Previous NextThe Moral Standard of the Age 19 November 1967, Ranchi Published in: Discourses on the Mahábhárata Notes: official source: Discourses on the Mahábhárata this version: is the printed Discourses on the Mahábhárata, 2nd edition, version (obvious spelling, punctuation and typographical mistakes only may have been corrected). I.e., this is the most up-to-date version as of the present Electronic Edition. Words in double square brackets [[ ]] are corrections that did not appear in the printed version. (1) What was the state of morality in the Mahábhárata period? You must remember that though people were ignorant, though their intellectual standard was not high at all, even in that period they were not immoral – this was their greatest quality. There was no spiritualism nor philosophy in support of the morality of the people of that time. They would accept the naked facts, and in that sense they were moralists. “I will say just what has happened” – this was their way of practising satya. (2) This very thing is quite natural. They had no intellect to ponder over the consequences of practising such satya. A crooked intellect is essential to deviate from satya, and this the people of the Mahábhárata period did not possess. Suppose a man thieves. To rescue himself, he will concoct statements in different ways with the police and in court. So cunningness is needed for any deviation from the path of satya. In the absence of cunningness, the people of the Mahábhárata period were naturally moralists. (3) On the other hand those who tread the path of spirituality become moralists after grasping spirituality well. There is a gulf of difference between the moralists of the two types mentioned above. The people of the Mahábhárata period were supporters of the naked facts, and in just this sense were moralists. This does not mean that they were spiritualists. (4) The masses were not spiritually elevated. On the contrary, the number of spiritualists in the present time is greater. But the percentage of moralists of that period was rather greater. (5) The greatest gain in becoming a moralist is that a man has tremendous moral force. That one has not committed a wrong, is not doing so nor will do so – this very awareness generates in one a force, the moral force. A sinner (pápii) does not possess this moral force. A ruffian, though possessing a lot of physical strength, is afraid of the police, but a moralist, even if physically weak, is not. For the former is devoid of moral force and the latter is full of it. (6) Take for example Bhisma, a prominent character in the Mahábhárata. He was a great man, a great hero. He accepted the food of Duryodhana, of the Kaoravas. After the time of war between the Pandavas and the Kaoravas, dharma (righteousness) was with the former and adharma (unrighteousness) with the latter. But because of the simple morality of Bhisma he could not go against Duryodhana, as he felt a sense of obligation to him for having accepted his food. Knowing quite well that the Kaoravas were unrighteous, Bhisma supported them, being guided by simple morality, the morality of the prehistoric age. He was, of course, a righteous man and even desired the victory of the righteous Pandavas, but being guided by the simple prehistoric morality, he supported the Kaoravas. (7) Just this simple morality was greatly appreciated in the society of that time. A man had to act up to his promise. Arjuna promised that he would slay Jayadratha before sunset or commit suicide. At the moment of sunset, the people were sure that Arjuna would now commit suicide as he had promised. (In the present age, people make so many promises in a day and break them during the day, and this is considered to be heroism. You know, before people cast their votes, so many promises are made by the candidates, but after the election is over, the elected one does not even recognize his or her electorate. Immorality has become the order of the day. So people had gathered to see the suicide of Arjuna, and Jayadratha, who had so far stayed hidden, also came to see. Lord Krsna had applied His occult power and covered the sun with dark clouds even before the actual time of sunset. He now uncovered the sun – it was still day – and seeing Jayadratha, his enemy, Arjuna killed him and fulfilled his promise. (8) So many examples of simple morality can be cited in the age of the Mahábhárata. It was taken to be so natural by the people. There was no question of anything written at the time of taking loans, etc. Moreover, literate people were few and far between. The sun and the moon were working as witnesses and people were free in their transactions. The value of simple morality may be less than spiritual morality, but simple morality, too, is included within human cardinal values. Therefore, Lord Krsna attached a lot of importance to simple morality also. (9) Spiritualistic morality was in few people as the number of spiritualists was so very small. Very few people had the opportunity to learn the hard and complicated processes of intuitional practice. The reason for this was that the people of that age were intellectually deficient, they were not intellectually developed, though they were more developed morally than the people of the present day. Bhisma was a moralist and had a great reputation in the society. Bhisma, respected Lord Krsna, but he was not his devotee. Lord Krsna respected Bhisma because he was a moralist. Krsna used to greet Bhisma; and at the time of Bhismaʼs death, when he lay on a bed of arrows for so many days, Lord Krsna used to sit near him and look after him with the Pandavas. Moralistic values, thus, were prominent in the life of the Mahábhárata age. (10) [The following section was also printed separately as part of “The Righteous Gandhari” in The Awakening of Women. This is the The Awakening of Women, 1st edition, version.] (11) Take another small example – the character of Gandhari. Gandhari was an Afghan lady. There is a place named Kandahara, Gandhara in Sanskrit, in Afghanistan, to which Gandhari belonged. Indian people called Kandahara “Pratyanta Desha” – the extreme border area, not exactly Indian. Gandhari was not well acquainted with the greatness of Lord Krśńa. Neither were the people of Kandahara very familiar with the social structure of India, of Central India, though Kandahara, i.e., Afghanistan, was then within, India. Before marriage, when Gandhari learned that her would-be husband was blind, she covered her eyes with a cloth. “If my husband is unable to see the world, then why should I?” Thinking thus she kept her eyes covered throughout her life. What a tremendous moral force she had! (12) She removed the cloth only twice in the whole of her life: once at the command of her husband, Dhritarastra, and secondly to see Lord Krśńa. Dhritarastra told Duryodhana and his brothers to go before their mother and ask for blessings for victory in the war. He further asked them to request her to see them, so that their bodies might become as hard as iron, as she possessed such great power. First Gandhari did not want to do this, but when Dhritarastra ordered her to first see them and then bless them for their victory, she obeyed – and for a few moments she removed the cloth from her eyes. Dhritarastra had instructed his sons to go naked before their mother, as wherever she would see, that portion of the body would become hard and nobody would be able to kill them. Since the sons were adult, they went before their mother wearing loincloths, and not nude. The portion of the body which was under the loincloth remained soft, while the rest got hardened. This fact was known to the Pandavas. So at the time of a fight with maces, Bhima had to hit below the navel, as it was not possible to kill the kaoravas by hitting above, as was the prevailing rule. The war of that period was taken as a sport, as competition, it was not for killing. One had to obey the rules. In a fight with maces, hitting below the navel was prohibited. Bhima had to go against this rule to kill the Kaoravas. (13) The second time Gandhari removed the cloth from her eyes was after the war of Kurukśetra when it had become a vast cremation ground. All the daughters-in-law of Gandhari had become widows and were weeping bitterly near their dead husbands. Gandhari, also, was there. The Pandavas, accompanied by Kunti, their mother, and Lord Krśńa also, came there, as many people from their side had been killed and they had to console their relatives. Krśńa consoled Gandhari and said, “Why do you weep? This is the way of the world – you will also depart some day. Why do you weep then?” Addressing Krśńa, Gandhari said, “Krśńa, why do you console me? It does not befit you.” Krśńa asked, “Why?” Gandhari replied, “If you had not planned it, all my sons would not have been killed.” Krśńa replied, “The war was inevitable for the preservation of righteousness and the destruction of pápá [sin]. What could I have done, I am only an instrument.” To this Gandhari said, “Krśńa, you are Táraka Brahma. If you had wanted, you would have changed their minds without a fight.” It was a fact. But Krśńa had to put an example before the world. Pápá is defeated. Let there be a fight. Let the world see and take a lesson. If it had been done without a fight, the world would not have received the lesson. Krśńa did not speak, though logic was on his side. There are numerous instances in oneʼs life where oneʼs ideas are correct, but one has to keep quiet. Lord Krśńa was put in that state. As Lord Krśńa showed respect to a moralist like Bhisma and greeted him, so did He uphold the importance of Gandhari. (14) Then Gandhari [[pronounced]] the curse, “As the members of my family met destruction before my eyes, so be it with yours before your eyes.” Lord Krśńa replied, “Be it so.” And so it happened. Because of the acceptance of the curse by Lord Krśńa, it happened. Had Krśńa not accepted the curse, it would not have happened. But Krśńa accepted it because He wanted to show that moral force has value in life and that it should be accepted. Had He not done so, the Yaduvamsha (members of the Yadava clan, relatives of Lord Krśńa) would not have been destroyed. Only to make Gandhari great did Krśńa do so. Lord Krśńa planned the fight for the victory of righteousness. He did all possible works to this end. But wherever he saw a moralist, he accepted his own defeat of his own accord, though in a number of instances the acceptance of His defeat was not just. (15) You, too, should learn this lesson from Krśńaʼs life. Whenever someone commits injustice, you should not succumb. Fight against immoralists, as was done by Lord Krśńa, but if someone is a moralist, a noble man, you must bow to him. This will enrich and enhance your own prestige. (16) [end of section that was printed separately as part of “The Righteous Gandhari”] 19 November 1967, Ranchi -- Source: The Moral Standard of the Age Published in: Discourses on the Mahábhárata Release: Electronic edition version 9.0.19