Gita and Nonviolence 5 - Destruction as message of hope

In our last blog we asked that why would a kind and merciful God want war and destruction of mankind.

The Supreme Lord’s message is not restricted to a particular age or context or person, it is universal. The purpose of a great destruction is to leave behind a message for the posterity, that do not cross your limits, or destruction is imminent. This is not a question of being kind or ruthless, this is simply a natural law. The  impersonal God is above any dualism of kindness or ruthlessness. He is detached from everything although He Is everything.

We’ll see shortly in Gita that it is His will that is driving everything and everybody, though because of ignorance people talk about free will. The war is also His will, His writ upon an aggressive society which is drunk with pride, lust and avarice. He, who is the supreme creator, is also the supreme destructor. He as Atman or Brahman, the Supreme Being, is indifferent, beyond all dualistic attributes like kindness and compassion, ruthlessness and vengeance and therefore the destruction associated with war does not move Him.

To leave behind a profound Universal message He will time and again sow the seeds of destruction and everybody who seems to carry out the destruction are nothing but His agents, instruments in carrying out His will, without even knowing the same. Historically that force of destruction struck evertime when the human civilization was too proud and too sure of itself. It destroyed half of imperial Europe in two world wars in the recent past and it obliterated many other kingdoms and civilizations. Many so called great men like Napoleon and Alexander who considered themselves to be invincible faded into oblivion leaving behind nothing but memoirs and memories of their exploits.

So the Lord will not stop the war. This is because it is His writ that runs through the world and He favours destruction when traits like avarice, greed, malice and pride have gone beyond limits. That’s why he proclaims in his most famous verse in Gita –

Yada yada hi dharmasya glanirbhavati Bharata abhyuthanam adharmasya tadatmanam srjamyaham

Oh Bharata! Whenever virtue is in peril, whenever there is erosion of moral values to a considerable extent that calls for my intervention, I project myself.

Paritranaya sadhunam vinashaya ca duskrtam dharma samsthapanarthaya sambhavami yuge yuge

Why does He incarnate? The answer is - to protect the good and to destroy the bad, to reestablish justice. This is not a onetime affair; this will happen time and again, whenever the world needs His service.

The other interpretation for this is, the Supreme Lord incarnates to protect His devotees. He creates war to leave behind a message of hope for his devotees that destruction awaits those who harms His devotees. This message of protection to devotees is also found in many chapters of Gita.

After all, this is a divine play. The Lord Himself is in all beings, therefore it is He who is divided into many selves who are busy fighting with each other.

Europe and its struggle 4

In the nineteenth century industrial revolution accelerated the growth engine. European nations were now rolling in money and surplus money meant – a) new scientific discoveries through promoting of new ideas which might be commercially viable b) wars and more wars to establish supremacy and gain a lion’s share of the plunders. Industry developed by leaps and bounds. Some new nations like Italy came up. Others like Germany emerged more powerful. France was reeling under the aftereffects of revolution and it could not withstand the shock of having a powerful neighbor. Russia under the Tsar was trying hard to keep pace. In sort, the European stage was prepared for a major confrontation and as Swami Vivekananda in his prophetic way assessed in 1897, Europe was sitting on a volcano waiting to be exploded. The race to establish control of the mineral rich areas of the world, like Africa and middle East Asia, aggravated the crisis and a “world war”, which was more of an intra European war (America was a nation of immigrant Europeans anyway, so they don’t count as outside world) but which gained the “worldly” status through the participation of the colonies often at the expense of the natives, was imminent.

Drunk with power and pride, swollen with ego and might, European nations fell and grabbed each other’s throats to begin a vicious war which claimed many lives and more importantly led to many scientific and technical discoveries, esp. in weapons of mass destruction. Such weapons coming from countries which are supposedly followers of Christ the savior were a revelation of the extent of hypocrisy of the Western world, and the Christian Church which had been so vocal throughout the past fifteen hundred years, was strangely a mute spectator all along. To be fair the Church probably did not have the authority that it had in the middle ages on the political affairs and there were simply too many vested interests, including the scientific and commercial stakeholders who were in favour of war to further their own selfish agenda.

It seems that the European nations did not learn any lesson from the fate of their predecessors, the Romans, who strangely went through the same cycle of ascendancy, arrogance, ruthless profligacy and descent. They forgot one of the main teachings of Christ – “Wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction”.

Gita and Non Violence - 4, War as a moral duty

Lord Krishna now enters into a conventional form of argument with Arjuna, based on principles of virtue and vice. He explains that for a Kshatriya or warrior like Arjuna, there is no nobler profession than participating in a righteous war, on the side of the good. One whose dharma or duty is to fight should be delighted at the prospect of fighting for good against evil. If one does not do that, he falls from a high pedestal and people, including his enemies, look down upon him. Such a person would fall from grace and for a very long period of time people would remember him as coward, not as compassion incarnate as he is trying to portray himself.

If we look into the historical context we’ll see that there are enough instances to justify what the Lord said here. If for instance Britain or United States, out of sudden compassion and spirit of non violence would have refused to fight Hitler and Nazis, many more Jews and other innocents would have been killed. To fight a scourge ordinary folks cannot simply resort to non violence. Only God or His incarnations can. One would then say how did Mahatma Gandhi fight the British? It is questionable and doubtful whether Mahatma would have succeeded in the end to dislodge the British from India merely through non violent non cooperation unless the Second World War severely depleted the resources of the West and unless Netaji Subhas Bose's INA divided the army and navy. Mahatma’s non violence, with due respect to it, certainly could not prevent the partition of India and the associated massacre of millions. Nor could it prevent the massive man made famine in Bengal and death of another million poor souls on weapons of avarice and indifference. 

A scourge can be fought only on equal terms, no amount of peace overtures can desist a Hitler or a Stalin from killing. Neither did it prevent Duryadhana from waging the war as we have already seen in the context we are talking about.

Therefore under such a circumstance it’s a moral duty to stand up and fight for right and justice, to save the weak from the tyranny and oppression of the strong. As Sri Ramakrishna pointed out (The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna) that a ruthless landlord is needed to disarm the rebellious and bad tenants, the evil propensities need to be subdued using the rule of law and justice and a righteous war, however oxymoron it sounds, is based on that principle of justice.

So a righteous war like the one in Mahabharata is justified to arrest the march of evil, to protect the innocents. But I bet that our intellectual friends are still not convinced. They can argue that if Sri Krishna is the supreme Lord He can stop this war, what is the need for all these drama? There is a need, and with our limited intellect it is very hard for us to decipher the grand design which pervades this Universe and shapes its history. In Sri Ramakrishna's language, a one litre jug cannot hold four litres of milk.

Europe and its struggle 3

With monarchy and aristocracy getting rich, European nations had surplus wealth for patronizing art, culture, new explorations and sea voyages. This was one of the contributing factors behind the Renaissance. The great leaps made in art and literature were matched by the progress in science and philosophy. However Western philosophy and science were influenced by Helenic thoughts and Eastern ideas were not seriously considered or were not known at that time. The great strides made in Science were viewed with alarm by Church which saw its domination getting slackened with more liberal thoughts pervading the minds of educated and learned folks who were often the torch bearers of the society. At first the Church, with the help of the rulers, responded with brutal repression. Heretics and men (and women) of scientific temperaments were burnt alive, which resulted in a permanent rift between religion and science and in effect between spirituality and science. It is to be noted that in case of eastern thoughts, esp. in India the two were closely related. Early science in India owes its origin to the Vedas and the leading scientists and philosophers in ancient India were often of spiritual bend of mind. 

But in the later half of sixteenth century and early seventeenth century, Europe was already on a growth path and much of these growth was fueled by the colonies in the new world.

The industrious Europeans worked very hard and also realized the fruit of the work, but the local colonies would have to pay a very heavy price for their gains. Moreover Europeans were sometimes outright racist, and many of them saw the local cultures as abominations. Wherever there was a conflict of interest, waging of wars or brutal oppression were common. Missionaries in their zeal to enlighten the natives often dismissed the local culture as barbaric and portrayed the local religions and customs as hideous, without ever trying to understand them earnestly. In Americas the natives were driven out of their homes, killed or forced to migrate. In India, there were widespread famines on account of forceful taxation and the planting of indigo which destroyed food crops. The mutiny in India was put down in the most ruthless manner, often by exterminating an entire village, a heinous crime which has gone unrecorded by European historians. Millions, often surpassing the numbers killed in holocaust, perished in famines during the colonial rule.  In the name of rule of law and education, European ideas, religion and culture were forcefully thrust upon the natives. A certain brain wash process through modern education held the natives to the belief that everything was wrong with their indigenous culture and religion and that the European lifestyle and culture were the model for the world. However it was also made apparent to the natives that even though they were encouraged to “be European” they were not welcome in European circle. The class distinction was very clear, like another form of “caste system”.

This class distinction and unequal distribution of wealth were major contributing factors behind French revolution which contributed a lot in terms of changing of social and political structures in Europe and in opening up of new schools of thoughts, esp. Socialism and Communism. The deplorable condition of the workers who were cogs in the great wheel of the industrial revolution and the increasing gap between rich and poor also led to the popularity of Communist and socialistic ideas, esp. among students and idealistic younger generations.

Gita and Non Violence - 3, Arjuna's Predicament

The first three slokas in the second chapter of Gita is probably one of the greatest messages that Lord has for the mankind. This is proclaimed by none other than Swami Vivekananda in his lecture on Gita (Complete works of Swami Vivekananda). In no other scripture we find such a forceful exhortation. He says to Arjuna – Why are you dejected and despondent when there is a grave danger facing you? Where are all your bravery and noble instincts gone?


Kutah tva kashmalam idam vishame samupasthitam Anaryajustam asargyam akirtikaram Arjuna


Klaivam ma sma gamah Partha na etat tvam upapadyate ksudram hridayadaurvalyam tvyakta uttistha Parantapa

“Do not become a eunuch, o mighty one, this does not befit you, the noble one, shun that small weakness which has gripped you, stand up and fight.” Through Arjuna this profound message is delivered to the entire mankind, to stand up and fight the terrible battle in the field of life, to be brave and bold and face all enemies. Therefore Gita is a supreme motivator.

So war is the background and the supreme Lord is asking his disciple to fight. But again the pacifists would say – does that befit an all merciful Lord to ask one to fight a bloody battle and kill? That’s the same question that Arjuna asks now – How do I kill my grandfather Vishma and Guru Drona? Its better that I beg my food relinquishing all these kingdoms and sense pleasures. What’s the point in killing all and gaining a kingdom devoid of friends and relatives?

Being honest and guileless, Arjuna candidly describes his predicament saying that he is confused between right and wrong, concepts of vice and virtue. He cannot figure out what is right under the circumstance and therefore requests Krishna for guidance. With the kind of delusion that has set in his mind, he is unable to comprehend that by fighting this bloody war and killing all and sundry, how he is ever going to get the peace of mind to rule over a kingdom, even if that kingdom is as big and as mighty as enjoyed by the gods.

This is also a question of the intellectuals – how can one resort to violence and be in peace? What is the greatness there? Didn’t all “historical” great souls from Buddha, Christ down to Mahatma Gandhi teach us that non violence and compassion are the greatest weapons and we can win over our enemies with love and forbearance?

Let us further see what Sri Krishna has to say in response to Arjuna. At first the Lord is downright contemptuous –
Asochynanvasochastvam pragnyavadanscha bhasose gatasunagatsunscha nanusochanti panditah

“By grieving over that is unfit for grieving, you’ve also made some just comments, however the wise does not repent or worry over the departed or yet to be departed, the past or the future.” You are thinking too much about the consequences, be in the present, be practical. Do not worry about what will happen and who will die, because these are inconsequential thoughts, will achieve nothing.

Na tu eva aham jatu na asam na tvam na ime janadhipah na chaiva na bhavishyamah sarve vayam atah param

In a somewhat cryptic language He says – “it is not that we were never there (me, you and all these kings who have assembled here to fight), and it is not that we’ll never be after this.” The Lord goes on explaining this statement in the next few verses which unfolds the mystery of death - that death is but a change of state, just like youth and old age. There is a difference between the body, which is perishable, and the Atman or the Self or the Supreme Being dwelling in the human heart, which is unborn, undying, non decaying, imperishable. A realized soul knows itself to be different from the body because the body does not last. One who has identified himself with the Self as different from the body, mind and ego, knows that there is no killer and nobody gets killed because Atman is never killed, it cannot be cut, burned or washed. It is everlasting and eternal. Death is like a change of old and worn out garment. The Atman gets a new body, just as a man wears a new garment. Therefore one has nothing to grieve, because in fighting a war and in killing enemies one is really not killing as the Self cannot be killed. Later we also find that as long as one has desires or ego one cannot realize the Self.

This is a very high form of realization and it would certainly not satisfy the intellectuals. Likewise, it did not satisfy Arjuna. Intellectuals would say that then every war, every killing can be justified in the above form, that nobody is actually the killer and nobody gets killed. The whole system of morality and justice would collapse.
Here one can pay the intellectuals back their own coin saying that if non violence and compassion are to be followed then what is the need of justice? There should be compassion for all, even the killer and the fact that the killer is really an Atman or the Supreme Being, all the more justifies the compassion and non violence. Because a) Atman cannot be killed and is not responsible for any action b) The Supreme Being is the God incarnate and therefore cannot be brought under any conventional system of justice.

So the arguments of the intellectuals fall flat. However from practical perspective, only if Atman is realized by one, one can say that everybody is Atman. Without realizing one’s true nature one cannot claim oneself to be the Self. One cannot realize Atman having even slightest identification with the body or even minute traces of desire or ego. Therefore as long as we do not realize Atman we are not Atman and therefore we are subjected to the law of cause and effect and should be brought under the conventional form of justice. A killer who has not realized his Self is a killer and the person, who is identified only with his body, if killed, is killed as the body will perish. Therefore morality and justice does not collapse as a realized soul would never kill for the very reason that He will see everybody as Himself, i.e. Atman or God and therefore would never be able to kill anybody. The paradox ends here. I am sure intellectuals would never agree because they will simply not understand this. It is a matter of realization, not book learning.

Arjuna also does not comprehend and therefore he needs more reasoning.

Gita and Non Violence - 2, Mahabharata & Gita

The first and foremost point is Gita cannot be seen in isolation from Mahabharata. The two are intrinsically related, just like Krishna's relation to Arjuna as a teacher and a student, as two friends and cousins. Although there were overt and covert attempts in the last two hundred years to prove that Gita was perhaps a later addition to Mahabharata, such intellectual assertions did not gain much ground. In Mahabharata we see that a stage is set for a great battle, there is no way this battle can be avoided because Duryadhana, the usurper, who has also played many a tricks on his cousins, the Pandavas, is adamant. All peace overtures, even one made by Krishna himself fall into pieces because Duryadhana and the Kaurava camp are not ready to compromise. Duryadhana flatly refuses donating even five villages to the five Pandava brothers. He is confident of winning because he has so many great warriors in his camp. His camp is also numerically superior, and he also draws solace from the fact that Krishna, the master strategist who has always shown his leniency towards the Pandavas, has assured that he will not fight for anybody.
Want to draw a parallel? Think of Hitler at the beginning of World War 2.


Therefore war is inevitable and this war is an outcome of many factors – the avarice of Duryadhana for the royal title and throne, his monumental ego and jealousy, his blind father’s inferiority complex and blind love for his son, his uncle’s hidden agenda and evil designs, the encouragement received from his brothers and friends, the enmity between Karna, his chief friend and lieutenant and Arjuna and last but not the least, his personal hatred for Bhima, the second Pandava.
Many of these factors are present in today's time, some of them reconditioned and adapted to the age.

Just when the Great War is about to begin, Arjuna, on whom Pandavas are pinning their hope, refuses to fight, driven by apparent compassion and contradictions. He sees that he will have to kill his Guru, grandfather, brothers, in laws, uncles, nephews and other relations in order to win the war, something which he cannot bring himself up to do. He rationalizes that it is better to die unarmed than kill so many near relations because with the destruction of the clan one is bound to destroy the very foundation of society – order. Arjuna relinquishing war will have a tremendous impact – people like Duryadhana will win and reign over a vast kingdom with grave impact and at that critical juncture Sri Krishna appears to deliver his discourse on Gita.
Lets imagine that a rogue nuclear nation is about to hurl a bomb on a neighbour which would kill or maim a large section of the latter's population. However the neighbour, being weak in mind, is thinking of the enormous consequences of a nuclear warfare and is therefore loathe to retaliate. This is the beginning of Gita.

Gita and Non Violence -1, a summary

One of the major contentions of intellectuals against Gita is that Gita advocates war in contrast with Christian or Buddhist philosophies which value non violence above everything else. However they often tend to ignore the fact that the Vaishnava sect which is based upon the worship of Rama or Krishna as the incarnations of the supreme lord of the Universe, is fundamentally based on principles of non violence. Western academia’s love for non violence has led to the deification of Mahatma Gandhi as the incarnation of the age, just a shade below Christ and Buddha. Mahatma also defended Gita, but his interpretation was different. He was more defensive on the war advocacy part of Gita and postulated that the war described therein is symbolic, a representation of the inner conflict inherent in every human being. While this can verily be an interpretation, this is no reason for denying the war. Gita is definitely set against the background of war, the Great War between Pandavas and Kauravas and therefore war plays a very important role in the teachings.


Sri Krishna, the lord of the supreme universe exhorting his disciple and friend Arjuna to fight and win over his enemies is in direct contrast with the dualistic notion of God which is benevolent and is bestowing grace, as well as the Advaistic principle of an inactive God or Self which is merely a witness. At the beginning of the war Arjuna is dejected by seeing so many near and dear ones whom he will have to kill to win the war. Hence he is willingly to give up fighting, ready to get killed by the enemy, based on his own concepts of virtue and vice, which are not very different from traditional intellectual notions of present age. However Lord is firm, he asks Arjuna to fight and win over his enemies.  He begins by explaining to him that the term “death” as understood by everybody is a misnomer, as every individual is nothing but Self and Self is neither born nor killed. In death it merely changes its form and passes from one identity to another. Then he explains that virtues and vices do not exist if one is free from desire, these traits only exist as long as an individual is imbibed with the spirit of dual aspects (like love and hate) and the goal of human beings is to progress to the level of one who is above these traits of duality. This person is free of desire and therefore relinquishes all fruits of actions even while acting. Such a person is called in Gita “Sthitapragnya” or the one of steady intellect (certainly does not refer to the intellectuals of our times).

To satisfy Arjuna’s desire for knowing more about the different paths, Sri Krishna goes on explaining the principles of Karma , the principle of work without desire for fruits and how selfless work can negate the effects of anger and desire which compel people to take up unholy actions. He also explains the path of knowledge and complete renunciation of work and but also emphasizes that renunciation of desire is far better than any other form of renunciation and therefore there is no conflict between selfless work and renunciation in contrast to popular belief. He then gradually unfolds his true nature in front of an amazed and dazed disciple. The sight, popularly called Viswaroopa, is so extra ordinary that it cannot be constructed from mere intellectual imagination, thus lending more credence to the truth inherent in Gita. He explains the path of devotion, the knowledge of the Self and body, the knowledge of nature and qualities which help in the progress of spiritual path and which impede progress. Finally in unequivocal terms he advocates complete surrender to the will of the Lord, shunning everything else. And the God’s will here is to wage war, to fight and to win over enemies.

This is something of an enigma to the intellectuals. How can a benign and benevolent God advocate war? Therefore one of the Western intellectuals declared that she does not like Gita much because it advocates war over peace and she is perplexed as to why Gita has popularity amongst educated Americans.

Scholars and Intellectuals

Sri Ramakrishna, like a child, was always very guileless and straight in his evaluation of others, esp. the so called scholars and intellectuals with mere book learning (who do not have spiritual traits like discrimination and renunciation to complement the learning thus acquired). He equated them with larks and vultures which soar high up in the sky (a reference to the high social status of the former) but still have an eye on the charnel-pit of greed and lust. These intellectuals clamour for name and fame. Being obsessed and driven by their ego they are highly opinionated. They are egotists and treat anybody differing from their opinions contemptuously. There are many a living sample of them whose quotes and opinions many times appear on the front pages of the newspapers. They have certainly made a name in the academic and material world without providing any practical benefit to the society and mankind. They adorn academic chairs. They are considered by the left liberal or right liberal camps to be the greatest treasures on earth and they have developed quite a large following among the people subscribing to these viewpoints, mainly in the academic world. Most of them have some common features – disdain for anything to do with religion or spirituality. Perhaps they are too circumspect as a result of the experience of the intellectuals in the medieval age about the high handedness of the Church, but that ironically goes against the very essence of what they would like to preach – liberalism. The backbone of liberalism lies in acceptance and critical evaluation of other beliefs and values, not in throwing them aside simply because they are not in consonance with one’s own thoughts and ideals. Sri Ramakrishna used to say that from a very high plane of existence in which he often used to be, such dry intellectuals would seem like mere straws. Just like dry straw, dry intellect is of no value apart from being fodder for cows (i.e. food for thought for not so intellectual followers of these intellectual scholars).

Love – its nature

Love is a much misunderstood subject. Normally in our selfish relationship we often misconstrue love as the possessive love. But possessive love is almost certainly selfish love, it is also not unrequitted. If for some reason the other party does not pay back, often the love vanishes and is replaced by its sworn enemy – hate and repulsion. Such type of love is called "Raga" in Sanskrit and is intrinsically linked to its opposite - "Dwesha" or hatred.


Love of a divine nature is on the other hand most often unselfish, unpolluted and unrequitted. It is also unconditional, not dependent on anything else. It is non possessive, since it is unselfish – the lover has no hassles in sharing her object of love with others, because she knows that by sharing her own love will not diminish, instead it will magnify by coming in contact with other love sources.

Most often in a family set up love is possessive, selfish and conditional and dependent on so many preconditions to be fulfilled. This kind of love often leads into many problems, much heartburns and a lot of conflicts and troubles, jealousy, hatred, anger and other negative emotions.

Divine love is not bounded, it has the capacity of being and becoming infinite, so much so that the lover merges with the object of love and there is nothing to really differentiate between the two. This is one supreme form of love which Gopis had for Lord Krishna. Simple, illiterate peasant women as they were, they were bound by moral scruples and yet found an ocean of unbound love for the Lord whom they devoted everything – their body, mind and spirit, societal and family obligations and even ego and reputation.

That’s the highest form of love, which if realized, gives instant emancipation from all form of bondages, whereas selfish love binds one rigidly. This is something which is not comprehended by materialistic mortals.

The highest form of devotion is divine love and the supreme form of devotee is the state of "Radha", a state where there is really no difference between devotee and the Lord, they merge in each other and one cannot be conceived without the other. Sri Ramakrishna therefore used to say - "Bhagavat-Bhakta-Bhagavan", i.e. words of devotion, devotee and the object of devotion are in reality the same. This is the ultimate form of realization in the path of devotion and is the product of highest form of love.

Europe and its struggle 2

The early adopters of Christ also included certain sects who were influenced by Buddhism, paganism and other ideals. Some of these sects, e.g. the Gnostics believed in reincarnation and many of their notions and practices were influenced by Eastern ideals of Vedanta (monism and dualism) and Buddhism. However some of these sects, being persecuted by the Church and the Holy Roman Empire, later fled to Persia and under Islamic influence many of them converted to Islam. Their original ideals helped them in forming a separate sect called Sufism with divine communion and love for God as the central theme. Others who remained in Europe, preserved the main teachings of Christianity and gave rise to what came to be known as Christian mystics who also believed in direct communion with God. Needless to say, in the middle ages, with the growing influence of Church, some of these Christian mystics were persecuted as heretics because their teachings and messages were not in sync with the preaching of the Church. Meister Eckhart was one such mystic. Others like Ignatius Loyola, St Francis of Assisi however were more fortunate as they had a larger following and the Church accepted them in the mainstream, albeit grudgingly, although the label “mystics” distinguished them from the Catholic mainstream Christians.

Apart from frequent warfare, class conflicts and rise of religious conflicts and persecution, Europe at this time was also afflicted by several calamities, like the Black Death and the great fire.

However with the decay of Arabic Islamic rule in the near East which had been a great patron of art and culture, and with the rise of the less liberal Islamic Turkey, Europe had a great opportunity to rise. The European nations at this time became great sea farers, a legacy of the Romans, Phoenicians and the Vikings. They discovered new worlds, some of them travelled to various countries in the Far East including India, their dreamland. Treasures were discovered and old civilizations were destroyed but European monarchies started becoming rich. The discovery of the colonies and their riches resulted in mutual warfare over the booty but ordinary people remained as poor as ever. Only the ruling class and the adventurous class prospered. Wherever colonies were established Christianity also spread its wings, sometimes through the help of sincere teachers but most often by force and repression and subjugation of the local culture.

The golden age at this time was ushered in through the opening up of new realms – in art, literature and science.

Andhenaiva niyamana……

Sri Ramakrishna had a simple way of teaching. Through many parables he has handed down very profound messages of Vedanta and other scriptures to his devotees and disciples. Himself uneducated in the traditional sense, he nevertheless derived this source of knowledge from direct realization. The supreme mother of the universe, according to him, passed on the required knowledge whenever a need arose for teaching others, just as a peasant woman moves forward the paddy for the removal of the husk. One of his famous parables was that of a physician to whom one day a father and a son duo appeared from a different, far away village for the treatment of the latter. The physician did a general check up but did not suggest any remedy. Instead he told them to come back next week. The next week the duo turned up and the remedy suggested was simple – “don’t eat any of those molasses”. The father was astonished – “why didn’t you tell us this last week?” he asked the physician in private. The latter replied, “Because, I myself had molasses in large containers in my house last week. Only after I removed them that I asked you guys to come down. Otherwise your boy would not have taken me seriously. He would have said that the fellow himself is addicted to molasses, what can he prescribe me?”

Of course Sri Ramakrishna told this in the context of renunciation and God realization. Only a man of renunciation who has developed the love of God and who has realized God can preach about God to others, not anybody who is still enjoying the sensual pleasures, who has not been able to overcome the twin worldly passions of lust and greed.

When one hears the political leaders of today condemning corruption, one can’t help but remember this parable. Those who themselves are sunk neck deep in the mud of corruption, nepotism and other malpractices cannot prescribe a way out of this mess. Nobody will take them seriously, despite all the stringent laws that they advocate. Therefore Janalokpal or any other pal is not going to save India as long as we are under the clutches of a gang of mercenaries and thugs who consider themselves as leaders and who are idealized by the self serving media and supporters. Remember that famous shloka from Kathopanishad? –

Avidyayam antare vartamana svayam dhirah panditam manyamana

dandranyamanah pariyanti mudhah andhenaiva niyamana yathaandhah

Deluded by ignorance, yet considering themselves as wise and intelligent, fools roam around (baptizing people), like a blind leading a blind.

If we continue to be led by these blind the whole country runs the risk of falling in a very deep ditch, but is anybody realizing the grave danger that lies ahead of us?

Europe and its struggle 1

If we analyze European history we have seen sagas of rise and fall quite often. Spectacular rises have given way to humiliating and crushing falls. If we consider ancient Greeks as part of Europe, then we have a golden period followed by the rise of Romans, a general darkness after the fall of Rome which was assuaged by the spread of Christianity, even though this spread itself was marked by bloody wars between the so called “believers” and “heathens”. Europe’s ascent through the dark ages was threatened by a rapidly advancing Islam and therefore the two Semitic brothers got engaged in a series of devastating civil wars over the occupation of the common holy ground. In this respect Jews, the original inhabitants of middle Asia were nowhere to be seen and as Christianity spread its wings, they became an object of much hatred in the Christian world, because of their role in the killing of Jesus the Christ.

Of course it was not apparent to the general populace that the Savior himself was a Jew and he would definitely not have condoned the killing of brothers and neighbors in his name. But the Church which was “built upon the rock St. Peter” instead of spreading the message of Christ, of love and renunciation, of forbearance and benevolence, of chastity and peace, devoted itself to spreading Christianity and grabbing power, in alliance with the kings and emperors. The Church got involved in almost every affair, be it social or political, conspiracy or scandals, warfare or violence, except for the purpose for which it was built – that of upholding the light of harmony and respect for ideas, religions and cultures. There were many honest and upright Christians who followed these ideals. In fact the burning ideals of renunciation, charity, love and benevolence carried out by many an ardent followers of Christ did a lot of good and some of these also contributed to the rise of Europe in the middle ages.


However Christian world broke into two halves in the middle of fourteenth century as within the Christianity some resented the dominance of Catholic Church and Protestantism resulted in further violence and warfare, e.g the thirty years war which ripped apart Germany in the 17th century.

India’s Soul

Swami Vivekananda was very categorical when he tried analyzing India and its problems. The kernel of India lies, not in religion, or dogma, or politics, nor in dharma or virtue, but in countless sagas of devotion, service, contemplation, sacrifice and wisdom, not found in any other culture. From time immemorial India’s culture has soaked it in the stories of Ramayana and Mahabharata, in the Vedas and Upanishadas, in Puranas and other smritis, poems like Gita Govinda or Ramacharitamanasa, Baul, Vaishnava and Sufi ballads. Many holy men have walked on the dusts of this land which has made this country holy, their well wishes and their spiritual practices have played a major role in shaping the destiny of this country despite the many obstacles and many enemies, both internal and external. Very few countries in the world have bled like India had over a span of more than thousands of years through myriads of foreign invasions. There are very few countries like India in which only a handful have been able to dominate and repress many for a long period of time. Internal enemies in the form of treachery, deviousness, callousness, inertia, oppression, bigotry, fanaticism, indifference, corruption, discrimination, poverty, ignorance, in sort most of the what Bhagavat Gita refers to as Rakhashi and Asuri Bhavas, i.e. traits of monsters and demons, have caused more damage than external enemies. Many of those external enemies had been absorbed and assimilated in the larger milieu and had become a part of India. And still the country holds on and tries to assert itself. This is not a mean achievement.

India’s soul therefore is not secular education, nor its people, nor achievements by few individuals or political leaders, who appeared both before and after independence. It is something that helps the country survive and sustain against all odds, it provides strength, courage and a general will to overcome all odds, even in the worst of time. It lies in the heart of the masses, not amongst a few elite. Despite all the apparent differences, a thread of unity binds the country from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, that which the scholars refer to as “Unity in Diversity”. This unity is perceived in the form of what secular academicians refer to as “mythology” or “stories”, stories that link one end of India to the other, one group of people to another, that are told and retold by countless saints, monks, holy men and sages of all ages, by mothers and grandmothers to their children and grandchildren, by village story tellers to the innocent illiterate villagers, by the kings, poets and wise men, by artists and sculptors in their works, by warriors and peasants, by priests and pariahs.

 In sort, the backbone of Indian unity is spirituality, the essence of Indian culture and the source of its strength is its inner purity, the preserver of Indianness are the characters Rama and Sita, Krishna and the Pandava, Budhha and Mahavira, and countless others, who have molded and shaped the character of the country through ages, by their influence on various strata and substrata of thoughts, beliefs, values. Rama, Krishna and Sita and their associates like Hanuman, Arjuna, lord Shiva and Parvati, goddesses Durga and Kali and others have threaded the very fabric which had woven the garments of culture – folklore, literature, art and sculpture, paintings, temples, thoughts and philosophies, songs, poems, ballads, lifestyle and habits, of all sections of humanity and therefore despite all differences, everything and everybody is interlinked, like different pearls on a common string.

Therefore India’s soul is its spiritual and cultural legacy, which if threatened will be disastrous for the country’s future. Swami Vivekananda discovered it through his travels for ten years throughout the length and breadth of India before he became famous and it is the discovery of this soul that had influenced him in his mission of rousing India and serving its poor and downtrodden.

Diversity

The differences and variations are nature's rule, not exceptions. Nature likes variations because it helps in maintaining a harmony among disharmony, order among chaos. Differences exist because they help in preserving the supremacy of nature. We are all different, in our tenacities, in our culture, beliefs, values, customs, manners, superstitions, attitudes, behaviour and a whole lot of other things. There are so many varieties of plants, animals, insects, and other living and non living organisms, there are so many varieties of natural formations, of colours, sounds, tastes, smells and other objects of senses. These varieties on the one hand exist because they fit with others. Take for instance culture - there is no inferior or superior culture, it merely fits the person who embraces it. Similarly the varieties of sense objects are there to satiate the sensory pleasures of different tastes and preferences, which themselves stem from the varieties of nature and character of a person. No two persons are same in embracing the same set of beliefs, values, creeds, dogmas, behaviour, habits, understanding, intuition, reflex and other traits inherent in human beings. Such inequalities exist among siblings who inherit the same biological traits, among parents and children, among people who supposedly share common interests or goals. Therefore diversity is the law of nature, it is a way by which nature asserts herself over us, the puny humans who dare challenge her in terms of progress of civilization and technological advances.

According to Vedanta every name and form are but representations of our mind and therefore all divisions are products of the mind. Actually there is a grand unity pervading all diversities which we fail to see or comprehend. Therefore diversity exists in our mind as we are incapable of merging ourselves with the universal consciousness to detect the underlying unity.

Is it little wonder then that we need to respect diversity? Nature teaches us not to be intolerant to something which does not comply with our tastes and preferences, but be aware of the fact that both the things or ideas or people we love and hate have right to exist equally. Through a continuous cycle of love and hatred we make ourselves more miserable and more pitiable than the thing or idea in question. More so if we believe in the Vedantic concept, because if a grand unity pervades everything what other choice do we have than to embrace or accept everything?

Poverty of Mind

While poverty of material wealth is a widely acknowledged source of tribulations, another type of poverty frequently goes unnoticed, and that is the poverty of mind. Poverty of mind is manifested in various forms – like corruption and nepotism, where gathering of material wealth at any cost is considered to be the very purpose of existence and where little consideration is displayed towards others, crime, vulgar display of wealth and power, fanaticism, bigotry and intolerance, biases and prejudices, deliberate maligning of whatever or whoever one dislikes ( You may be good, but I don’t like you and therefore I’ll say only bad things about you), lack of compassion, indifference towards injustice and evil ways, and so on. The drivers are ego, lust, greed, pride, jealousy, and so on. They obfuscate truth and cover mind just like fog covers a landscape. Poverty of mind is ubiquitous. One can see a rich spending millions in his daughter’s marriage while some poor and hungry suffers not far from the venue. In this case who is poorer? One may say that the rich person is entitled to spend his hard earned money in his own way, but is that really the case? If we think objectively, spending for enjoyment is not the bone of contention, the amount spent is also not an issue. The point is that we are often oblivious of the fact that we are indebted to the society in many ways, however hard we’ve worked to establish ourselves, in whichever way – straight or crooked. We may have got our education funded by state, an amount which could have been utilized to subsidize the education of a more deserving and financially weak candidate. That education often forms the basis of earning a livelihood. We have probably established a business and amassed wealth not completely by ourselves, but through the diligence of employees who may have sacrificed their personal lives for establishing my business in return for a meagre source of income, help from lending insititutions who may have used the money deposited by a poor or a middle income person to fund my ventures, patronage of customers, generosity of suppliers, support of retail shareholders who trusted my business with their life savings, and so on and so forth. Therefore we are accountable to the very society which has provided us all these wealth. However without returning anything if we spend heavily on our personal enjoyments, isn’st that kind of unjust?


Similarly when we are corrupt, biased, fanatic, indifferent, we are negelecting a vital side of the story of life, that nobody can really sustain and survive on his own in this world. We need to deal with various kinds of persons and pursuing selfish agenda can bring in short term gains but can be dangerous in the long run. If everybody becomes self serving there cannot be any society at all but only individual egos. That means relationships cannot develop or sustain and rule of jungle follows – In jungle every animal has to fend for itself, there’s no social security, might is right there. Just as a rich and and powerful has right to enjoy material wealth a tiger in a jungle has right to kill, but unlike human beings, tigers do not have a higher, discriminating mind, so they are better than human beings with poverty of mind. Animals are driven by basic instincts. Human beings with poverty of mind fare worse as they are driven by a purely selfish agenda despite being endowed with a higher form of intelligence above instinct.

Democracy vs. Rajtantra 3

A democracy, one would argue, would pave the way for a more liberal and tolerant regime and people would be aware of any transgressions in an era of fast communication. Dissent can be voiced and people can throw away elected representatives if they do not function properly. Secularism and pluralism are encouraged. Just puase, look around, and think. You are living in a democracy, are these the traits around you? The media, which is supposed to be the watchdog of a democracy often connive with the ruling elite as they propagate certain ideologies and hate campaigns against others. Media exhibit certain biases against specific classes, creeds and communities as they are controlled by organizations and insititutions which have their own vested interests. Thus news and opinions promoted are often false or worse, selectively false. Ruling classes often suppress information, esp. the ones which would be detrimental and inimical to their interest. Power and money play the supreme role and people have almost taken bad governance for granted because the substitutes are often no better. The two largest democracies in the world, India and US, also feature in the top ten list of countries in blocking or censoring, along with certain dictatorships around the world. One may argue that the flaw lies in execution, not in the concept, but that is the moot point here, that whether the concept is at all perfected and can there be a better model of Governance, irrespective of the mode of governing.


However the old age Rajtantra, contrary to the popular belief, fared much better because there was hardly any repression of news and information. News always percolated to the bottommost layer, in absence of any controlling agency which had the monopoly of distributing news. That would be a result of societal gossips, information leaked from sources in the palace, official communication from the king (which may be biased), the barber ( in ancient days a person belonging to this profession was the Reuters) and so on. The point is, in most cases the news would be informal, coming from diverse sources and varied in nature, just like the role the social media like blogs and twits play today. Thus there could not be any censorship or suppression.

Unlike in a democracy, in a Rajtantra there would be very less opposition to the ruling elite. While this could be disadvantageous when the ruling class was ruthless and ineffective, it mattered not when the same ruling class was paternalistic, as the checks and balances that existed have already been discussed. In many cases the distant villages which had a decentralized set up (Panchayats) were insulated from the misrule and led a relatively peaceful life. In a way this was a blessing, because there could not be any opposition for the sake of opposition and which were driven by vested interests, a characteristics which manifests very strongly in a democracy. If, for instance, the media has very strong biases against a community or an ideology, it can, in a democracy, render every person belonging to that ideology and community, esp. the leaders, as villain and “manufacture” news to suit their agenda. In present age of democracy, media, which has monopoly over information distribution, is controlled by various business groups, religious bodies, even political parties, and hence can propagate news that would suit their own vested interests, and in the name of liberalism, there often exists bigotry and intolerance. Even good works of persons or communities which have been dubbed as “villain” are ignored or questioned and the bad works are highlighted more prominently than those who fare better in the eyes of the media.

Thus democracy in its present form is limited in multiple ways. One can argue that in the present age dictatorships are no better and around the world monarchies and dictatorships are giving way to the rule by the “people”. However we are certainly not concerned about that, failed system of Governance was around when democracy was still in its infancy and the failure lies with the model that the countries around the world are following for delivering sustainable and effective governance. The objective here is not to point out flaws of any one system over another but to point out that perhaps its the time for trying out the model of Governance which existed in India in ancient period, by making it acceptable in form and content to the present age.

So to conclude with Swami Vivekananda – the whole world is looking expectedly at India to provide a model of good governance. It should not borrow a failed model of Western democracy and disappoint everybody by being a failed state itself.

Looks like our political leaders have done exactly that. Perhaps SV saw this coming and thats why he sounded the warnings.

Democracy vs. Rajtantra 2

In West such checks and balances were not elaborate. The king in the middle ages in Europe was often in cohort with the church which interefered extensively with the state affairs,and the nobility, who had their own vested interests. Thus Rajtantra in West was often of an inferior form and therefore people suffered a lot, whereas in India we hardly find any notable instance of people suffering for long under a corrupt regime, except during the period right after Shashanka in Bengal (known as Matsyanyaya) when there was no strong king at the helm and when the lawlessness reigned supreme. That state of affairs was discontinued when a strong monarch came to power (in case of Bengal the Pals ascended to the throne of Gauda).


However when we come back to the flawed democracy that we’ve inherited we find that much of Swami Vivekananda’s apprehensions have come to be true. There is a heartless bureaucracy at the centre of affairs which is also largely corrupt and which has largely retained the colonial legacies, viz. the notorious legacies of looking down upon general populace as inferior to them, and of being subservient to the interests of their political masters. The politicians have exploited these defects to perpetuate their own vested interests and they have created a vast bureaucracy to help them mismanage every affair except their own. Politics have also fuelled divide and rule, much like the colonial masters who perfected the art. This last thing would have been unheard of in a Rajtantra. A king would not like to divide his subjects as that would undermine the interest and safety of the state (imagine a divided army protecting the borders), but instead would try to divide his enemies.

A democracy in its present form also hinders sound decision making, because multiple entities are involved. Wherever there are multiple entities there are chances of conflict of interests and opinions and stalemates are likely. Thus the people continue to suffer under an indecisive Government. A Rajtantra on the other hand would have only the best interest of the state in mind and all decisions would come from a final decisive authority who would be advised by a wise council, who would take a holistic view of the state of affairs and would not be driven by narrow, selfish motives.

Democracy vs. Rajtantra 1

Swami Vivekananda was not very comfortable with the concepts of Western democracy, although he was aware of the merits. He saw various democracies from close quarters and felt that in their present form they would not be ideal for India. Because in a democracy, people should be intelligent and educated enough to understand the nuances of various decisions. Otherwise there is an inherent risk of an unintelligent or honest majority being taken for a ride by a cunning, devious but shrewd minority.


Swami Vivakananda also felt that a democracy run by bureaucrats, is unsuitable as bureaucracy is normally heartless. Bureaucrats go strictly by policies and procedures and peoples’ woes do not matter to them. In an informal discussion with his disciples he cited the examples of many innocent persons from India who lost everything, including their lives, while nurturing a vein hope of going to England to lodge their complaints with the Queen and getting their problems resolved. He said that this had always been the culture of India – that people having a last refuge, in the form of the king, whom they could always approach and they came from the remotest places of the kingdom to the capital to lodge their grievances with the highest authority. Not that their wishes were always fulfilled, but the key thing was that they had a supreme authority whom they could trust. However, in democracy in its present form there is no supreme authority. There is no single decision making body and almost nobody at the helm is accountable to people although the very basis of democracy is accountability.

Swami Vivekananda also said that India devised its own unique form of Rajtantra in the ancient period where the king, by virtue of being the highest decision maker, was also accountable to the subjects through a council of elderly and wise who monitored the day to day affairs. The wise men who were acquainted with the principles of “Nyaya Dharma” or virtuous deeds, ensured that such procedures were followed and that the subjects were not under duress because of king’s proclamations and policies. There were other checks and balances as well, in the form of peoples’ representatives at the grass root level like village panchayat leaders who were elected by their good deeds and popularity and not by money or muscle power, the important citizens and respectable members of the societies who wielded influence, the wealthy who lent money in the event of warfare or natural calamities, the Brahmins or the priestly class who controlled the religious and spiritual affairs. They all ensured that the king functioned well and did not become a tyrant. In the extreme case when a king became a repressor the subjects revolted and there are several instances in Indian history of dethroning the king when a suitable substitute leader was found, or one (stronger and popular) dynasty replacing another (weaker and unpopular) one – e.g. Mauryas replacing the Nandas, after the tyrant Dhanananda was hunted and killed by popular ire orchestrated by Chanakya. In some cases the subjects may also have switched loyalty to appeal to a neighbouring state to come to their rescue. Unjust and unpopular monarchs might also have been toppled by their own ministers and armies.

The point is that, in all cases, subjects exerted tremendous infuence, contrary to the popular belief that the king was all powerful in a Rajtantra.

Point of indecision

In Mahabharata, Shanti Parva, there is an interesting story as part of the conversasion between Bhisma, the aged Kuru warrior who is on his deathbed, and Yudhisthira, his grandson, the Pandava king,who belongs to the opposite camp and whose army just won the war against the Kauravas or the Kuru clan. In response to the questions asked by Yudhisthira, Bhisma is explaining to him the duties of a king, of a householder, of an ascetic, the path of righteousness and virtue and the ways of dealing with people, as well as the paths of attaining the highest knowledge. In the process we come across several stories and parables – one of them illustrates how diverse interest groups instigates persons to behave in a certain way and how people should be wary of the motives behind what seems like innocent advices.


A Brahmin who lost his only son went to creamte him along with his village men. Since it was already evening they decided to stay for the night and cremate the child in the morning. A vulture, who was sitting atop a tree, saw their proceedings and told them, “Why do you plan to spend the night here? The boy is indeed dead and he will not return, so whats the point in waiting in this dreadful place? Go home and take rest and come back in the morning.” The villagers almost bought its advice and began returning when suddenly there appeared a jackal. It said, “ Wait, you guys are leaving that poor child behind, what kind of dreadful parents are you? As long as the child was alive you could’nt live without him and now that he is dead you are abandoning him? Be with him. Who knows, he may come back to life as well.”

At this the villagers were ashamed of themselves and came back. The vulture then said, “You would like to spend night in such a dreadful place. Do you know that this place is infested with ghosts, ghouls and other such spirits at night? Why do you want to risk your life for a vein hope? Can’t you see that the child is quite dead?”

The villagers were now in a real dilemma. The jackal further said, “Remember, if you abandon him now you also forsake him, for who knows what fate awaits him in this dreadful place. If you stay back together no harm should befall you. Whereas if you leave, you will be deemed as cowards. Stay back, hope is always there and you may get back your son because there are so many holy men around this place, one of them may have pity on you and give back his life.”

The poor villagers could not decide what to do and whom to trust. This discussion in Mahabharata dragged on for sometime before the villagers decided to stay back and pray to the Lord Shiva (and it was a wise decision that they took, for Shiva, who wanders in cremation ground, came and gave back the boy his life).

This is quite often the situation in which we also find ourselves. There are conflicting advices by people who appear to us as well wishers, but neverthless those advices have an important bearing on important decisions in our lives, say marriage, education, job, travels and so on. We find ourselves in similar dilemma, what to do?

Under all circumstances we should keep it in mind that however “wellwisher” one may appear, one always has some hidden motive or agenda in giving an advice to us, even if they may not be aware of the same. This holds true for everybody – friends, spouses, family members, relatives, neighbours, colleagues etc. There is nobody who is giving an advice from a perfectly neutral standpoint. For instance, a parent advicing you on education may have your best interest in mind, but also has her agenda – of getting the chance of being proud of your achievment at the best, or taking the financial conditions in consideration at worst. So your decision cannot solely depend on their advices. You should be aware of the motive, of the interests and then take a decision based on the best possible outcome that you can envisage. That does not mean that you should be selfish, but act according to “dharmic” principles, do not fall prey to selfish interests of others.

Coming back to the story, what do you think were the motives of those two advisors? The vulture had one object in mind, to eat the flesh of the boy when his relatives had been sent away. The jackal was also not altruistic. His simple objective was to eat the remants of the boy himself, after the vulture would be dissuaded and perhaps would fly away in disappointment and when the villagers would take some rest at night. So none of them were really wellwishers, even if by their talks they sounded like one.

You are responsible for the outcome of your decision, listen to the advices but also try to understand the hidden agenda. Do what you think is right, let not the others do the thinking for you.

Psychology of stress

In Gita the lord says in the second chapter, verses 62 and 63–

Dhyatah vishayan punshah sangasteshupajayate
Sangat sanjayate kama kamat krodhabhijayate
Krodhatbhavati sanmohah sanmohat smriti bibhramah
Smriti bhramsad buddhinashah buddhinashad pranashyati

This means that while meditating constantly on a worldly matter which affects one deeply, one may develop an attachment and cannot get rid of the troublesome thought. Attachment results in desire and desire, if resisted or unfulfilled, results in anger. It is very surprising how the two common enemies of mankind as proclaimed in Gita – Anger and Desire, are intrinsically related, from the latter often the former evolves and the former often fuels the latter. The desire may be gross or even subtle, like earning some name and fame, a wish that somebody will praise an act, getting some material objects including begetting children, wealth and prosperity, power, good fortune, having to get go of something which is desirable or close to heart, i.e. possessiveness and so on. Sri Ramakrishna said that it is very difficult to control desires; subtle desires will always be there however hard you may try. You may not be even aware of them.

When the unfulfilled desire gives rise to anger, the person is deluded. Delusion means trapped into a world of one’s own making. A person is deluded by her ego to think that this non fulfillment of her desire is a conspiracy against her and she must resist it, at all cost, otherwise she will lose something. This delusion thus leads to an apparent lapse of memory. She forgets the incidents which might have helped her in countering her thought process, her very assumptions. She loses her ability to think rationally and is seized with “buddhinashah” or loss of intelligence, i.e. reasoning and a level headed realistic and objective assessment of the situation. When this happens, she is finished, because it results in an outburst or some disastrous situation not at all conducive to a sound mind and healthy living. This incident may torment her forever or for a very long time. Others of suicidal type may get depressed and may even kill themselves.

To quote an imaginary example, suppose I have a hidden desire that I should be given due respect in all official matters. However suppose in one case I was not consulted when an important decision was made. I became perturbed. Cogitating over it in my mind, I got deeply attached to the thought that I have been left out, perhaps intentionally. That’s a blow to my desire of getting respect, i.e. name and fame. My ego got hurt. I got angry. I made the person who did not consult me responsible for this. I was deluded by my ego in believing that this person had intentionally left me behind, perhaps she wants to usurp my position or had some ulterior motive. I did not bother to check her motives but simply got mad at her. I forgot that on a previous occasion she had come to me and consulted on another important decision, that this time there might be some compulsions at her end which were unknown to me. I did not try to get the other side of the story which I could have done had I judged with my normal level of intelligence. Instead, I chose to confront her and shout at her and this brought my professional and personal downfall. Later when I came to know of the true reason I was extremely repentant, but the damage was done – to a career, to a relationship and also to the very reputation for which I was so hankering.

Even if the above situation was the result of an ulterior motive against me what did I achieve by getting angry and upset? I just reinforced the other person’s position that I was unfit for consulting. Therefore either way I was a loser.

If only I had known those four verses of Gita and if only I had some spiritual discipline I could have done better! Because I would have been aware of my hidden impulses and desires, I would have been aware of the moment I was getting attached to the thought and I would have been aware of the moment I was losing my head and therefore I could not have lost my intelligent reasoning. Thus we could have avoided a situation like the one above. Perhaps I could have discussed and sorted out the matter or perhaps I would just have let it go, or could have had a discussion with somebody higher up.

That’s the essence of anger and stress management – spiritual discipline and giving reins to the intelligence instead of allowing the emotion to take control. Kathopanishad, a discourse between Yama, the god of death and Nachiketa, a young boy who is on the journey to realize his true self, provides a beautiful picture. If the self or individual is the rider, the body is a chariot, the driver is the intelligent will, reins are minds, and the horses are the sense organs. The roads are the sense objects. If one lets go of the control (reins, i.e. mind) from intelligent will, one is at the mercy of either the sensual cravings or the fickle mind with often disastrous consequence. The sense organs will run amok on the path of sense objects. So the best bet is to have the control in the hand of intelligent will, the charioteer, all along. Will, under the guidance of an enlightened self, would be able to control the sensory cravings like anger, desire, lust, greed, delusion, pride, with the help of a pure and effective mind as reins. Body will be led by senses on sense objects, under the control of the mind, which will be further controlled by the intelligent will, which will be guided by the senses.

This is aptly summarized by the Lord in Gita Chapter 3 –

Indriyani parani ahuh indriyebhyah param manah
Manasastu para budhhih yah buddhayah paratah tu sah

The above verses could be interpreted as - senses are greater than the body (they say), the mind is over and above the senses, the intelligent will is greater than the mind and one which is even above the intelligent will, one which guides it and the rest is the Self, the atman. Everything else is subordinate to a realized Self (therefore try realizing the Self first and everything else will fall in place).

In this way there are many interesting teachings in Gita which are not found in any modern psychology or psychoanalysis book and which would take Western science perhaps many years to comprehend.