Only put the Sloka Trail at the top of the page if it's a Sloka page
मूलम्
धृतराष्ट्र उवाच
धर्मक्षेत्रे कुरुक्षेत्रे समवेता युयुत्सवः |
मामकाः पाण्डवाश्चैव किमकुर्वत सञ्जय || १-१ ||
Meaning
शब्दार्थाः (Word for word)
धृतराष्ट्रः -- King Dhritarashtra;
उवाच -- said;
धर्मक्षेत्रे -- In the land of dharma;
कुरुक्षेत्रे -- In Kurukshetra;
समवेताः -- assembled;
युयुत्सवः -- eager for battle;
मामकाः -- my people;
पाण्डवाः -- Pandu's people;
च -- and;
एव -- also;
किम् -- what;
अकुर्वत -- they did;
सञ्जय -- Sanjaya;
अन्वयः (Word order)
धृतराष्ट्रः उवाच "सञ्जय! धर्मक्षेत्रे कुरुक्षेत्रे समवेताः युयुत्सवः मामकाः च पाण्डवाः एव किम् अकुर्वत ?"
अनुवादः (Translation)
Dhritarashtra said "O Sanjaya! Assembled on the sacred ground of Kurukshetra, eager for battle, what did my sons and the sons of Pandu do?"
Notes
Ramanuja gives a moving introduction to his Gita Bhashya. However, since it has no immediate practical application that I could see, I am skipping notes on the first pass. He also does not comment on this verse in particular, but does indicate something about Dhritarashtra's fundamental attitude, which I've noted below.
Swami Ramsukhdasji notes
- The word धर्मक्षेत्रे indicates that even bitter conflicts such as the Mahabharata war were carried out in a place which was known as sacred ground. Hence, he suggests, that every action by a human being should be done within the context of dharma.
- Dhritarashtra's distinguishing of the Pandavas from his own people by the use of मामकाः पाण्डवाश्चैव . The root cause of the fratricidal war was this artificial distinction between "his own" people and the Pandavas, who were, in truth, part of his family.
- This ममता also causes him to lose his judgment to the extent that, despite knowing the capability of the Pandavas, their righteousness, the consequent presence of Krishna in their camp, and his own meaningful use of the word धर्मक्षेत्रे about the battleground, he genuinely thinks that there is hope for "his" side's victory. Ramanuja labels this attitude of his as being "blind in every possible way". ममता can cause both loss of reason and lead to really tragic consequences.
Practice Notes
(Balaji)
- RSDji says that the essence of dharma is that one must think of the general welfare of everyone before engaging in any activity. While trying to implement this I have found asking myself the following questions useful "Does this activity lead to general welfare? Does it help anyone other than me? Does it hurt anyone else? If it is purely a selfish act, how can I make it at least a bit more conducive to general welfare? " Whenever I practice this, even for the most routine of activities (brushing my teeth, doing sandhyAvandana, etc) I find it very useful to just be aware of these questions, regardless of the ultimate course I choose. If you try this, please let me know your experiences.
- To eliminate ममता obviously takes a lot of practice. However, as with the धर्म issue I have found it extremely useful to be just remind myself of where it led Dhritarashtra. (I just mentally picture the fratricidal war). I have found this practice particularly useful when dealing with dis-satisfactions within the family ("X relative didn't treat my parents as they would have their own people"). Obviously, this applies to wider situations such as nation, caste, creed, religion, sect etc.
- When merely warning myself of the dangers of ममता is not sufficient, (it is really surprising how often just a warning is sufficient), I find that it is sometimes useful to remind myself of a larger set under which the "other" comes under "mine", i.e. use the वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम् principle. However, I have found this only marginally useful in practice.
(Mani)
I would like to add that युयुत्सवः is significant here. To remain steadfast in dharma is a struggle, a fight, with positive and negative forces allied against each other. Staying brave (अनवसाद, one of the साधनसप्तक) is essential, and Sri Krishna counsels Arjuna to cast off his sorrow and dejection. I think despair is very often self-fulfilling.
Comments
anand — 08 April 2009, 16:19
Is "dharmakShetre" always interpreted as "on the sacred ground"?
dharma has many meanings, but "sacred" seems the remotest.
"Land of Good Wisdom" or "Land of Piety" or some such thing seems good.
in any case, I think dharma is always hard to say in english. in my own mind,
I do not think I appreciate it like many others. RS's note is interesting, but my
problem is that dharma is very society-specific, place-specific, time-specific.
And as much as the whole of Gita can be seen to be a description of "what is Dharma",
at the end of it, I still do not know if I can "detect" dharma vs adharma well.
I need some sort of a Turing test, to which I feed today's constitution and societal
morals, and it will say if something is dharma or adharma.
Maybe you all feel dharma is beyond time, place and situation, but I am not
able to digest that.
mani — 08 April 2009, 18:11
My understanding is that Kurukshetra was called a dharma kshetra because it had been a place of great tapas for many years.
dharmakshetra : My understanding is the same as Mani.
As for dharma itself, I don't think it is beyond time, place and situation. But, I do think there are commonalities that go beyond mere algorithmic tests. I think at least a few morals are inborn in every being.
In any case, even if one is of the view that morals are socially and legally constructed, I think it is worth practicing a few mental adjustments (as suggested by Swami RDji) which I will be noting above in a short while.
By the way, it would be nice if you folks could add your personal notes too
Mani, how does one practice anavasAda? Despair is sometimes exceedingly hard to fight. Can one, so to speak "snap out of it"?
anand — 09 April 2009, 09:15
After being conditioned for several years trying to solve logical and analytical problems, I notice that in my and others's lives, there is ample amount of "creative justification" that clouds dharma and adharma.
For example, the question "Does this activity lead to general welfare? Does it help anyone other than me" when applied to (say) brushing your teeth, can be easily justified as "Without healthy teeth, you cannot consume well, cannot be physically healthy, and without physical health, there is no way to actually do any good to people. So, your brushing teeth is very important for you to be able to help others in the future". In fact, most self-obsessed acts, I find, can be justified to be investments for future good action (even things like vedAdhyanam). I feel "Does it hurt anyone else" is a much stronger signal to guide in dhArmic carcA.
Anand, actually, in my practice I find the positive questioning to be more helpful. I suspect that most times we know the "rightness" of an action deep within anyway. So, I was *not* suggesting this in order to decide the right or wrong of any action. However, doing this (especially for trivial actions) helps me put the action in its right context. Many times it helps me evaluate how much of my time I spend taking from society rather than giving back. Please try out just being aware of these questions and let me know.
Secondly, if one goes through long chains to see how an action helps, one must try and go through equally long chains to see how it hurts. This assumes an amount of honesty towards oneself but I am pretty sure all of us are that.
Further, my angle to the whole exercise is to see what works for me (and find out what tricks work for you). This is because, I have often been lost in the more abstract "Does this rule work for everyone? What are its possible pitfalls for someone who is not serious? " etc. That exercise, is in my opinion the biggest reason for why no practice ever takes place. We evaluate it as if it were a scientific theory whereas it should be treated more as a hack. I am currently trying to apply each of these just to myself with as much honesty as possible and I find that it helps
Btw, I just added some preliminary vyAkaraNa notes on dharmakSetre. Could you check those out?
I was also planning that we could further hyperlinks under akArAnta-pullinga which would lead to an example declension etc. What do all of you think?
mani — 09 April 2009, 23:14
I don't think fighting despair is ever as easy as "snapping out of it." That would be trivializing the problem. Faith, however, does play an essential part, as well as some recognition that this too shall pass, it's all part of the continuously changing nature of life. As we continue, the Gitacharya is sure to give more concrete advice :-)
Only put the Sloka Trail at the foot of the page if it's a Sloka page
