![]() |
Channels | ![]() |
In Focus |
Cartoons |
Education |
Environment |
Opinion |
Photo Essays |
Columns |
Business |
Random Thoughts |
Our Heritage |
Astrology |
Ayurveda |
Buddhism |
Cinema |
Culture |
Festivals |
Hinduism |
History |
People |
Places |
Sikhism |
Spirituality |
Society & Lifestyle |
Parenting |
Perspective |
Recipes |
Society |
Teens |
Women |
Creative Writings |
Computing |
Humor |
Individuality |
Literary Shelf |
Memoirs |
Quotes |
Stories |
Travelogues |
Workshop |
Hinduism | Share This Page | |
Yudhishthira and Krishna:
Indra & Vishnu on One Chariot 2 |
||
by Indrajit Bandyopadhyay |
![]() |
|
At first Yudhishthira could see the bird only, but when Drona wanted to test his firmness in concentration further, he set a ‘trap question’, and tagged the previous question with multiple choices. It should be noted that Drona’s question has the word ‘vaa’ i.e. ‘or’, implying he wanted to divert Yudhishthira’s mind towards any other ‘single’ thing, and wanted to see his preferential sequence; whereas Yudhishthira’s reply has the word ‘ca’ i.e. ‘and’, implying his vision would not exclude anything, nor make a preference at the exclusion of another even if his Guru suggests so; he would, however, not go beyond his Guru’s suggestion and include all as suggested by his Guru, making a preferential sequence within that broad vision. In other words, he would not ‘tick’ a particular answer from a multiple choice question, nor arrange them in a preferential sequence, nor scratch any other answer from outside, but tick all the answers and then number them as answer 1,2,3,4…
The order in which Yudhishthira sets the ‘items’ are also to be noted; first tree, then Guru, then his brothers and finally the target-bird. It is this arrangement that reveals Yudhishthira’s character about what he would become. Drona put himself after the bird, but to Yudhishthira, Tree or Nature comes first, then Guru, then his brothers – humanity, and finally the target, which being a personal target is less important to him than the previous three. He ‘sees’ his Guru second to Nature because his Guru is ‘shruuti’ to him, and placing his Guru second to Nature, he actually places ‘shruuti’ as the centre of his being, as a timeless aspect that defines his very being. He thus pays the highest regard to his Guru, by acknowledging him as his being, and through that acknowledgment he pays the highest regard to ‘shruuti’, the universal and timeless aspect of wisdom. Yudhishthira’s answer, however, shows, he is not a blind adherer to ‘shruuti’, but within the framework of ‘shruuti’ he would define his vision with his svadharma – his originality. Drona does not have the talent and potential to understand Yudhishthira, so he removes him displeased with him - apasarpa.iti.droNo.apriita.manaa. When Drona next asked his other disciples, they replied in exact way as Drona said – anyaamz.ca.ziSyaan.bhiima.aadiin.raajnaz.ca.eva.anya.dezajaan./ tathaa.ca.sarve.sarvam.tat.pazyaama;iti.kutsitaah.// (CE-1.123.57) Yudhishthira thus stands out as an exception against the background of all his brothers, with the exception of Arjuna, who, being focused on the bird’s eye and nothing else, is an exception, from another perspective, against the backdrop of all his brothers including Yudhishthira. Yudhishthira and Arjuna – both are ‘winners’ from two different perspectives – though Drona, too eager to have his personal agenda of chastising Drupada fulfilled through his disciples, places the laurels on Arjuna’s crown. Herein lies the meanness of Drona as a teacher, and herein lies the greatness of Vyasa’s vision of relativity. The main force of Yudhishthira’s dharma is, thus, to define ‘shruuti’ according to his svadharma within the broad framework of ‘shruuti’. As Vyasa shows us, Yudhishthira’s ‘attempt to define dharma and live by it’ would not be so easy, because Life follows a dharma of contradiction that often poses man as its opposition. This episode is sufficient to give us a glimpse of what Yudhishthira would be in future, but perhaps, the later poets rightly thought that such a subtle clue to Yudhsihthira’s character has been lost in the chaos of war, and so they introduced two elaborate narratives – Yudhishthira-Yaksha dialogue and Yudhishthira’s Svargarohana – to do ‘justice’ to Ydhishthira’s brand of Dharma - so that Vyasa’s message is not lost, so that Yudhishthira’s Dharma is not eclipsed out by Krishna’s! Drona rejected Yudhishthira’s answer, but Yaksha-dharma appreciated them, though the single question of Drona and the multiple questions of Yaksha have the same spirit. The Drona-Yaksha opposition is thus an adharma-dharma opposition, confirmed in Drona’s taking up arms in favour of adharma. Yudhishthira would not focus on a particular target meant for personal advancement, and will have a place for that target within a broad canvass of everything. Arjuna on the other hand, will focus on a particular target when occasion calls so, at the exclusion of everything else. Yudhishthira will locate the target in everything and Arjuna will locate everything in the target. And here, the two Indras are in opposition – the Old Indra and the New Indra of Rig Veda. Through the two brothers Vyasa shows two different possibilities of approaching Life, and going through it with karma and dharma. Focused target in everything, and everything in a focused target - Particular in Universal, and Universal in Particular – Vyasa and Krishna resolve this apparent opposition by the philosophy of svadharma based yoga that endows one with ‘samadarshhana’- Sarvabhuutasthha maatmaanam sarvabhuutaani chaatmani Ikshate yogayuktaatmaa sarvatra samadarshana And who is the best practitioner of this Dharma, if not Yudhishthira? Yudhishthira and Krishna on the Same Dharma Chariot Yudhishthira’s Dharma is apparently different from Krishna’s pragmatic Dharma. Just after the Pandavas leave for forest exile, hearing that, the Bhojas, the Vrishnis, and the Andhakas goes to meet them one day. Yudhishthira’s Gurus: The Four Krishnas Interestingly, at different phases of Yudhisthira’s life, the four Krishnas – Vyasa, Krishna, Arjuna and Draupadi – appear as his Guru. Yudhishthira learns as much through trial and error of firsthand experience as much through debates and discourses.Gautama Dharmashashtra places great importance on dialogic discourse as a means for arriving at the truth - nyaayaadhigame tarko.abhyupaayaH {Gaut.2.2.23 (11.23)}. Instead of blind adherence to any injunction of authority, one shall come to a conclusion through that, and shall decide properly - tenaabhyuuhya yathaasthaanaM gamayet {Gaut.2.2.24 (11.24)} The Pandavas and Draupadi had differences in opinion on ‘Dharma’, and often had debates on the topic, and Vyasa’s mimesis is impeccable in showing us the inevitable relativity of perception. There is no absolute Truth, and every human truth is relative. At different phases of earthly life, Yudhishthira’s brothers doubted his Dharma in different degrees. Only one man never said a word against him. Krishna! Krishna, perhaps, was helpless before this man, and felt, perhaps, he was ‘trapped’ in his own philosophy in respect to this man. And yet Krishna knew his Dharma could not be translated into political action without this man. It was not for nothing that he shifted the power centre of Bharata Rashtra from Jarasandha’s East to Indraprashtha-Hastinapura. There was no Yudhishthira among the Vrishnis. Is it not natural, then, the Vrishnis would kill each other in drunken debauchery? Krishna preached ‘Svadharma’ – Dharma according to one’s own Nature. If Yudhishthira stood by his own Dharma despite all obstacles and objections, and despite all practical limitations of his Dharma, it was his ‘Svadharma’ then. In the Yaksha-Yudhishthira dialogue, God Dharma admitted – ‘I am greatly pleased, O thou of great wisdom, with thee, O son, by thy devotion to me, by thy truthfulness of speech, and forgiveness, and self-restraint. This, indeed, is the third test, O king, to which I put thee. Thou art incapable, O son of Pritha, of being swerved from thy nature or reason.’ Dharma uses the word ‘svabhaavaat’, acknowledging that Yudhishthira’s Dharma is his Svadharma. Is there any doubt then that, Yudhishthira was the most sincere and genuine follower of Krishna’s Dharma? And Yudhishthira himself said – ‘I do not practice Dharma to obtain Karmaphala – dharmam.caraami.suzroNi.na.dharma.phala.kaaraNaat. (CE-3.32.4) - and this is his ‘svabhaavaa’ If Krishna exemplifies Nishkaama-Karma, Yudhishthira exemplifies Nishkaama-Dharma, and both are same because both have their base in Karma and Jnyana – two sides of the same coin, for Krishna himself has said that all Karma has its base in Dharma, and more importantly in ‘svabhaava’- svadharma. If Krishna’s Dharma is the practice of ‘Detached Attachment’, Yudhishthira’s is ‘Attached Detachment’! And the courage with which Yudhishthira defended his own Dharma, like one protecting a lamp amidst storm, would not have been possible, unless Yudhishthira had Viirasukha in this Karma of living in his own Dharma. Viirsukha is the spirit of living, nay, the art of living, in an ever hostile world, a Kurukshetra forever. Viirsukha is also the art of survival. Deciding to stay in Naraka with his brothers, sons and wife, what was his motivation, if not ‘viirsukha’? Yudhishthira’s ‘nishkaama Dharma’ is similar to Krishna’s ‘nishkaama karma’ in that, though he practices Dharma not for any ‘phala’, the ‘phala’ nevertheless is there. He tells Draupadi – ‘O thou faultless one, if the virtues that are practiced by the virtuous had no fruits, this universe then would be enveloped in infamous darkness. No one then would pursue salvation, no one would seek to acquire knowledge not even wealth, but men would live like beasts. …. Knowing it for certain that God is the giver of fruits in respect of virtue, they practice virtue in this world. This, O Krishna, is the eternal (source of) prosperity. When the fruits of both knowledge and asceticism are seen, virtue and vice cannot be fruitless. (CE-3.32.23-29)’ Yudhishthira thinks his Dharma has no personal attachment to ‘phala’, but his belief in a ‘universal moral value and order’ – ‘virtue and vice cannot be fruitless – sa.ca.ayam.saphalo.dharmo.na.dharmo.aphala’ is the cause of his personal attachment to ‘phala’ of which he is not aware of. His reaction to Duryodhana’s presence in heavenly glory is born of an error – ‘moha’, and he learns about the unconscious side of his mind and self through that error. Yudhishthira’s ‘theory’ has its base in ‘dRzyante phalaani’, i.e. in perceived reality, which is also similar to Krishna’s ‘dRSTa.phalam’ (5.290.6) Yudhishthira’s Dharma places more importance on ‘pramaanaH’ offered by Rishis than on ‘own reasoning - aatma.pramaaNa’. ‘The fool that doubteth Dharma and disregardeth virtue, proud of the proof derived from his own reasoning, regardeth not other proofs and holdeth the Rishis, who are capable of knowing the future as present as mad men. (CE-3.32.14-15)’ Here he is diametrically opposite to Krishna’s Dharma that places more importance on ‘aatma’ – uddharedaatmanaatmaanaM naatmaanamavasaadayet.h . aatmaiva hyaatmano bandhuraatmaiva ripuraatmanaH - ‘One must elevate, not degrade, oneself by one's own Self. The Self alone is one's friend as well as one's enemy.’ (Gita-6.05) To Yudhishthira, a cynic in Scriptural proof goes to Naraka – ‘A rejector of proofs, a slanderer of the interpretation of the Vedic scriptures, a transgressor urged by lust and covetousness, that fool goeth to hell. O amiable one, he on the other hand, who ever cherisheth Dharma with faith, obtaineth eternal bliss in the other world. The fool who cherisheth not Dharma, transgressing the proofs offered by the Rishis, never obtaineth prosperity in any life, for such transgression of the scriptures. (CE-3.32.18-19)’ Vashishtha Dharmashahstra defines ‘ziSTa’ as one whose ‘aatma’ is free from ‘kaama’ - ziSTas^punar akaama.aatmaa (Va.1.6) Yushishthira is not yet ‘ziSTa’. He, however, learns with an open mind, because when Narada advises him to give up discrimination, he listens silently. In silence, is his recognition of the ‘kaama’ in his heart. His faith is in ancient Dharma practiced by ‘shishta’. He argued with Draupadi – ‘Doubt not, O Krishna, the ancient Dharma that is practiced by the good and framed by Rishis of universal knowledge and capable of seeing all things! (CE-3.32.21)’ To the Yaksha he said the same thing. When the Yaksha asked Yudhishthira, ‘What is the path – kah panthah?’ he replied – ‘Argument leads to no certain conclusion, the Srutis are different from one another; there is not even one Rishi whose opinion can be accepted by all; the truth about Dharma and duty is hid in caves: therefore, that alone is the path along which the great have trod – mahaajano jeno gatah sa panthah.’ After the war, he has a discourse with Bhisma on Dharma. He explains why he has settled on ‘ziSTair . aacaritam . dharmam’ as true Dharma. It appears from his conversation with Bhisma, he is in search of a universal Dharma. It seems he is confused at the variegated form of Dharma and its application, at the relativity of Dharma that apparently defeats possibility of universality -‘Duty and its reverse, therefore, cannot be ascertained, O Bharata, by study of the scriptures alone……what is meant by conduct of the good remains unsettled…. No such conduct, therefore, is to be seen (as observed by any man), which is fraught with universal benevolence.’ The contradictions in Scriptural authorities confuse him; the subjection of Dharma to the conditional bound of Time-Space-‘paatraveda’ confuses him – ‘…the ordinances of the Vedas disappear gradually in every successive age. ….all the declarations in the Vedas do not apply equally to all the ages, the saying that the declarations of the Vedas are true is only a popular form of speech indulged in for popular satisfaction. … When, however, the Shrutis and the Smritis contradict each other, how can either be authoritative? (CE-12.252.7-9)’ If ‘present’ experience leaves him confused, the only option left to him is to hold on to a strong pole, which would be his ‘secure’ base. Like Sri Ramakrishna’s sea-bird perching on the mast of a ship surrounded on all sides by sea with land nowhere in sight, he would fly over the sea only to return safely to the mast of the ship- ‘It seems, therefore, that only that which the learned of ancient times called righteousness is righteousness to this day: and through that course of conduct (which the learned so settled) the distinctions and limitations (that govern the world) have become eternal. (CE-12.252.20)' Thus Yudhishthira is a follower of conduct of great men. In Gita, Krishna says – yadyadaacharati shreshhThastattadevetaro janaH . sa yatpramaaNaM kurute lokastadanuvartate - ‘Because, whatever noble persons do, others follow. Whatever standard they set up, the world follows. (Gita-3.21)’ Previous Page Continue Next Page |
||
Share This: | ||
06-Feb-2010 | ||
More by : Indrajit Bandyopadhyay | ||
Views: 3786 Comments: 0 | ||
| ||
Top | Hinduism |
|