![]() |
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 3 |
||
by Indrajit Bandyopadhyay |
![]() |
|
What ‘shreshhTha’ does, is followed by ‘itaro janaH’, in other words, we may tentatively translate it as ‘what extra-ordinary minds do’, ‘ordinary mentality follows.’
Yudhishthira’s Dharma being Manava-Dharma, the Dharma of humbleness, he wants to follow, not lead; he is content being ‘itaro janaH’, and shows no aspiration to be ‘shreshhTha’! The problem that an ordinary mind faces in comprehending Krishna’s Dharma is that, the boundary between ‘shreshhTha’ and ‘itaro janaH’ is never clear, nor the distinction absolute. And what we see in today’s world, ‘itaro janaH’ often assumes the garb of ‘shreshhTha’ with immunity! To use a phrase of Mr. T. S. Eliot - the ‘overwhelming question’ is how to discriminate? The problem with Yudhishthira’s Dharma is, similarly, that the identification of ‘mahaajano’ can never be absolute or universal, and is always relative. In both cases thus, one’s individual judgment and conscience (‘Viveka-Buddhi’ in Sri Ramakrishna’s words), i.e. Yudhishthira’s ‘yathaa.prajnam’ becomes all important. Apparently, Krishna’s ‘Svadharma’ is more liberal, having faith in one’s own self, and not dependant on what others - even Yudhishthira’s great men (mahaajana) - say. It is the responsibility of the Self to liberate the Self. In Gita he says – ‘uddharedaatmanaatmaanaM naatmaanamavasaadayet.h . aatmaiva hyaatmano bandhuraatmaiva ripuraatmanaH - One must elevate, not degrade, oneself by one's own "mind". The mind alone is one's friend as well as one's enemy. (Gita-6.05) It is comparable to what Buddha says later in Dhammapada – ‘attaa hi attano naatho ko naatho paro siyaa attanaa hi sudantena naathaM labhati dullabhaM – One is one's own guardian. What other guardian could one have? With oneself well disciplined one obtains a rare guardian indeed. (160)’ Is Yudhishthira’s Dharma based entirely on imitation? Is it just a theory he follows? Vashishtha Dharmashashtra defines ‘ziSTa’ as – ‘te ziSTaas^braahmaNaas^jJeyaas^zruti.pratyakSa.hetavas- Those Brâhmanas……who are able to adduce proofs perceptible by the senses from the revealed texts, must be known to be Sishtas. (Va.6.43 )' So, Yudhishthira follows those, who could translate their Dharma into ‘pratyakSa.hetavas’. But how could he really differentiate a true ‘ziSTa’ from a sham one? When Yaksha asked, 'By what doth one become learned? - kena.svit.zrotriyo.bhavati’ Yudhishthira answered, 'It is by the (study of the) Shrutis that a person becometh learned - zrutena.zrotriyo.bhavati’; and when Yaksha asks, 'What constituteth the divinity of the Brahmanas?- kim.braahmaNaanaam.devatvam’ Yudhishthira answered, ' svaadhyaaya;eSaam.devatvam’. Now, Nilkantha notes ‘svaadhyaaya’ as study of the Vedas’. Most translators translate the sloka as ‘The study of the Vedas’ constitutes their divinity.’ Are ‘svaadhyaaya’ and ‘study of the Vedas’ the same thing? Sva means “self” and adhyaya means “investigation, inquiry, or education.” ‘The study of sacred texts’ can only be a part of that self-enquiry. Yudhishthira makes distinction between ‘learned’ and ‘Brahmana’. One studying Shruti can be ‘learned’ not a ‘Brahmana’. Again, all Brahmanas cannot be ‘devataa’, for that self-enquiry is necessary. The Taittriya Upanishad (Chapter 1; Sikshaavalli Section 9), the meaning of ‘svaadhyaaya’ becomes clear, when with the refrain – ‘svaadhyaayapravachane cha’ is applied with wider and as diverse contexts as ‘Rta’, ‘Satya’, ‘Tapah’ and ‘prajaa’ (begetting children), ‘prajanashcha’ (procreation) and ‘Prajaatishcha’(raising grandchildren). The Rishis have an integrated vision that one can learn from everything and every activity of life. Kautilya defines ‘vidyaan’ as an ‘aatmavattaa’ - ‘For from hearing (sutra) ensues knowledge; from knowledge steady application (yoga) is possible; and from application self-possession (atmavatta) is possible. This is what is meant by efficiency of learning (vidhyasamarthyam)- - zrutaadd hi prajJaa^upajaayate prajJaayaa yogo yogaad aatmavattaa^iti vidyaanaaM saamarthyam (Arthashashtra-1.5.16)’ Yudhishthira admits, ‘Dharma depends upon delicate considerations, that is indicated by the conduct of those that are called good, that it is fraught with restraints (from numerous acts), and that its indications are also contained in the Vedas.’ He thinks, – ‘It seems to me, however, that I have a certain inward light in consequence of which I can discriminate between right and wrong by inferences (CE-12.252.1)’ The importance Yudhishthira ascribes to ‘anumaanatah’ brings Yudhishthira’s Dharma close to Krishna’s. Yudhishthira is yet to learn that such absolute statement about oneself is the nourishment to life’s ironic drama, only aids the irony of life flourish! It is clear, Yudhishthira has been searching with his ‘svaadhyaaya’; he is ever on the path – ‘maargayiSyaami.kevalam’ like Mudgala - all his life the meaning of Dharma. The only ‘danger’ of Yudhishthira’s Dharma is that, unknowingly it creates a ‘mindset’ or ‘preconceived notion’; unawares, ‘tamah’ might creep in and look like ‘sattva’. Yudhishthira’s wrath on seeing Duryodhana in Svarga is the exposition of that mindset. Draupadi understood this possibility, i.e. ‘tamah’ appearing as ‘sattva’. That is why, whenever, Yudhishthira inclined more to Brahmana-Guna during exile, Draupadi lashed at him with the strongest of speech extolling ‘krodha’. In a fiery speech he asks her rhetorically, why his wrath does not blaze up at the sight of their plight in the forest – kasmaan manyur na vardhate!- na.nirmanyuh.kSatriyo.asti.loke.nirvacanam.smRtam./ tad.adya.tvayi.pazyaami.kSatriye.vipariitavat.// (CE-3.28.34) ‘Truly, O thou best of the Bharatas, thou hast no anger, else why is it that thy mind is not moved at sight of thy brothers and myself (in such distress)? It is said that there is no Kshatriya in the world who is bereft of anger. I now behold in thee, however, a refutation of the proverb! Unto those Kurus the covetous sons of Dhritarashtra who injure us always, the present is not the time for forgiveness! It behoveth thee to put forth thy might. The humble and forgiving person is disregarded; while those that are fierce persecute others. He, indeed, is a king who hath recourse to both, each according to its time!' She then goes on to sermonize him on the necessity of ‘karma’- ‘Thou also shouldest act, and not incur censure by abandoning action. Cover thyself up, as with armour, with action……And this moment misery hath overtaken us. If, however, thou be takest to action, that misery will certainly be removed.’ To her, Yudhishthira’s Dharma tends to become ‘idleness’ i.e. the ‘sattva’ of his Dharma is actually ‘tamah’, because he is becoming a believer in Destiny - ‘Those persons in the world who believe in destiny, and those again who believe in chance, are both the worst among men. Those only that believe in the efficacy of acts are laudable.’ Draupadi’s ‘karma’ philosophy is akin to Krishna’s with the diference that at this phase of her age she believes in ‘sakaama karma’. To her, seeking ‘phala’ in ‘karma’ is the mark of ‘pauruS – Manliness’- yat.svayam.karmaNaa.kimcit.phalam.aapnoti.puuruSah./ pratyakSam.cakSuSaa.dRSTam.tat.pauruSam.iti.smRtam.// (CE-3.33.16) ‘The fruit, however, that a person obtaineth by acting himself, and which is the direct result of those acts of his, is regarded as proof of personal ability – pauruSam – manliness.’ The remedy to failure despite action is further action - ‘The man of action in this world generally meeteth with success. The idle, however, never achieveth success. If success becometh impossible, then one should seek to remove the difficulties that bar his way to success. And, O king, if a person worketh (hard), his debt (to the gods) is cancelled (whether he achieveth success or not).’ The ‘kaama’ in ‘karma’ is for the ‘phala’ of victory, and if victory is unattainable, then one should be stoic of the loss and settle on honor- atha.vaa.siddhir.eva.syaan.mahimaa.tu.tathaa.eva.te./ vRkodarasya.biibhatsor.bhraatroz.ca.yamayor.api.// (CE-3.33.42) ‘If you meet with failure, then also such manliness would be a matter of honor for Vrikodara and Vivatsu and the twins (Retranslated by author from Bengali Translation of Haridas Siddhantavagish). Yudhishthira rejects Draupadi’s sermon as a speech ‘delightful, smooth and full of excellent phrases – valgu citra padam zlakSNam yaajnaseni tvayaa vacah (3.32.1) In Shanti-Parva again, when Yudhishthira wants to renounce the world, Draupadi suggests to him the proper balance of opposites in a King – yasmin.kSamaa.ca.krodhaz.ca.daana.adaane.bhaya.abhaye./ nigraha.anugrahau.ca.ubhau.sa.vai.dharma.vid.ucyate.// (CE-12.140.17) ‘He is said to be conversant with duties in whom are forgiveness and wrath, giving and taking, terrors and fearlessness, and chastisement and reward.’ She sees the excess of Brahmana-Guna in him – mitrataa.sarva.bhuuteSu.daanam.adhyayanam.tapah./ braahmaNasya.eSa.dharmah.syaad.na.raajno.raaja.sattama.// (CE-12.140.15) ‘Friendship for all creatures, charity, study of the Vedas, penances,--these constitute the duties of a Brahmana and not of a king, O best of kings!’ If Draupadi sees the absence of ‘krodha’ and the motivation of ‘sakaama karma’ in Yudhishthira’s Dharma, and therefore lacking in ‘balance’, Bhima sees the ‘problem’ of ‘kaama’ and dis-balance of ‘Dharma-Artha-Kama’ in Yudhishthira’s Dharma- ‘It is for these reasons that they that are wise are ever careful of both virtue and wealth, for a union of virtue and wealth is the essential requisite of pleasure, as fuel is the essential requisite of fire. The joy that ariseth from the five senses, the intellect and the heart, being directed to the objects proper to each, is called pleasure. That pleasure, O king, is, as I think, one of the best fruits of our actions. Thus, O monarch, one should regard virtue, wealth and pleasure one after another. One should not devote one self to virtue alone, nor regard wealth as the highest object of one's wishes, nor pleasure, but should ever pursue all three. (CE-3.34.28-38)’ Bhima too like Draupadi sees the excess of ‘Brahmana Guna’ in Yudhishthira - ‘But, O slayer of foes, no one applaudeth thee for thus suffering such pain in consequence of the kindliness of thy disposition. Thy intellect, O king, seeth not the truth, like that of a foolish and ignorant person of high birth who hath committed the words of the Vedas to memory without understanding their sense. Thou art kind like a Brahmana. How hast thou been born in the Kshatriya order? – ghRNii braahmaNa ruupo asi katham kSatre ajaayathaah (3.36.19).’ Yudhishthira rejects Bhima’s Dharma calling him ‘foremost of speakers –vaakya kovida’(3.37.3), may be with polite and subtle sarcasm. Draupadi’s and Bhima’s exhortations are nothing but ‘speech’ to Yudhishthira. He admits it is for him that all are suffering – ‘I cannot reproach thee for thy torturing me thus by piercing me with thy arrowy words. From my folly alone hath this calamity come against you.’ However, he also makes it clear to them – ‘Having entered into such an agreement in the presence of all good men, who dareth break it for the sake of a kingdom on earth? For a respectable person, I think, even death itself is lighter than the acquisition of sovereignty by an act of transgression.’ At the end of the war and particularly on learning that Karna was his uterine brother, ‘dharma.aatmaa’ Yudhishthira is ‘samtaapa.piiDita (12.6.12)’, ‘zoka.vyaakula.cetanah’ and ‘duhkha.samtaptah’ (12.7.1). Yudhishthira wants to leave for forest life – ‘Abandoning the whole of my kingdom, therefore, and the things of this earth, I shall go to the woods, escaping from the ties of the world, freed from grief, and without affection for anything.’ He is burdened with sense of sin (paapam). Yudhishthira’s ‘vairaagya’ is like his father Pandu’s, who too went to the forest shortly after returning from a bloody Digvijaya. Arjuna questions Yudhishthira’s sagacity and calls his ‘vairaagya’ ‘fickleness of intelligence - buddhi.laaghavaat (12.8.4)’, and even calls him ‘a eunuch or a person of procrastination - kliibasya . hi . kuto . raajyam . diirgha . suutrasya . vaa . punah (12.8.4)’. Arjuna has the sagacity to understand that Yudhishthira has not gone beyond ‘SaDa ripu’, and that his ‘vairaagya’ is not founded on the strong ground of ‘sannyasa’. He tells Yudhishthira a narrative of Janaka and his wife, in which she says to Janaka – ‘One is not to be called a mendicant for his having only renounced his possessions, or for his having only adopted a life of dependence on eleemosynary charity. He who renounces the possessions and pleasures of the world in a sincere frame of mind is to be regarded a true mendicant. Unattached at heart, though attached in outward show, standing aloof from the world, having broken all his bonds, and regarding friend and foe equally, such a man, O king, is regarded to be emancipated! Having shaved their heads clean and adopted the brown robe, men may be seen to betake themselves to a life of wandering mendicancy, though bound by various ties and though ever on the lookout for bootless wealth. They who, casting off the three Vedas, their usual occupations, and children, adopt a life or mendicancy by taking up the triple-headed crutch and the brown robe, are really persons of little understanding. Without having cast off anger and other faults, the adoption of only the brown robe, know, O king, is due to the desire of earning the means of sustenance. Those persons of clean-shaven heads that have set up the banner of virtue, have this only (viz., the acquisition of sustenance) for their object in life. (CE-12.18.29-33)’ What Arjuna says is akin to what Krishna told him – na karmaNaamanaarambhaannaishhkarmyaM purushho.ashnute . na cha sa.nnyasanaadeva siddhi.n samadhigach{}chhati - One does not attain freedom from the bondage of Karma by merely abstaining from work. No one attains perfection by merely giving up work. (Gita-3.04) In reply, Yudhishthira displays rare pride and impatience saying – veda.aham.taata.zaastraaNi;aparaaNi.paraaNi.ca./ (CE-12.190.1) 'I am conversant with both the Vedas and the scriptures that lead to the attainment of Brahma.’ He tells Arjuna that he is incapable of understanding Dharma because he knows only Yuddhashahstra - tvam . tu . kevalam . astra . jno; – performs only the rituals of a valiant warrior - viira . vratam . anuSThitah, and conversant only with Arthashashtra, so unable to understand truly the sense of the scriptures - zaastra . artham . tattvato . gantum . na . samarthah . kathamcana (CE-12.19.3). Yudhishthira even goes on to saying that Arjuna’s knowledge even in those subjects is not complete because he is not ‘zaastraartha suukSma darzii’ and is not a ‘dharma . nizcaya . kovidah’. Yudhishthira does not mind as usual, and he goes on with his futuristic plans of a forest life. In the intensity of ‘vairaagya’, the world seems to him an illusion – janma.mRtyu.jaraa.vyaadhi.vedanaabhir.upadrutam./ asaaram.imam.asvantam.samsaaram.tyajatah.sukham.// (CE-12.9.33) ‘He, however, who abandons the worldly course of life, which is really a fleeting illusion although it looks eternal, and which is afflicted by birth, death, decrepitude, disease, and pain, is sure to obtain happiness.’ He considers he has finally attained ‘prajnaa.amRtam’ intelligence, i.e. intelligence that leads to Moksha. It is this over-faith in his ‘sattvik’ attitude that comes occasionally following deep crisis, which is the main defect in his Dharma. ‘Attitude’ is not the real self, and Yudhishthira learns that in Svarga reacting to Duryodhana’s presence. Vyasa shows deep insight into human character by depicting the irony of life. Yudhishthira on earth thinks Reality an Illusion, and Yudhishthira in Svarga will think Illusion a Reality. What is more, Kunti reserves the same judgment for Yudhishthira. She tells Krishna to convey Yudhishthira her opinion – ‘Do not act vainly. O king, like a reader of the Vedas incapable of catching their real meaning, and, therefore, truly unlearned. Thy understanding, affected by only the words of the Vedas, vieweth virtue alone. Cast thy eyes on the duties of thy own order, as ordained by the Self-create. For all ruthless deeds and for the protection of the people, from his (Brahmana's) arms was created the Kshatriya, who is to depend upon the prowess of his own arms. (CE-5.13.5-7)’ Vyasa too pointed out to him of his inclination towards Brahmana-Guna – ‘'O thou of eyes like lotus petals, the protection of subjects is the duty of kings. Those men that are always observant of duty regard duty to be all powerful. Do thou, therefore, O king, walk in the steps of thy ancestors. With. Brahmanas, penances are a duty. This is the eternal ordinance of the Vedas. Penances, therefore, O bull of Bharata's race, constitute the eternal duty of Brahmanas. A Kshatriya is the protector of all persons in respect of their duties.[104] That man who, addicted to earthly possessions, transgresses wholesome restraints, that offender against social harmony, should be chastised with a strong hand. That insensate person who seeks to transgress authority, be he an attendant, a son, or even a saint, indeed,--all men of such sinful nature, should by every means be chastised or even killed. That king who conducts himself otherwise incurs sin. He who does not protect morality when it is being disregarded is himself a trespasser against morality. The Kauravas were trespassers against morality. They have, with their followers, been slain by thee. Thou hast been observant of the duties of thy own order. Why then, O son of Pandu, dost thou indulge in such grief? The king should slay those that deserve death, make gifts to persons deserving of charity, and protect his subjects according to the ordinance.' (KMG-Shaanti Parva – 32).’ Vyasa’s dialogue, leaving aside all other motives, conclusively shows how earnest he is to see Yudhishthira as King. Draupadi is prophetic to the extent that Yudhishthira discovers ‘tamaH’ and ‘rajaH’ in his much cherished ‘sattva’, and he gives way to ‘krodha’; and Bhima is prophetic that Yudhishthira’s ‘kaama’ is responsible for whatever he goes through. Perhaps for this reason, they reached Svarga before Yudhishthira! Without coming to terms with the ‘kaama-krodha-lobha’ of his subconscious, without seeing the play of ‘dharma-artha-kaama’ in his Dharma, without seeing the presence of one of the ‘trivarga’ in the other two, Yudhishthira cannot be free from the bondage of ‘maanava dharma’, therefore he cannot be firmly established in his Dharma which leads to Moksha! Balance in ‘trivarga’ is the most important thing. Each Shashtra makes it clear that ‘trivarga’ must be practiced with equal balance. Kautilya says in Arthashahstra – ‘Not violating righteousness and economy, he shall enjoy his desires. He shall never be devoid of happiness. He may enjoy in an equal degree the three pursuits of life, charity, wealth, and desire, which are inter-dependent upon each other. Any one of these three, when enjoyed to an excess, hurts not only the other two, but also itself (1.7.3-5). Vatsayana states in Kamashashtra – ‘Any action which conduces to the practice of Dharma, Artha and Kama together, or of any two, or even one of them, should be performed, but an action which conduces to the practice of one of them at the expense of the remaining two should not be performed (1.2.41)’. Vatsayana states how ‘kaama’ is conducive to Dharma –`He who is acquainted with the true principles of this science pays regard to Dharma, Artha, Kama, and to his own experiences, as well as to the teachings of others, and does not act simply on the dictates of his own desire (7.2.53)’. Krishna, on his peace mission, says the same thing in Kuru Sabha to Duryodhana – ‘O bull of Bharata's race, the exertions of the wise are always associated with virtue, profit, and desire. If, indeed, all these three cannot be attained, men follow at least virtue and profit. If, again, these three are pursued separately, it is seen that they that have their hearts under control, choose virtue; they that are neither good nor bad but occupy a middle station, choose profit, which is always the subject of dispute; while they that are fools choose the gratification of desire. The fool that from temptation giveth up virtue and pursueth profit and desire by unrighteous means, is soon destroyed by his senses. He that speaketh profit and desire, should yet practice virtue at the outset, for neither profit nor desire is (really) dissociated from virtue. O king, it hath been said that virtue alone is the cause of the three, for he that seeketh the three, may, by the aid of virtue alone, grow like fire when brought into contact with a heap of dry grass (CE-5.122.32-36)’. Vyasa proposes Moksha Dharma, which lays emphasis on ‘karma’ and ‘aachara’ – action and conduct – with the aim of emancipation though knowledge; the tilt is slightly towards Wisdom. His is a balance between traditional knowledge and self-earned Wisdom. He thinks traditional knowledge must be interpreted time to time depending on the age. Krishna proposes synthesis of all ‘maarga’ through ‘nishkaama karma’; the tilt is towards ‘karma’, for through ‘karma’ alone one earns wisdom and learns to be ‘nishkaama’. He lays greater emphasis on the self. He respects tradition, but considers much is to be learnt by the self. To him possibilities do not end. Yudhishthira proposes a third model, holding on to the Dharma that one thinks right, being true to one’s faith, yet not rigid, yet with an open mind to accept debate, and modify or change, but certain fundamental principles and values cherished by tradition remaining the fixed axel. His faith in self is to dig out the knowledge already in tradition. He will not give up Dharma even for Moksha. His vision is ‘if Moksha is the fourth step, then it too is part of a universal order or Dharma.’ In Yudhishthira’s Dharma, attachment remains, and the ‘karma’ is to learn to sublimate that attachment. Only if the object of attachment is forced out of existence, Yudhishthira will accept that whole-heartedly and become detached only then. Vyasa said to Suka –‘By purifying his heart, the Yogin transcends both righteousness and its reverse. By purifying his heart and by living in his own true nature, he attains to the highest happiness.’ (KMG-Shaanti Parva-246)‘ Yudhishthira’s Dharma is the Dharma of the heart. The possibility of the opposite i.e. heartlessness remains. He has to purge himself of that through trial and error. The Svargarohana Parva shows that when he refuses to accept Duryodhana in Svarga. Yudhishthira perhaps saw the irony of Vyasa and Krishna’s advices to him. On one hand they were speaking of svadharma, on the other they were telling him to abide by a Kshatra-Varna dharma, though that is not entirely his cup of tea (errrrr…….cup of Soma!). He cannot be sure of his true svadharma. Despite his inclinations towards braahmanic mode of life and a life of renunciation, he ultimately abides by what Vyasa, Krishna, his brothers and Draupadi have told him time and again. He takes up raajadharma again and rules humbly with humanistic ideals. As a final solution he rejects all thoughts, does not concentrate on even Moksha, and sticks to his ‘maanava dharma’, and make Indra’s Svarga crumble before him. The triumph of his dharma is his ‘jaya’ – victory. Perhaps, that is one reason, why Mahabharata is also titled ‘jaya’ – the ultimate victory of maanava dharma. Our rational mind would not believe he went to Svarga. Perhaps, after his brothers’ death, he had hallucinations of Svarga and Naraka; perhaps, in delirium he saw images of Svarga and Naraka – no one can say for sure. One thing is certain, however. He died alone in the Himalayas, a purely maanava consciousness gradually overcome by the snowy and rough Himalayas. He completed a circle thus – he died where he was born- in the lap of the Himalayas! Yudhishthira: The Indra on Battlefield Many would not agree Yudhishthira was a great warrior, so how can he be Indra? But is that so? Indrajit Bandyopadhyay is Lecturer in English at Kalyani Mahavidyalaya, Kalyani, WB. |
||
Share This: | ||
06-Feb-2010 | ||
More by : Indrajit Bandyopadhyay | ||
Views: 3732 Comments: 0 | ||
| ||
Top | Hinduism |
|