“Is the Mahabharata epic -- the text of 100,000 verses -- which is a source for the events of the War to be taken as history? The epic itself claims to have been originally just 8,800 verses composed by Krsna Dvaipayana Vyasa and called the Jaya. Later, it became 24,000 verses, called the Bharata, when it was recited by Vaisampayana. Finally, it was recited as the 100,000 versed epic (the Mahabharata) by Ugrasravas, the son of Lomaharsana.  Thus the tradition acknowledges that the Mahabharata grew in stages. The core of the story is very ancient”

Subhash Kak
http://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/MahabharataII.pdf

Social and Economic Aspects of the BHAGAVAD-GITA
http://www.geocities.com/dialecticalmethod/mar1.html
D.D. Kosambi - Mathematician, Historian, Marxist, Peace Activist

This helps date the work as somewhere between 150-350 AD, nearer the later than the earlier date. The ideas are older, not original, except perhaps the novel use of bhakti. The language is high classical Sanskrit such as could not have been written much before the Guptas, though the metre still shows the occasional irregularity (G. 8. 10d, 8. 11 b, 15. 3a, &c) in tristubhs, characteristic of the M'bh as a whole. The Sanskrit of the high Gupta period, shortly after the time of the Gita, would have been more careful in versification.

It is known in any case that the M'bh and the Puranas suffered a major revisions in the period given above. The M'bh in particular was in the hands of Brahmins belonging to the Bhrgu clan, who inflated it to about its present bulk (though the process of inflation continued afterwards) before the Gupta age came to flower.

Myth and Reality

Studies in the Formation of Indian Culture

by D. D. KOSAMBI

First printed 1962

If a Mahabharata war had actually been fought on the scale reported, nearly five million fighting men killed each other in an 18-day battle between Delhi and Thanesar; about 130,000 chariots (with their horses), an equal number of elephants and thrice that many riding horses were deployed. This means at least as many camp-followers and attendants as fighters. A host of this size could not be supplied without a total population of 200 millions, which India did not attain till the British period, and could not have reached without plentiful and cheap iron and steel for ploughshares and farmers1 tools. Iron was certainly not available in any quantity to Indian peasants before the 6th century BC. The greatest army camp credibly reported was of 400,000 men under Candragupta Maurya, who commanded the surplus of the newly developed Gangetic basin. The terms patti, gulma etc., given as tactical units in the Mbh did net acquire that meaning till after the Mauryans. The heroes fought with bows and arrows from their chariots, as if the numerous cavalry did not exist; but cavalry—which appeared comparatively late in ancient Indian warfare—made the fighting chariots obsolete as was proved by Alexander in the Punjab.

World Spiritual Traditions  
http://oaks.nvg.org/pv6bk5.html

THE POEM Bhagavad Gita ("Song of Lord Krishna", "Song of God") is said to be the single most important religious text of Hinduism. It forms part of Book 6 of the Mahabharata ("Great Epic of the Bharata Dynasty"), which is a very long poem composed between the 4th century BC and the 4th century AD. It is in the form of a dialogue.

       The Bhagavad Gita is of a later date than the major parts of the Mahabharata and was probably written in the 1st or 2nd century AD. It consists of 700 Sanskrit verses divided into 18 chapters.

 

       The hard core of the poem: As a result of going to war, a man called Arjuna gets confused, does as guru-dicatated, and ends up worn down and miserable - and so do his brothers. A whole caste is wiped out. That is how the great Mahabharata ends.

Swamy Vivekananda asks:"First, was Bhagavat Gita part of Mahabharatham and was the author of Gita really Veda Vyasa?"  (P 506 to 509 of Volume IV)

“A great many people do not believe that he ever existed. Some believe that [the worship of Krishna grew out of] the old sun worship. There seem to have been several Krishnas; one was mentioned in the Upanishads, another was a king, another a general. All have lumped into one Krishna.”.  CW, Vol.1: Krishna, p.438.

Before Sankara Acharya mentions about Gita in 8th century A.D, the book Bhagavat Gita was not known anywhere. Some people believe that Sankaracharya was the real author of Bhagavat Gita and he simply inserted it in the Bharatham epic.

 http://www.geocities.com/ejking2002/prajapathi.html

The Bhagavad-Gita
By Indrani Bandyopadhyay
http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/world/asia/as-bandy.htm

Upon reading the Mahabharata, one notices that its middle is out of kilter with its beginning and ending: that amongst the grand and richly detailed narrative of two families lies a text that hardly fits the epic's theme or style. This text is the Bhagavad-Gita. It is no great surprise that a warrior (in this case, Arjun) should should be struggling with the notion of death, truth, and duty as he goes to war: modern literature is well represented in its depictions of the misgivings of soldiers. But what is surprising is the vehemence with which war, death, and a soldier's duty are defended, and especially by Krishna, the chosen Lord of the peaceable Vaishnavites.

The Bhagavad-Gita comes to us as a section of the Mahabharata, the epic and romantic tale of two armies and the great battle of Kurukshetra. Here the Gita sits, but not entirely comfortably. In the first volume of A History of India, Romila Thapar explains that "the Epics had originally been secular . . . [and were] revised by the Brahmans with a view to using them as religious literature; thus many interpolations were made, the most famous being the addition of the Bhagavad Gita to the Mahabharata" (pp. 133-4). She mentions that the Mahabharata itself "may have been the description of a local feud," but in its final form becomes "no longer the story of war, but has acquired a number of episodes (some of which are unrelated to the main story) and a variety of interpolations, many of which are important in themselves . . ."; and that both epics were "concerned with events which took place between c. 1000 and 700 BC, but as the versions which survive date from the first half of the first millennium AD they too can hardly be regarded as authentic sources for the study of the period to which they pertain" (pp. 32, 31).

Judaism and the Gentile Faiths: Comparative Studies in Religion  By Joseph P.
Gita was interpolated into Mahabharata sometime during the first century C.E….As in the case of Judaism, the Gnostic sects and the mystery cults of the Greco-Roman world may well have been the channels…..

The Gita As It Was: Rediscovering the Original Bhagavadgita

by Phulgenda Sinha

The Gita as It Was: Rediscovering the Original Bhagavadgita

Book by Phulgenda Sinha; Open Court, 1987. 268 pgs.

The corruption of the original Gita was due to the convergence of sev­eral conditions, both internal and external. Externally, three great reli­gions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--all believing in the concept of one Almighty God, were well established in the Middle East, with which India had extensive trade relationships through the port of Alexandria. By250 A.D., Indian merchants had established colonies in Alexandria, which provided a meeting ground for Indian scholars, who could exchange philo­sophical ideas with the preachers, teachers, and missionaries of the new faiths. Thus, some Indians, mostly from the South, had become acquainted with the doctrines of these organized religions centuries before the actual revision of the Gita took place.

Second, it is claimed that the Syrian Christian Sect in Kerala was founded by Saint Thomas, who was martyred at Mylapore, a suburb of Madras, in 68 A.D. Further, by the middle of the fourth century, the persecuted Persian Christians had set up their colonies on the Malabar Coast.  It is obvious that the philosophy of monotheism had made its entry into India, in some limited but concrete form, long before it was accepted and introduced through the Bhagavadgita in about 800 A.D.

Among the external factors, the most conspicuous and dominating appears to be the Islamic invasions and their subsequent conquest of Sind (then the western part of India and now in Pakistan) during the early part of the eighth century. After the death of Muhammad ( 570-632) the Arabs,…….

Reworking the original Gita to form the Bhagavadgita was not merely the modification of a book. It was a surreptitious plot to dismantle the whole intellectual edifice of Indian culture which had been built up over a thousand years. The changers not only stopped the tide of rationalism in Indian life but also seduced people into believing and accepting the false as genuine, alien as indigenous, religious as political, and mystical as rational. The consequences were deep, all-encompassing, and bewildering. India, indeed, was pushed into a 'dark age'.

It has already been mentioned that when the original Gita was altered, the interpolators also made changes in many other works of that time to establish textual support in their favor. It was for this reason that the interpolations were made in the Rig Veda, the Epics, Samkhya Karika, and Yoga Sutra. It is obvious that there could have been numerous alterations in many other texts, still to be detected.

It has also been pointed out that bands of proselytizers for the new Brahmanic faith were organized at four different centers (mathas) during the time of Shankaracharya. These teachers received increasing political protection and patronage. At the same time, the national opponents of the new faith were forced into silence.

 In such an atmosphere, the people had to accept the doctrines of the new faith even when they did not agree with them. This enforced obedience of the Indian people towards the newly coined doctrines and codes of behavior which, though beneficial to the Brahmans as a caste, were disastrous to India as a nation, as a political entity, and as a culture.

The repercussions of these changes were so far-reaching that they can­ not be adequately discussed under any single category. I have, therefore, preferred to cover them under four different subheadings:

(i) political sub­missiveness;

(ii) philosophical distortions;

(iii) mystification of Yoga; and

(iv) religious and cultural effects.

Morality depends only on motives and not on the action or its effect
S. Dasgupta, Indian Philosophy, Motilal Banarsidass, 1991, vol.2

The theory of the Gita that, if actions are performed with an unattached mind, then their defects cannot touch the performer, distinctly implies that the goodness or badness of an action does not depend upon external effects of the action, but upon the inner motive of action. If there is no motive of pleasure or self-gain, then the action performed cannot bind the performer; for it is only the bond of desires and self-love that really makes an action one's own and makes one reap its good or bad fruits. Morality from this point of view becomes wholly subjective, and the special feature of the Gita is that it tends to make all actions non-moral by cutting away the bonds that connect an action with its performer (Ibid, p. 507).

The Gita combines together different conceptions of God without feeling the necessity of reconciling the oppositions or contradictions involved in them. It does not seem to be aware of the philosophical difficulty of combining the concept of God as unmanifested, differenceless entity with the notion of Him as the super-person Who incarnates Himself on earth in the human form and behaves in the human manner.

It is not aware of the difficulty that, if all good and evil should have emanated from God, and if there be ultimately no moral responsibility, and if everything in the world should have the same place in God, there is no reason why God should trouble to incarnate Himself as man, when there is a disturbance of the Vedic dharma. If God is impartial to all, and if He is absolutely unperturbed, why should He favour the man who clings to Him, and why, for his sake, overrule the world-order of events and in his favour suspend the law of karma. (p533).

Modern Godmen in India: A Sociological Appraisal  By Uday Mehta, Akshayakumar Ramanlal Desai

“They ascribe personality to the Supreme God but deny definite moral character to him.  Consequently, the whole system becomes amoral.  Then to bring in morality they have to assume an independent moral law – the law of Karma.  But it results in various inconsistencies.  We have noted in their teaching that God is supreme cheater as well.  He is not always honest and reliable.  He can take incarnation as Buddha to deceive people.”

Religious Doctrines in the Mahābhārata
By Nicholas Sutton
6. The Ethics of the Bhagavad-gita

In 2.31-37 and 3.9-16, he asserts the primacy of sva-dharma over Arjuna’s notion of morality.  The views expressed by Arjuna in favour of non-violence cannot be sustained because he is a kstriya and therefore his dharma is to fight. (2.31-37). Warfare is a ritual act for a warrior, intimately connected with the execution of yajnas – yajnah karma-samudbhavah (3.14) – which nourish and sustain both the gods and the earth.  Hence in terms of the previous discussion, Krsna in the opening chapters of the Gita rejects Arjuna’s moral view by stressing the ascetic and ritual ethics just as Vyasa does to Ydhisthira in the debate that follows the battle.  It is for this reason that Edgerton asserts that morality is underplayed in the gita, a view confirmed by Dasgupta who states, “the Gita does not rise to the ideal of regarding all beings as friends or to that of universal compassion’ and “Gita does not rise to the dieal of regarding all beings as friends or to that of universal compassion.” And. “Gita has no programme of universal altruism, and is never a handbook of good works.”

Killing of Dronacharya

According to the Mahabharatha, during the battle at Kurukshetra, (a war between the Pandavas and Kauravas) the warrior Acharya Drona was un-stoppable, until Krishna devises a plan. Krishna plots to trick Acharya Drona into believing that his son Aswatthama, has been killed. Krishna involves three of the five Pandava brothers(Yudishtra, Beemasena and Arjuna) to deceive Acharya Drona.

This incident is described by the following quotation from the Mahabharata, translated by C Rajagopalachari. Chapter XC, page 381-382, the 44th edition, 2004 states:

 
“ ‘O Arjuna’, said Krishna , ‘there is none that can defeat this Drona, fighting according to the strict rules of war. We cannot cope with him unless dharma is discarded. We have no other way open. There is one thing that will desist him from fighting. If he hears Aswatthama is dead ….’

Arjuna shrank in horror at the proposal as he could not bring himself to tell a lie. Those who were nearby also rejected the idea … Yudhistra stood for a while reflecting deeply. ‘I shall bear the burden of this sin’, he said to resolve the deadlock.

‘I have killed Aswatthama’, Bhemasena uttered these words, greatly ashamed. “the elephant” in mumble

    #  To kill Bhisma, Sikhandin was used as a living shield against whom that perfect knight would not raise a weapon, because of doubtful sex.
   #   Drona was polished off while stunned by the deliberate false report of his son's death.

   #   Karna was shot down against all rules of chivalry when dismounted and unarmed;

    #  Duryodhana was bludgeoned to death after a foul mace blow that shattered his thigh.

This is by no means the complete list of iniquities.  

 

D.D. Kosambi   

Krishna told Arjuna: "Do it! You will not incur any sin. I shall protect you."
It was not "moral" to kill Dronacharya, Bhishma and all the other great and pious heroes fighting for the Kauravas, but Arjuna surrendered to Krishna, his guru. He thus surpassed the mundane principles of morality, which involve following rules and regulations to keep peace and order in human society.

http://www.vtweb.com/gosai/krishna-talk/pure-devotion.html

B. B. Bodhayan President of Sri Gopinath Gaudiya Math

Five occasions when you should tell lie
Vasishtha's Smriti

Finding Yudhisthira unwilling to tell a lie, Krishna overcame his reluctance by a long exhortation, in the course of which he announced his ethics of untruth in the following edifying text from Vasishtha's Smriti.

"In marriage,
in amorous dealings,
when one's life is in danger,
when the whole of one's possession is going to be lost, and
when a Brahman's interest is at stake,

untruth should be told.
The wise have said that speaking untruth on these five occasions is not a sin."

  Bhagavatha Purana,
Sage Sukracharya
(He was the divine teacher to all the Dasyas or Devils)
also clarified it as:

While dealing the women and at fixing the weddings
To save the life and wield off inevitable dishonor
For saving others from fear and protecting cows and Brahmins
You can utter a lie and itself is not a sin at the crucial hour

  Riddle In Hinduism

By Dr. Babasaheb B.R.Ambedkar

Actions of Krishna during the Mahabharata War may now be reviewed. The following are some of them:

1. When Satyaki, Krishna's friend, was hard pressed by Bhurisrava, son of Somadatta, Krishna induced Arjuna to cut off his arms, and thereby made it easy for Satyaki to kill him.

2. When Abhimanyu was unfairly surrounded and killed by seven Kaurava warriors, Arjuna vowed the death of the ring leader, Jayadratha, next day before sunset, or, failing that his own death by entering into fire. When the Sun was about to set, and Jayadratha remained unslain, Krishna miraculously hid the Sun, on which Jayadratha, having come out Krishna uncovered the Sun, and Arjuna killed Jayadratha when he was unaware.

3. Despairing of Drona being ever killed by fair means Krishna advised the Pandavas to kill him unfairly. If he could he made to cast down his arms, he could, Krishna said, be killed easily. This could be done if he was told that his son, Asvathama was dead. Bhima tried the suggested device He killed an elephant named after Drona's son and told him that Asvathama was killed. The warrior was somewhat depressed by the news, but did not quite believe it. At this juncture he was hard pressed by a number of sages to cease fighting and prepare himself for heaven with meditations worthy of a Brahmana. This checked the hero still more and he applied to the truthful Yudhisthira for correct information about his son. Finding Yudhisthira unwilling to tell a lie, Krishna overcame his reluctance by a long exhortation, in the course of which he announced his ethics of untruth in the following edifying text from Vasishtha's Smriti.

" In marriage, in amorous dealings, when one's life is in danger, when the whole of one's possession is going to be lost, and when a Brahman's interest is at stake, untruth should be told. The wise have said that speaking untruth on these five occasions is not a sin." Yudhisthir's scruples were stifled, and he said to his preceptor, " Yes, Asvathama is killed " adding in a low voice, " that is, an elephant " which last words, however were not heard by Dron. His depression was complete, and on hearing some bitterly reproachful words from Bhima, he gave up his arms, and while sitting in a meditative posture, was killed by Dhristhadyumna.

4. When Bhima was unsuccessfully fighting with Duryodhana by the side of the Dvaipayana Lake Krishna reminded him through Arjuna that he had vowed the breaking of his opponent's thighs. Now striking a rival below the navel was unfair, but as Duryodhana could not be killed except by such an unfair means, Krishna advised Bhima to adopt the same and Bhima did." The death of Krishna throws a flood of light on his morals.

  Ethics in Mahabharatha

April 14, 2006 by Prabu Karthik.

We can also say the same about the killing of Karna and Duryodhana.
It was not exactly ethical to attack someone who is busy lifting his chariot which gets stuck in the mud.

Similarly, Bheema had no business to smash Duryodhana’s thighs as part of accepted Kadha war practices. Krishna subtly prompts him to do that citing Bheema’s oath when Panchali was humiliated.

So I think Vyasa wants to imply subtly that when you enter a war, a few ethical blemishes here and there are inevitable. But maybe it’s just me. Each person can interpret it in his own way.

But the fact remains that the practices of Pandavas to win the war was anything but ethical.

The following are from Indo link story of Mahabharata:

   “It was the day when Karna was in command of the Kaurava army. He decided to have his final battle with Arjuna that day. Arjuna was also ready for him. The armies of the Kaurava and Pandava were skeptical of the outcome as both were equally powerful. When Karna proceeded towards Arjuna on the battlefield, Yudhishthira came in between and Karna cut his weapons in pieces. He spared Yudhishthira’s life as he had promised to Kunti. Karna soon stood face to face with Arjuna. Suddenly Karna’s charioteer was killed and one of the chariot’s wheels broke down. Karna requested Arjuna to stop fighting while his wheel was fixed. Karna was unarmed and it was unethical for Arjuna to attack Karna in that situation. But Krishna spoke otherwise, “Karna, this war itself is unethical. It will be foolish of Arjuna not to take this opportunity to kill you.”

Krishna encouraged Arjuna to kill Karna instantly. Thus Karna was killed mercilessly in the hands of his brother Arjuna.  

“The Pandavas were worried. At the rate that they were loosing soldiers, they would not be able to hold out too long against Bheeshma. Bheeshma was blessed with the power to choose his time of death. So, he was practically invincible. When the Pandavas were about to give up, Krishna came up with a plan. Krishna knew that Bheeshma would not fight the eunuch, Srikhandi. To Bheeshma, a noble warrior like him would consider it a disgrace to fight with a eunuch. At one point he had even proudly promised to drop his arms if such a situation ever arose. Krishna knew Bheeshma’s weakness and wanted to take advantage of this. So he asked Arjuna to keep Shrikhandi, a eunuch, in front of the chariot while fighting with Bheeshma. This would stop Bheeshma, and Arjuna could take this opportunity to immobilize him with a volley of arrows.

The plan worked and Bheeshma fell down on a bed of arrows. That was the tenth day of war. The fighting stopped so that all could pay respects to a hero of all times.”

Here is the justification for Krishna as given by a blogger:

“:) If Tsunami could happen and kill thousands of people... God is there, and yet if this happened, i do not see much of a contradiction in Krishna playing a role in getting the forces that support Duryodhana killed..

:) To Krishna its just a play and he is beyond the play! The role of a charmer and the role of a politician. Krishna played both the roles. Krishna does not cheat. He says, if this is the rule of the game, ill use the rule effectively. He says in the Gita very clearly that even before Arjuna killed them they are dead! Death and Birth are the laws of nature”

The original questioner of the Blog is concerned as follows:

“And so against all rules of accepted chivalry,
it is all right to chop off Dronacharya's head after stunning him with false news of his son's death?

It is all right to kill Bhisma after shooting from behind a person of questionable sex who Bhisma, being a preux chevalier, would not attack?

 It is all right to kill Karna in a completely wicked and treacherous manner?

 It is ok to advise Bhima to aim his mace (gada) at Duryodhana's thigh, thereby shattering it, against the existing rule of battle?

Are these really righteous and unquestionable actions?
And this person, who repeatedly gives crooked advice, is the one we must turn to for learning about ethics and ethical conduct?”