Sometimes Bhagavad-gītā is misinterpreted that this battle, I mean to say, dharma-kṣetra kuru-kṣetra means "This body." We do not misinterpret in that way. There is no question of misinterpretation. We are presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is. We do not change by our whimsical imagination, concoction. We do not interpret the words of the Bhagavad-gītā according to our own desire. No. Actually, from literary point of view, interpretation is required when things are not understood very clearly. Then interpretation required. In the law court, when the lawyers try to interpret before the judge, when the terms are not very clear . . . that is the same way, in, in . . . amongst the associates and society of learned scholars. Interpretation is not required when the things are very clear. Just like the sun, sunshine, sunlight.
There is no need of a lamp to show the sun. The sun is self-effulgent. It is already there. Light is there. Why one should take a lamp to show the sun? This misinterpretation has killed the spirit, the real essence, of Bhagavad-gītā. So there was so many editions and so many misinterpretation. Our this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, our proposition is that we are, I mean to say, presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is. We do not misinterpret.
So dharma-kṣetra kuru-kṣetra. Kurukṣetra is dharma-kṣetra, the place where religious ritualistic performances are done. Kuru-kṣetre dharmam ācaret. That is the Vedic version. So Kurukṣetra is always . . . still people go for pilgrimage in Kurukṣetra, and the station is there, Kurukṣetra, and the place is there. People go there, Kurukṣetra. Why one should interpret that kuru-kṣetra means this body and Pāṇḍavas means these pañca-indriyas, so many things? There is no question of interpretation.
And this Mahābhārata . . . Mahābhārata means "The History of Greater India." That is Mahābhārata. History. It is history. It is not a fiction. It is history, Mahābhārata. This planet was formerly known as Bhārata-varṣa. This planet. The whole planet. Not that the piece of land, as we are calling now, Bhārata-varṣa. No.
Before that, this planet was known as Ilāvṛta-varṣa. And after the reign of Mahārāja Bharata, the son of Ṛṣabhadeva, this planet became Bhārata-varṣa. So Bhārata-varṣa means the whole planet. But we have lost . . . just like we have lost portion of the present Bhārata-varṣa as Pakistan. Everyone knows, twenty years before there was no such thing as Pakistan. But circumstantially we have lost.
So . . . so the whole Bhārata-varṣa has been partitioned, as this portion is called America, this portion is called Europe, this portion is called Asia. These are modern names. Actually, the whole planet was Bhārata-varṣa. And the whole planet was being controlled by Vedic culture. So as we have lost our Vedic culture, as we could not control the others, other people in other part of the world, by our culture, by our political maneuver, we have lost. Even up to the day of Battlefield of Kurukṣetra . . .
Why Kurukṣetra? Up to the time of Mahārāja Parīkṣit, the whole world was being controlled by one king in New Delhi, Hastināpura. There was no other kingdom. And when the battlefield was . . . the battle was there, all people from all parts of body . . . all parts of the world, they joined, either this party or that party. That was the battlefield.
So this is the picture of the Battlefield of Kurukṣetra, and Kṛṣṇa is ordered by Arjuna to place the chariot in between the two soldiers. Now, after seeing the soldiers and the kings and other party, Arjuna is aggrieved, so much so that he did not like to fight, and he was crying. Now, Dhṛtarāṣṭra asked Sañjaya: "Then what happened next?"
Dhṛtarāṣṭra was very much anxious. He said, dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre samavetā yuyutsavaḥ (BG 1.1): "Now these two parties, yuyutsavaḥ, they, they, they were, both of them were desirous of fighting, yuyutsavaḥ. So one party is māmakāḥ, my sons, and the other party is Pāṇḍavas, the sons of my brother, Pāṇḍu." Māmakāḥ pāṇḍavāś caiva (BG 1.1).
Now, the word is used: yuyutsavaḥ. "They assembled for fighting." Then what is the use of asking, kim akurvata, "Then what did they do?" It is natural to conclude that when they assemble for fighting, there must be fighting. But why he was asking, kim akurvata? The suspect was that because the parties assembled in the dharma-kṣetra, so they might have changed their ideas. Still, in India, if there is two fighting parties, they go to a temple and ask that, "You say the right thing." So in the temple, still, in the villages, they do not dare to speak lies. Yes. The fighting and the misunderstanding becomes settled up.
So Dhṛtarāṣṭra was thinking whether the two parties, they have settled up. He did not like that. He wanted that, "These Pāṇḍavas should be killed, and my sons," I mean to say: "The Kauravas, they should come out victorious so that there will be no enemy." He was very much anxious to place his sons on the throne. Because he was blind, he could not acquire the throne. His younger brother was situated on the throne. Now, after the death of his younger brother, he thought that, "I missed the opportunity of sitting on the throne. Why not my sons? They have got actual right."
That is the background of this Kurukṣetra battle. He was always devising some means, how the sons of Pāṇḍu, his nephews, could be separated and his sons would sit on the throne. That was his idea. Therefore he inquired, kim akurvata. Otherwise, there was no question of inquiring kim akurvata. They went there to fight. They'll fight. But he was suspecting, "If they have made any compromise?" That he did not like. That he did not like. Therefore he asked . . . he wanted that "There must be fighting. And they are five brothers. My sons are one hundred in number. So they would be killed, and my sons will be without any rivalry." This is the background of Kurukṣetra.