Krishna in Mahabharata - Treachery at Kurukshetra

7/21/2014 Krishna in Mahabharata Treacheryat Kurukshetra
http://blog.ishafoundation.org/sadhguru/masters-words/krishna-in-mahabharata/ 1/21
LIFESTYLE YOGA & MEDITATION SADHGURU SOCIAL IMPACT INSIDE ISHA
MASTER'S WORDS

Krishna in Mahabharata Treachery at
Kurukshetra
13 Mar 2014 17 Comments
PREVIOUS ARTICLE NEXT ARTICLE
POPULAR MOST DISCUSSED RECENT
1
2
3
4
5
5 Tips That Can Be Your Success Mantras
Foods You Should Avoid in 2014
Nirvana Shatakam - With Lyrics and Audio
Download
Suryakund Consecration - Live Blog
Becoming A Mantra
Home About Archives Contact Us
Search...
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
FOLLOW ISHA FOLLOW SADHGURU
149,155 people like this. Sign Up to see what
your f riends like.
Like

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
mothers 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.
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
ISHA on
Follow 18.6K f ollowers
FOLLOW LinkedIn YouTube
RSS
Sign Up
Recommendations
Create an account or Log In to see what
your friends recommend.
Four Months of Incredible Intensity - The Isha
Blog
308 people recommend this.
Remembering the Mahatma
Announcements Archives - The Isha Blog
Be the first of your friends to recommend this.
Ekadashi - The Isha Blog
Facebook social plugin
Email
ISHA / EMAIL

Abhimanyu enters chakravyuha
stone carving at the Hoysaleswara
temple, Halebid, India.
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, Dont 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 Yudhisthiras 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
Map showing the place
Kurukshetra, in the state of
Haryana, India.
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 Satyakis 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.
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
dont reach out to him. Will you let him die like this? What kind of
dharma is this? All this time, Arjunas arrow was aimed at Jayadrada.
When Burishwara was about to decapitate Satyaki, Arjuna turned and
shot the arrow at Burishwara. Burishwaras 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 wouldnt do such a
dastardly act. I know you wouldnt have done this by yourself. This
cowherd with whom you are must have influenced you. Arjunas 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.
Burishwaras 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!
Dont do this, Satyaki! But Satyaki loped off Burishwaras 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 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 slays Jayadrada.
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 Arjunas forehead, and was about to shoot and kill him. When
Krishna saw this, once again using his magic, he made Arjunas chariot
sink a few inches into the earth. The weapon knocked off Arjunas 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.
What is the justification? It is not that his dharma is higher and someone
elses 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
Pandavas lose the game of dice,
Draupadi is presented in the court.
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.
Editors Note: Watch the Leela series, where Sadhguru explores the life
and path of Krishna. Available as a free webstream one part every
week.
PREVIOUS ARTICLE
Bananaa Nation
NEXT ARTICLE
Crispy Ragi Pakoda
Recipe
Even Krishna is
Governed by the Laws
of the Physical
Krishnas Game of War Mahabharat Stories: 7
Important Tales From
the Epic
No Black and White in
Life
POSTED IN: SADHGURU, MASTER'S WORDS
TAGS:
Forest Flower, krishna stories
RECOMMENDED:
Images courtesy: A manuscript illustration of the Battle of Kurukshetra
from Wikipedia.
Intricate carvings showing a legend from Mahbhrata, where the
warrior Abhimanyu enters the chakra-vyuha Hoysaleswara temple,
Halebid, India from Wikipedia.
Map showing Kurukshetra in the state of Haryana, India from Wikipedia.
Arjuna slays Jayadrada in the Kurukshetra battle from Wikipedia.
Pandavas lose the game of dice and Draupadi presented in the court
from Wikipedia.
Get notified every week
32 Comments Isha Blog Login
Sort by Best Share
Join the discussion
Reply
sumit 4 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.

11
Reply
Vijayaragavan Chakrapani 4 months ago sumit
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.
Sadhguru has also said, Dharma is that which when adopted slowly guides
a person towards truth. So when i put all these things together, i see great
clarity in what sadhguru says.

11
Ceekaykay 4 months ago Vijayaragavan Chakrapani
Anything done to stop the progress of adharma (even adharmic
Favorite
Share
Share
Reply
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.

3
Reply
Uttam K Jaiswal 4 months ago sumit
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.
In the present context, it is the divine who chooses the means for the
greater purpose, not a common man. Emphasis is on the Law of Karma,
Newton's 3rd Law of motion.

5
Dorin 4 months ago sumit
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
Share
Share
Reply
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.

5
kskumaran 3 months ago sumit
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.
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.
A7: Very Wrong.
Share
Reply
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
Reply
Mrinal Kamboj 4 months ago
see more
sumit
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

2
Siraj 3 months ago sumit
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
Share
Share
Reply
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..

A 4 months ago sumit
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
Share
Reply
action could be limited by the outside and this article is very much
consistent in ideas.

Reply
sumit 4 months ago sumit
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.

Reply
eshwari 4 months ago sumit
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

Reply
hans 4 months ago sumit
Che Guevara? Which video are you refering to?

Reply
Sanjeev 4 months ago sumit
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.

Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Reply
Reply
Srinivasan Ganapathy 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.

5
Reply
sumit 3 months ago Srinivasan Ganapathy
this makes lot of sense

Reply
Chandrasekar Vaidyanathan 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.

2
Ceekaykay 4 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
Share
Share
Share
Share
Reply
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
Reply
mavrav 4 months ago Ceekaykay
Brilliant analogy.:):)

Reply
shyam 4 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
Reply
Sanjeev 4 months ago
Unbelievable !!!!! The way he answered the question with such ease, He made
such a complex situation look so simple.

1
Reply
Cleaus N.B 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.

trancemuter 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
Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Reply
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...

Reply
Siraj 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..

Reply
krishnakumar 4 months ago
BE A ROMAN IN ROME

Reply
:-) 4 months ago
Basically what is dharma and what is adharma?

Reply
Sullivan 4 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.

sumit 4 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
Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Reply
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".

Reply
sumit 4 months ago sumit
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.

Reply
Raj 4 months ago sumit
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.

Dorin 4 months ago sumit
Share
Share
Share
Reply
Dorin 4 months ago
see more
sumit
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

Reply
sumit 4 months ago Dorin
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

Reply
eshwari 4 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.

Share
Share
Share
Reply
Subscribe Add Disqus to your site
Share
ABOUT Isha Blog
The Isha Blog is the premier
guide to health, wellbeing and
spirituality , prov iding readers
with a wide range of topics that
can positiv ely influence ones
lifemore
Any use of content without
permission is prohibited.
201 2, Isha Foundation
Useful Links
About Us
Join the Team
Terms of Use
Hindi Blog
Tamil Blog
Russian Blog
Telugu Blog

Isha Sites
Isha Foundation
Sadhguru
Isha Yoga
Dhyanalinga
Conversations with the
Mystic
Isha Live

Select Category

Copyright 2013, Isha Blog

Krishna in Mahabharata - Treachery at Kurukshetra

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Krishna in Mahabharata - Treachery at Kurukshetra

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

7/21/2014 Krishna in Mahabharata Treacheryat Kurukshetra

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi