago

that is like pre-emptive war... or the goal justifies the means... the world biggest cancer, the idea that perpetuates the war... the Mahabarata is a warmongering epic... sorry, it just can't brainwash me. when you realize your true self warring mentality does not make anymore sense. Can adharma create dharma? I don't thinks so...

4 years 5 months ago

the eye wat he mentions is athma eye for an eye which is bcoz without athma even if we have eye we cannot see when we see with that EYE everything is blind we can see and feel just athma alone.

2 years 9 months ago

No Sadhguru has ever been known to mankind.The only Sadhguru that there is was the one Kabir mentioned in his Hymns.
Just because someone is called a "sadhguru" by his followers.. means nothing.
Plus,The essence of Mahabharat lies in Bhagvada Gita.
"Krishna didn't want this"...you have to be an absolute moron to believe that if He the Lord Himself.. din't want this..it would have still happened

Is this Sadhguru of yours analyzing Lord Krishna???....well..Good Luck then.

4 years 4 months ago

Dear Sumit,

In my understanding there's no confusion, Sadhguru is still saying the same thing, he's not defending Krishna here. All he said was Krishna defended what he considered Dharma, for which the means he used were similar to that of his opponents. According to Krishna the fair war is only possible when other side is also fair and they do not hit under the belt at every possible opportunity. Arjuna was bent on a fair war and would have lost miserably, if not for Krishna's wisdom (in my view). Now we can keep arguing that Krishna used incorrect means to win, but against whom the people who were breaking all rules of the war (like killing Abhimanyu), we are discussing Krishna, since his side won or else Duryodhana might be discussed, but he was anyway not keen on any fair strategy and he doesn't care a damn to justify, when Krishna would keenly explain his view and actions.

Case of Burishwara clearly explains that Krishna used the methods of opponents where ever required, not at every possible opportunity to decimate the opponent. He was for the Dharma that can be followed by both the sides, just that the Kauravas were not keen at all.

In case Che Guevara, again both sides used the similar strategies, just that, unlike Mahabharatha, they were not evenly matched, so Che was bound to be on the losing side against the powerful opposition, and that's what happened, but he certainly managed to create a space for himself in many minds. Having said that Che was of the view if you are not with us then you are against us, which is a clear case of extremism, why does an extremist need to be replaced by another. In case he had the strength, he would have done that, but even an eye for an eye did not help him win

regards,

Mrinal

4 years 2 months ago

Krishna was in the Dharma, his vision and perception was clear. The Pandavas were men of god, of the dharma, of Krishna. Krishna was just ensuring the Dharma was preserved and that evil did not prevail. If the Pandavas would have lost, the earth would be strife with evil, and Krishna clearly wasnt manifest on the earth to allow evil to reign.

4 years 5 months ago

It becomes difficult for a questioning and doubtful mind to absorb the essence of words of the Guru. Truth has multiple levels and is relative to situations.

2 years 9 months ago

Namaste to all.
I am not here to argue right or wrong.
Great scholars are already having a long argument on this right/wrong

Why we are judging krishna, because we have assumed that god can never do wrong to anyone, can never take wrong decision, can never take wrong paths, can never lie... means there will be nothing negative in him.
This is our concept of god.

but what is the existence of positive with out negative.

a house owner always prays to god before going to sleep to protect his from robbery or theft

a thief or dacoit prays to god for safely robbing or stealing a house.

now, who should god listen to,
many will say for the house owner, and then that thief will die starving

but, according to me what god is doing is he is neutral and balanced, he is doing nothing and just watching.
Mistake by any one of them the owner or the thief will lead to their own results... and then you can't blame god, why I was caught, I already prayed to you or why my house was robbed, I too prayed to you...

somehow, we know about what krishna did... and so we all are judging him like a scholars...
Pandava won, that why we still are believing in dharma, satya

suppose in case Kaurava, won
Imagine the situation what would be we, for us all pandava would be enemy and krishna would be the enemy no. 1

There will be no geeta, puran etc

Remember what kaurva did in their entire life, we would be doing the same.

We all know what our mother did for us to save us from father fierce eyes... just to protect us from rage of our angry father she might have done many mistaken, might have said hundreds of lies... just to protect you..

How will you judge your mother... did she brought you up with proper dharma???