24

Just imagine you are on the battlefield, the two armies facing each other eager to strike. Everyone is agitated and in the midst of this chaos the knowledge of Geeta is being sermonized.

It will take long time to preach a spiritual treatise consisting of nearly 700 slokas.

What were the armies doing, while the discourse is going on?

Were they just waiting patiently for the discourse to be completed (or) went back to their respective tents and took rest?

Srimannarayana K V
  • 17,497
  • 3
  • 38
  • 128
  • 5
    I have heard that while Krishna was preaching the Gita, the entire world came to a standstill. Check https://www.quora.com/Mahabharata-Hindu-epic/Why-would-the-Kaurava-army-wait-patiently-while-Krishna-rendered-Bhagavad-Gita-to-Arjuna-in-the-battle-field and https://www.quora.com/When-Krishna-stopped-time-while-preaching-the-Bhagavad-Gita-to-Arjuna-what-was-that-Did-time-stop-completely-or-did-Krishna-accelerate-up-time-for-himself-and-Arjuna – MusicLovingIndianGirl Oct 27 '15 at 07:13
  • 1
    @AishvaryaKarthik: Is there any evidence available either in Mahabharata or Srimad gita, that the entire world came to a standstill? – Srimannarayana K V Oct 27 '15 at 07:39
  • 1
    @AishvaryaKarthik, Yes some say that the whole world except Arjuna & Krishna would have come standstill (very slow in time) because the conversation happened in the consciousness of Arjuna. But then VyAsa, Sanjaya and Dhritarashtra couldn't have observed the Gita in their real time. Now one can argue that those 3 can be excluded from the standstill world. But it seems quite less likely. Science people will immediately denounce that "standstill" theory because, according to relativity, the remaining world has to have too fast movement to be slower in time compared to Arjuna & Krishna. – iammilind Oct 27 '15 at 08:31
  • 6
    @iammilind Science has nothing to do with it. Science is currently in its infancy so it will take time for it to accept different realities like telepathic communications etc.. – Pinakin Oct 27 '15 at 09:26
  • Swami Vivekananda has said that the first chapter can be taken allegorically, meaning that the lesson that Krishna gave did not actually take place on a physical battlefield. The battlefield is meant to represent the conflict that every man faces in his life - between following what he considers his path of dharma and the opposition given to it by different people, sometimes his own relatives. – Swami Vishwananda Oct 27 '15 at 10:35
  • 1
    @SwamiVishwananda: I do not know whether you are a Sansyasin of some order (or) your name itself begins with Swami. Anyway, can you explain, if Swami Vivekananda said that the battlefield is meant to represent the conflict that every man faces in his life, then can conclude that Srimad Bhagavad Gita was not preached on the battle ground of Kurukshetra and hence it is an interpolation? – Srimannarayana K V Oct 27 '15 at 10:47
  • @srimannarayanakv I think Vivekananda was saying that can take the entire Mahabharata as allegory, i.e. we don't need to assume that the Pandavas and Kauravas were real. As far as whether the Gita is an interpolation, I certainly think it's genuine, but it may interest you to know that most secular scholars think that it's an interpolation, because its ideas are based on Pancharatra and secular scholars date the development of Pancharatra to a relatively late date. I think their dating of Pancharatra is way off; according to the Shanti Parva, Pancharatra existed in earlier Yugas but was lost. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 27 '15 at 11:49
  • By the way, the user Swami Vishwananda is indeed a Dashanami Sanyasi. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 27 '15 at 11:52
  • 1
    @KeshavSrinivasan: Thanks for giving clarification in respect of the Swami. If I remember correctly you said somewhere in this forum about mentioning of Pancharatra in Shanti Parva. Let us for argument sake, consider the following issue: The Shanti Parva is all about Sri Krishna, Pandavas and Draupadi going over to the place where Bhisma was all along resting on the bed of arrows and having discussion on various issues. Am I correct? If so, can we think, I repeat only for argument sake, the Shanti Parva itself a partial interpolation, and the Vishnu sahasranama includes in interpolation – Srimannarayana K V Oct 27 '15 at 12:29
  • Yeah, the Shanti Parva consists of dialogues between Yudishthira and Bhishma when Bhishma is lying on the bed of arrows. By the way, the Vishnu Sahasranamam is in the Anushasana Parva, but I don't think either Parva is an interpolation. In any case, Western Indologists believe that both the Bhagavad Gita and the discussion of Pancharatra in the Shanti Parva are interpolations, because they believe Pancharatra was a later development. I completely disagree with them; I think Pancharatra is older than even the Mahabharata, and that it originates from the Ekayana Shakha of the Shukla Yajur Veda. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 27 '15 at 12:50
  • @KeshavSrinivasan: Thanks for your clarification. – Srimannarayana K V Oct 27 '15 at 12:54
  • You're welcome. For more information on the Ekayana Shakha, see my answer here and my question here. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 27 '15 at 12:58
  • 4
    The Gita is not an interpolation, what was said is that one can take the first chapter allegorically. Sri Krishna taught the Gita, no question. The battle could have very well have taken place with Lord Krishna's and Arjuna's participation. Whether Lord Krishna taught the Gita on the actual battlefield is not necessary to accept. What is most important is to follow the teachings of the Gita in one's daily life. Reading something from the Gita every day will bring great solace to one's life. What is important is being and becoming - not what you believe. – Swami Vishwananda Oct 27 '15 at 15:02
  • 1
    @SwamiVishwananda: I agree in toto. Whether Gita was actually sermonised in the battle field or not,ie., whether it was added at a later date, the contents of Gita are irrefutably good. Irrespective of religion, they are guiding blocks, if understood in right spirit. – Srimannarayana K V Oct 27 '15 at 15:08
  • 1
    btw, Swami Vivekananda, although saying that the first chapter can be taken allegorically or not, did say that the Gita was NOT an interpolation. The writing style, words used, are all in agreement with the other parts of the Mahabarata. A later interpolation would have slight if not significant differences. – Swami Vishwananda Oct 28 '15 at 05:22
  • 1
    @SwamiVishwananda if geeta upadesh didnt take place in the battle ground then it raises many questions over authenticity of geeta. – Rakesh Joshi Feb 23 '17 at 09:37
  • 1
    @SwamiVishwananda Sankara was the first one to quote geeta and comment on it. If he was a Sarvajna then he should have mentioned in this commentary that geeta did not take place in the battle field. Further why no acharya or scholars before him has commented or quoted geeta ? – Rakesh Joshi Feb 23 '17 at 12:33
  • @RakeshJoshi My personal opinion is that others before Sankara commented on the Gita. What you need to understand is that most of the country before Sankara's revival was Buddhist and over time paper and other forms of writing decay. Even now, books that I acquired new as a young man are, like me, starting to rapidly fall apart and decay. I have seen in Maths old written commentaries that are decaying. Even in their commentaries on the Brahma Sutras, Sankara and Ramanuja refer to commentaries that are no longer available – Swami Vishwananda Feb 24 '17 at 04:47
  • 1
    @SwamiVishwananda even vedanta sutra is a post buddhist work around 400 CE – Rakesh Joshi Feb 24 '17 at 07:22
  • @RakeshJoshi There are many good reasons to believe that the Vedanta Sutras are pre-buddhistic. See the section entitled 'The Author and Date of the Sutras' (pp v-x) in his 'Introduction' to his translation of the Brahma Sutras here - http://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/brahma-sutras/d/doc62753.html – Swami Vishwananda Feb 26 '17 at 02:18
  • 1
    @SwamiVishwananda I have many reasons to beleive research of neutral scholars. Sanyasins and mutt people will support vedanta for obvious reasons !! – Rakesh Joshi Feb 26 '17 at 07:30
  • 1
    @RakeshJoshi sadly I see that you are willing to disparage without reading. The reference cites outside scholars. – Swami Vishwananda Feb 28 '17 at 14:01
  • 1
    @SwamiVishwananda How come it mentions of madhyamaka schoool of buddhism in the aphorisms ? – Rakesh Joshi Mar 01 '17 at 12:27
  • 1
    @RakeshJoshi Again, read the few pages referenced in my prior comment. The sutras to not mention the Buddhists by name and the philosophy that became Buddhist philosophy was not a new philosophy. Sankara references them by name in his commentary, but not the sutras donot mention them by name. see prior reference pp vii-viii – Swami Vishwananda Mar 11 '17 at 05:24

3 Answers3

15

Not more than 2 hours.

Actually recitation of Gita was in form of plain Q&A where Arjuna is clearing his doubts one by one. Arjuna was gifted with concentration abilities (e.g. aiming bird's/fish's eye or his understanding of other martial arts). Whatever Krishna told as Gita, he was able to grasp with similar swiftness based on his then knowledge of society & scriptures. He could have been quite clear about certain concepts like Swa-Dharma, Paap-Punya, Varnashram.

In today's time, many things are no more trivial. We require detailed explanations to understand Gita better. Hence we see purports in TV or various commentaries online.

Many slokas can be omitted because they were just descriptions:

  1. ~30 slokas of 1st chapter are description of the war field
  2. There are many slokas which are used by Sanajaya to describe Krishna's universal form or situation of Arjuna
  3. We can omit the texts such as "Krishna/Arjuna/Sanjaya said"
  4. The conversation was mostly done by Krishna and due to uninterrupted speaking the speed will be naturally higher and flawless for him

Let's assume that there are 650 slokas worth of text which had to be recited either by Krishna & Arjuna. A sloka recited with a moderate pace takes average 10 seconds from a fluent Sanskrit speaker.

650 x 10 seconds = 6500 seconds = 108 minutes

What were the armies doing?

Many people claim that the time of battle ground was frozen or slowed down by Krishna during the discourse of Gita. But that's a flawed notion, because Sanjaya, Dhritarashtra & VyAsa heard Gita in their real time.
According to this reference, Dhritarashtra didn't hear Gita in real time. Rather Sanjaya would have told him later on about those events due to his capabilities to see past/present/future through Divya Drishti. However, still there are many reasons which are against the notion of time-pause:

  • Assume that Krishna really slowed time to almost pause to tell Gita to Arjuna. In such case, their actions & talks would have looked like a "fast forward" events to the observers. Possible?
  • Assume that the "fast forward" events really happened. In such case along with others, Sanjaya could have very well missed those. Because there is no mention that he could also see time-defying events.
  • Assume that with divine vision, Sanajaya really saw the "fast forward" events. In such case, it seems unlikely that he could have described to Dhritarashtra in understandable way. Because he was describing as happening in front of his eyes.
  • Assume that Sanjaya also got ability to describe them as it is. But then we have to also see, why should Krishna fast forward the events? When time required to answer Arjuna's queries itself is unspecified. What if Arjuna would have understood everything by chapter-2 then (15 mins), will Krishna have to pause the time?

Personally, I don't see a need of making the time still for < 2 hours event.

One may ask, why armies din't start fighting even ShankhnAds were done? Here are the reasons:

  1. This was the 1st day of war and the rules were set about the battle by Bhishma the righteous, so no question of hurling weapons at an unarmed warrior[1]
  2. The war was offered by PAndavas & they relied mainly on Arjuna's ability. Since Arjuna was on the middle of the battlefield, they have to simply wait until he comes back.
  3. Kauravas might be thinking that after seeing their vast army from close, Arjuna is fearing and arguing with Krishna to back off. Which would be fruitful for everyone (a hypothetical possibility)

Going back to own camps may not be practical because no one knew when Arjuna's doubts will be cleared. So we can safely assume that both armies waited for that much time. PAndavas in hope of Arjuna coming back and Kauravas in hope of Arjuna backing off.

References

[1] Then the Kurus, the Pandavas, and the Somakas made certain covenants, and settled the rules, O bull of Bharata's race, regarding the different kinds of combat. Persons equally circumstanced must encounter each other, fighting fairly. And if having fought fairly the combatants withdraw (without fear of molestation), even that would be gratifying to us. Those who engaged in contests of words should be fought against with words. Those that left the ranks should never be slain. A car-warrior should have a car-warrior for his antagonist; he on the neck of an elephant should have a similar combatant for his foe; a horse should be met by a horse, and a foot-soldier, O Bharata; should be met by a foot-soldier. Guided by considerations of fitness, willingness, daring and might, one should strike another, giving notice. No one should strike another that is unprepared or panic-struck. One engaged with another, one seeking quarter, one retreating, one whose weapon is rendered unfit, uncased in mail, should never be struck. Car-drivers, animals (yoked to cars or carrying weapons) men engaged in the transport of weapons, players on drums and blowers of conches should never be struck.

iammilind
  • 19,793
  • 7
  • 62
  • 145
  • I agree that Arjuna was gifted with extreme concentration, but what about Viswarupa Darsana? The Srimad Bhagawad Gita is about preaching, listening, questioning, viewing, understanding, shivering with fear, questioning, etc all feeling put together. In that state nobody knows how much time elapsed. Is there any reference available in Mahabharata or Srimad Bhagavad Gita about this? – Srimannarayana K V Oct 27 '15 at 07:47
  • 3
    @srimannarayanakv, Quite possible that Arjuna might have experienced infinity or 0-ness of time at spiritual level. But if we consider Bhagavad Gita as a reference of Vishwarupa Darshana, then that notion doesn't hold true for 3rd party (e.g. armies). The sloka from 11.9 to 11.45 describes what Arjuna and Sanjaya saw simultaneously. Sanjaya was describing to Dhritarashtra the same things which Arjuna was saying while seeing Krishna's form. So that will leave out any scope of time dilation/multiplication from an observer (armies) perspective, even though they might have aged faster or slower. – iammilind Oct 27 '15 at 08:16
  • 1
    Thanks for your answer. Currently, your answer seems completely related to your opinion/thoughts as you haven't provided any relevant sources. Answers like this have a great chance of misdirecting the users. So, please provide sources. I hope you understand this. – Mr_Green Oct 27 '15 at 09:42
  • 1
    @Mr_Green, which part of the answer do you feel is without sources or opinion based. Once you inform that, I will delete this comment and edit the answer accordingly. BTW, following are already referenced: 1. "Why Armies din't attack" (refer "References"). 2. Calculation of number of slokas is referring to 1st & other chapters. 3. Why Gita could take no longer than 2 hours is also made clear; Gita was a conversation recited as it is in Sanskrit. Krishna din't have to provide any explanations or purports, as we see in internet scriptures or TV serials (for understanding of audience). – iammilind Oct 27 '15 at 09:50
  • 3
    @iammilind where did you take this reference? mention the site as well. people can't blindly follow your explanation without any valid and relevant sources. if there is no mention of gita duration in any scriptures, then the answer should be "not mentioned in any scriptures". – Mr_Green Oct 27 '15 at 10:09
  • 1
    What makes you think Dhritarashtra was hearing the events in real time? Sanjaya's narration of the war begins when he goes to Dhritarashtra with the news that Bhishma has been slain: http://sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06013.htm In any case, Sanjaya could see the past, present, and future, so it doesn't matter if Krishna magically slowed down time for himself and Arjuna. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 27 '15 at 12:08
  • 1
    @KeshavSrinivasan, let's assume Dhritarashtra heard Gita later. Still the slowing down of time doesn't make sense. Because to the observer it would have appeared like "fast forward" actions. Let's assume the "fast forward" did happen. But there is no mention that Sanjaya can also see such events in past/present/future. He could have also missed like others. Let's assume that using divine vision, he could see "Fast Forward" events, but then those fast forwards events he cannot describe at regular pace to Dhritarashtra. In nutshell, no need of time-pause for <2 hours talk. I will edit this part. – iammilind Oct 27 '15 at 12:29
  • @iammilind: I read somewhere in the internet that Sanjaya in fact fought on Kaurava's side and thus in battle field. Is it correct? If so, how can he be at Dhritarashtra's side for telling the events that going on in the battlefiled? – Srimannarayana K V Oct 27 '15 at 12:35
  • 1
    @srimannarayanakv, According to some the Dhritarashtra heard the Gita in real time and according to some he got to hear it after killing of Bhishma. In the latter case, Sanjaya came to Dhritarashtra and used his divine sight to describe the past event of Gita as of seeing in real time. But in any case, pausing the time was not required. The main reason is that, Arjuna had presented his doubts based on what Krishna said. What if his mind would have cleared early? In such case Krishna need not pause the time. I have edited the answer with that reasoning. – iammilind Oct 27 '15 at 12:47
  • 2
    @iammilind There are absolutely no scriptures that say Dhritarashtra heard events in real time. In any case, I think someone who can see the past, present, and future can certainly slow down or speed up their vision; there are plenty of stories in Hindu scripture of sages who can see the past present and future and use this ability to find out about a long series of events in a single moment. In any case, just because Sanjaya observed the dialogue in fast-forward doesn't mean he couldn't slow down the dialogue when he relays it to Dhritarashtra. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 27 '15 at 13:15
  • 2
    @iammilind Why can't Krishna just freeze other warriors ? There is no question of time flow pattern and fast forward etc. in freezing the warriors. Stambhan Vidyas can simply be used to immobilize. When stambhan is done to anything then it remains motionless. By doing Stambhan in Their time perceiving capacity of mind they can also befreezed and they do not remember events. For eg. One who has mastered the stambhan beej 'Hum' can immobilize anyone.. such also may be the case.. – Tezz Apr 10 '16 at 11:08
  • 1
    @TejasweePokhrel, using thought experiment, it has been proven by physicists that "time can Never freeze". Because if time really freezes, then it can Never come out to "unfrozen" state. If it comes out to "unfrozen" state then it had really "never frozen". Regarding Stambhan vidyA, it was never needed(if it existed). Bcoz, if Arjuna had stopped asking after ch-2, then why to freeze warriors for 10 mins? What about non-participant observers? On avg with each chapter, 5 mins increases & Arjuna could stop asking anytime. Overall, there was never a need to freeze anyone as mentioned in answer. – iammilind Apr 10 '16 at 11:58
  • 1
    @iammilind But Even in physics time may get back after frozen state too. For eg. inside black hole time freezes but when it decays by Hawking radiation then time comes back at that place.... regarding Stambhan vidya you need not doubt about its existence.. It is one among 6 limbs of mantra, Banglamukhi devi is mainly associated with stambhan.. Even in Valmiki Ramayan Bal kanda Vishnu uses Stambhan power to immobilize Lord Shiva... 'Hum kaarene Mahadeva Stambhit' sloka is used there.. – Tezz Apr 10 '16 at 12:23
  • @iammilind you made a big error by counting the verses in a mechanical manner. it takes around 2 hours to chant geeta. but it was not mere a recording or chanting but was a series of question answers. as per your calculation, arjuna would have no time to think and contemplate on the answers given by Krishna and to think of new questio. Further , it would have taken some time for Vishwaroopa darshan as well. – Rakesh Joshi Feb 23 '17 at 09:40
4

There are multiple factors to consider , before arriving into conclusion that , krishna recited 650/700 shlokas to arjuna.

Bhagavadgita which is part of mahabharata , was initially written as Jaya which had only 8000 shlokas. Since original one is no longer available , we are not sure how many shlokas in the original was written on bhagavadgita.

Moreover mahabharata what we have is not even complete . Its written in mahabharata itself that http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m18/m18005.htm

“Vyasa made compilation consisting of sixty lakhs of verses. Thirty lakhs of these were placed in the region of the deities. In the region of the Pitris fifteen lakhs, it should be known, are current; while in that of the Yakshas fourteen lakhs are in vogue. One lakh is current among human beings.”

There are now two possibilities

  1. what was taught by krishna to arjuna, was more concise.
    Presumably, Since Vyasa being himself avatar of vishnu , written in such poetic way in his Jaya. Vyshampayana expanded the same thing , so that we human can understand it.

  2. Krishna Taught more stuffs to arjuna than in bhagavadgita. Some other details are in other parts of mahabharata(Out of 60 lakh verses, which we dont have access.

In the second Case , I believe both arjuna and krishna arrived in kurukshetra early . It normally takes time during first day to arrive in the ground , prepare themselves in proper position etc. During this preparatory stage krishna taught arjuna bhagavadgita.

tekkk
  • 3,093
  • 1
  • 23
  • 38
  • 1
    We actually do know what the 8800 verses are: they constitute Sanjaya's narration to Dhritarashtra, starting from the Bhishma Parva and ending in the Sauptika Parva. Vyasa used Sanjaya's narration as a starting point, and then composed the epic poem we now call the Mahabharata. Vaishampayana didn't do any composing, he just relayed Vyasa's words to Janamejaya. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 28 '15 at 12:27
  • @KeshavSrinivasan How do you know , what is there in original Jaya? Do we have copy of actual Jaya? OR content of it was mentioned somewhere? – tekkk Oct 28 '15 at 16:12
  • 2
    Well, the Adi Parva says "I am (continued Sauti) acquainted with eight thousand and eight hundred verses, and so is Suka, and perhaps Sanjaya" http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01002.htm It says perhaps Sanjaya because Sanjaya narrated the Jaya to Dhritarashtra while he had the divine vision given by, but he may not remember what he said after he lost the divine vision. In any case, it doesn't matter what's in the Jaya and what isn't because the Adi Parva makes clear that the rest of the 100,000 verses were all composed by Vyasa. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 28 '15 at 17:06
  • 1
    Coming early at the battlefield is a good rational reasoning, which even I also wanted to include in my answer. However BG 1.12-1.20 refrained me. Because these slokas describe various warriors blowing their conchshells and how finally Arjuna takes up his bow and prepared to shoot arrows. Which means the armies were well prepared and the war should have begun at any time after that. – iammilind Oct 29 '15 at 05:08
  • if it is so then the present version of geeta should be considered interpolated ?@sysinit – Rakesh Joshi Feb 23 '17 at 09:33
  • 1
    @KeshavSrinivasan do you believe that there has been no changes in geeta since mahabharata time ? why no one prior to sankara commented or quoted geeta ? – Rakesh Joshi Feb 23 '17 at 12:37
3

Swami Samarpananda in his Gita Introduction Page 3 writes :

Is Gita really the words of the Lord? Many wonder how Sri Krishna went on talking for more than two hours (the time taken to recite the entire Gita) when the two great armies were raring to cut down each other. This misconception has been cleared by Acharya Shankara who wrote in his commentary that Vyasa composed the 700 verses of Gita to elucidate the Lord's words spoken to Arjuna just before the war. Thus Gita can be treated both as the words of the Lord, as is commonly believed; or can be treated as the view of Lord Krishna expressed faithfully by Vyasa. In either case it is Lord's words only.

Sethu Srivatsa Koduru
  • 7,612
  • 1
  • 12
  • 32