Navagunjara

Mythology is replete with interesting mythical creatures, some like Kamdhenu, Garuda, Narasimha, Hanuman, or the Greek Centaur and the Egyptian Sphinx to the dangerous ones like Gorgons or the Greae or even the chimera. The one thing common to all of them is that they have been extremely awe-inspiring and at times creative to the last bit.

Many of the above are known to us as our basic knowledge of mythology or have been part of childhood fiction. However, I came across one such interesting creature, which finds a mention only in the Oriya version of the epic Mahabharata, by Adikavi Sarala Dasa. He has created an excellent example of an enigma of a creature, known as Navagunjara, which finds artistic expression in the local paintings better known as Pata-chitra and the Ganjifa playing cards. But first the creature.

During the exile of the Pandavas, once Arjuna was performing penance in the hills of Manibhadra. When Krishna came to know about it, he decided to test Arjuna as it had been a long time since he had met Arjuna. Krishna assumed the form of the Navagunjara, an animal composed of nine different animals. The Navagunara had the head of a rooster, and stood on three feet, each of which was of an elephant, a tiger and the deer or a horse. The fourth limb was a raised human arm carrying a lotus. The creature further had the neck of a peacock the hump of a camel (which incidentally also was in the shape of a linga), the waist of a lion, and the tail was a serpent.

(Courtesy - Rare Book Society  of India *)

When Krishna in the form of the Navagunjara presented himself in front of Arujuna, he was both terrified and baffled. He picked up his bow and arrow to shoot the creature, but paused for a moment trying to understand the creature. How could such a creature exist? Just what could it be? It was at this stage that he understood that this must be none other than Krishna testing him. He immediately bowed his head and sought his blessings.

One wonders what this could be all about. Is it about the ability of Krishna to assume an unexplainable form? Or is it about the limitless creativity of the Creator? As mentioned earlier, this episode is found in no other version of Mahabharata, except in the version by Sarala Dasa. The author’s creativity is full of symbolism and metaphors. Many have compared this with the virata-swaroop of Krishna, except that this one is a baffling form, which is not explained or probably left unexplained.

The Navagunjara is seen as the unfathomable possibility of nature and at times its incomprehensible aspects. The creative manifestation of god and the capability to evoke a sense of awe is unimaginable. The form also implies that not all aspects of god can be understood, no matter how knowledgeable one is, like Arjuna, who was very close to Krishna. Human mind or brain has limitations and some things are beyond the scope of human understanding. While Arjuna was amazed at his own inability to explain the existence of such a creature, his picking up the bow without giving it a thought is an example of human reaction, when there is no prior knowledge of such situations.

While the episode does not have any major bearing

Neela-chakra

on the narrative by itself, it was pregnant with symbols and created a deep impact on the belief system of the locals. Besides being a prominent aspect of Oriya art, as mentioned earlier, it finds a place in the form of a sculpture on the famous Lord Jagannath Temple walls in Puri, Orissa, besides the eight of them crafted on the Neela-chakra or the disc above the temple.

Needless to say, that among all the mythical creatures that I have come across, I find this the most enigmatic. Another such creature that comes to my mind is the Sharabha form of Lord Shiva, though not as creative or metaphorical as Navagunjara.

*Image source - The Metropolitan Museum of Art with Prashanth Nair

Hanuman in Mahabharata

If the heading of this article has surprised you a bit, then that sure was the objective! Yes, we do read about Hanuman in Mahabharata too.

Hanuman was blessed by Ram to be cheeranjivi, i.e. immortal. We come across Hanuman twice in the epic of Mahabharata.

The first and probably the well-known episode is when Bhim meets Hanuman. Bhim and Hanuman were brothers, as they were born of the same father, Vayu, the wind god. Once during the exile of the Pandavas, Draupadi asked for the Sughandika flower or the flower with the celestial fragrance. Bhim went into the jungle to get the flower. On the way, he found an old monkey lying with his tail blocking the way. Bhim haughtily asked the monkey to move its tail. Hanuman, asked him to do so himself, if it was bothering him. Bhim tried to move the tail, but couldn’t move it even an inch. Bhim knew that this was no ordinary monkey. He bent on his knees and asked him to introduce himself. Hanuman then showed him his usual form and Bhim sought pardon from him. This is considered a lesson in humility for an otherwise arrogant Bhim.

The other episode is relatively lesser known. Once at Rameshwaram, while looking at the Ramsetu, the bridge built by Ram, Arjun commented as to what made Ram take the help of monkeys to build a bridge when he could have built a bridge of arrows all by himself. Hanuman appeared and challenged him to build a bridge of arrows, which could just about hold the weight of one monkey. Arjuna accepted the challenge, and started building a bridge of arrows, which he was good at. But Hanuman managed to destroy every bridge by just one step of his. Seeing this, Lord Vishnu appeared and chided both, Arjun for challenging the mighty Hanuman and Hanuman for making Arjun feel so small that he was contemplating taking his own life in shame.

At this, Hanuman felt sorry and promised to help Arjun during the forthcoming war of Kurukshetra. Later during the war, he sat atop Arjun’s chariot, in the form of a flag, thus giving the chariot a sense of stability. At the end of the war, Krishna asked Arjun, to get off the chariot first, which was against the war protocol. As soon as he did, Krishna followed and then came down Hanuman and after bowing to Lord Krishna, he vanished. No sooner had he vanished, the chariot was up in flames and reduced to ashes. A shocked Arjun was at a loss of words. Krishna explained that the chariot had withheld all the celestial weapons hurled at them, thanks only to Hanuman and him, the only two who could withstand the negative effects of such deadly weapons. If they had dismounted first, then he along with the chariot would have been reduced to ashes!

The first one is a well known myth from Mahabharata, but the second one is a lesser known one, both giving lessons in humility to the Pandav brothers.

Two Tales of Two Brothers

Let me tell you about an interesting observation. But first stories, which many of us might be quite familiar with.

The first one is from the epic Ramayan, related to the Kishkindha episode. Sugriv and Vali were brothers and Vali was the king of the vanars in the Kingdom of Kishkindha. He had a boon, that he would absorb half the strength of his opponent in a fight/battle. Once a demon by the name of Dundubi threatened him to a duel, but when Vali accepted it, he developed cold feet and ran away. Both Vali and Sugriv chased him till he entered into a cave. Before going inside the cave, Vali asked Sugriv to wait for him outside the cave and in case he saw blood coming out of the cave, then he should assume him to be dead and return to the kingdom and crown himself the King. After Vali had gone inside the cave, Sugriv heard loud sounds and soon he saw blood coming out of the cave. Sugriv assuming that his brother was dead, bolted the entrance of the cave with a boulder and came back to the kingdom to inform all that their King was dead and assumed the throne.

Soon Vali managed to kill the demon, and came back to his kingdom to see Sugriv crowned as a king. This enraged him and he rushed to kill Sugriv. When Sugriv tried to explain that he had done as instructed to him, Vali would not hear and rushed to kill him. Sugriv had no option but to escape from there and live in exile. Vali in the meanwhile also forcefully took Sugrivs’ main wife Ruma. Later when Ram and Lakshaman came there in search of Sita, they met Sugriv and assured him of their support.

As planned, Sugriv challenged Vali to a duel in the forest and while the two were fighting, Ram hid behind a tree and shot an arrow and killed Vali. This singular act is seen as an unfair blemish in an otherwise spotless character of Ram. (We will not get into the details of the unfairness and will leave the story here.)

In the epic Mahabharata, during the war of Kurukshetra, again two brothers were pitched against each other, Karna and Arjun. During the war, when Karna gets off the chariot, to release its wheel which was stuck in the ground, Krishna coaxes Arjuna to kill Karna, even though Karna was unarmed. This too is seen as an unfair act by Krishna and he has been criticised for the same.

Am I telling you stories that you know?

Well now for a very interesting comparison in both the tales related above.

In the first tale, Vali and Sugriv were brothers because they were born of same mother, Aruni, but not the same father. Vali was the son of Lord Indra and Sugriv was the son of Lord Surya. In this case, Ram, an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, sides with the son of Lord Surya to kill the son of Lord Indra.

In the second tale, Karna and Arjun are again bothers because they were born of the same mother, Kunti, but not the same father. Karna was the son of Lord Surya and Arjuna was the son of Lord Indra. In this case, Krishna, an avatar of Lord Vishnu again, sides with the son of Lord Indra, to kill the son of Lord Surya!

The first epic was written by Sage Valminki and the second was written by Sage Vyasa, but the similarities are too glaring.

• In both the cases, the fathers are Lord Indra and Lord Surya, the most important Vedic deities.
• In both cases, the driving force was Lord Vishnu in different incarnations
• In both cases, the death of one of the brothers is by unfair means.

What is more important is that what was done in the Ramayan was reversed in an effort to balance in Mahabharat, a poetic justice of sorts for the fathers, Indra and Surya!

Isn’t this interesting? Two epics, written by two different sages, during two different ages (Ramayan during Treta Yuga and Mahabharata during the Dwapar Yuga) but enabling a balance of justice.

Finally to conclude, Vali before dying is supposed to have told Ram that shooting him from behind and that too when he was fighting someone else was unfair. To avenge this unfairness, Ram allowed Vali to be reborn as the hunter Jara during the dwapar yuga (Mahabharata) who shoots an arrow at Krishna’s feet thinking him to be a deer, leading to the death of Krishna!

Jara killing Krishna (courtesy Wikipedia)

Doesn't this also depict the declining standards of morals? What was unfair during Ram's times and allowed to avenge later, is missing during Krishna's times?

 

Ban on Gita?

Siberia is contemplating banning the Bhagavad Gita in Siberia on the grounds that it is ‘extremist literature’.

Fact – Siberian Court is to take a decision of banning the book – “Bhagavad Gita – As It Is”, distributed by ISKCON, however, this might lead to the banning of all/any versions of Bhagavad Gita in general.

Reason – it advocates war and this is ‘extremist literature’.

Well I guess the Gita is extremist in the sense that it is radical, it is different, and it is revolutionary. Yes, it is all this, but not extremist in the current sense of its meaning i.e. it is not terrorist material!

Yes, Gita does advocate a war. The recitation of the Gita takes place in the epic Mahabharata, on the battle field of Kurukshetra, when Arjuna declines from fighting the battle since all the ‘enemies’ were his relatives. It is then that Lord Krishna recites the Gita and gets him to fight the battle. Yes, Krishna did encourage Arjuna to fight the battle. So is it not promoting war?

Herein lies the difference in the war of Kurukshetra and any other war.

The war of Kurukshetra was not just a war for a piece of land. When seen in context, it was a war for the establishment of justice. All norms of civilised behaviour had been broken, all diplomatic efforts had been explored and every possible effort to avoid the war had been resorted to. This war itself was a consequence of immense greed and selfishness and a series of misdeeds towards mankind in general. The war was the last option and there was no going back to the discussion table (as per the corporate jargon). The only choice one had was to have a just-war then or have an evil-war later on. With so much at stake, it was just right on the part of Lord Krishna to instil in Arjuna a sense of duty that simply dictates that there must not be any slackness in the actions performed in anticipation of the results.

To see Gita as a treatise on war and peace only is missing the basic point. The basic principle of Gita recommends a war only for the protection of dharma in pursuit of karma (duty) of the addressee, and that too as a last option. The dharma, which encompasses more than the term ‘religion’, is primarily about karma or duty. The true implication of what Krishna told Arjuna in Gita was that the war was a quest for justice and the ultimate objective of the war, was preservation of mankind. Krishna did not support an un-equal battle, a war which was not a Dharmayuddha - or righteous war (as against a ‘religious’ war), without allocating the burden of karma (duty).

Gita is not just a book, but a song of philosophy. If one reads it and understands it (both are two different activities), then one doesn’t have to know much else. Many read it as a ritual, but few understand the essence of it. Reading Gita is self-actualization – better known as ‘swadhyay’, but how many people can understand the simple meaning of this word and the work in general?

Should we be worried about Siberia banning the book?

My answer is why should we? Will banning the book by an obscure court of a Siberian town undermine the might of the book? Is the banning of the book not an act of utter illiteracy on the part of that Society? Isn’t it their loss, that they are keeping a section of the world population away from such a profound work of philosophy?

But not raising a voice might be misconstrued as a weakness of the nation?

Will it? Doesn’t the nation have priorities within rather than outside? Why allow some selfish politician to make the profound work of literature his dice to play with? Who are the people complaining – the ones who know nothing more than the spelling of the word ‘Gita’? Aren’t these the same people who themselves seek ban on books every now and then? Aren’t these the same people who wouldn’t hesitate to burn any other work of literature, when it would suit them?

Will it not hurt our national pride?

Will it? Where does our national pride go when the world sees our parliamentarians hurling missiles at each other in the august parliament of ours? Where does our national pride go when we see state-sponsored-hooliganism unleashed on our national heritage like museums and other artefacts? Where does our national pride go when the world observes our abysmal state of preparation for international events and the level of service standards?

So should we let go and not protest and raise our voices?

Yes we should protest and raise our voice. But raise it for the right reason. Raise your voice against the fundamentals – banning any work of literature. Protest against the ban which does not allow debate and discourse. Protest against the ban which does not allow a different cultural view point to coexist with the local. Protest against the ban which does not allow others to read a class of literature just because some parochial viewpoint has been given precedence against a more culturally inclusive thought process.

To conclude, I would like to quote Jesus Christ, from the Bible “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” (Luke 23:34). I guess that comes to me naturally because I have been brought up on the tenets of Gita which is a philosophy which the Siberians will be denied by their own courts of law!

Many have said that in the epic Mahabharat, use of weapons of mass destruction has been promoted. We will see that next.

The Third Sex - 3

A number of myths abound in the region of Becharaji, which is associated with the eunuchs; prominent among them are that of the myths of Arjuna and Sikhandi of Mahabharata. Let us go through them briefly.

                                          

The Myth of Arjuna

After the 12 years of exile, as per the rule, the Pandavas and their wife, Draupadi had to spend an additional year in exile but incognito without detection. At this time, a long pending curse on Arjuna came of help. Arjuna in an earlier episode in Mahabharata was cursed for refusing the amorous advances of by Urvashi. She had cursed him to become a ‘kliba’, one of the third sex. For the thirteenth year, this was the best disguise for Arjuna.

It is said that before the Pandavas proceeded towards the kingdom of Virata, Arjuna is supposed to have visited Bahurcharaji. It is here that he hides his weapons and becomes what is known as a ‘Brihannala’, a professional dancer and musician trained by “gandharvas” or celestial beings. He transforms himself into a ‘kliba’ at Bahucharaji, before proceeding for the Kingdom of Virata. Before he left for Virata’s kingdom, Arujuna is supposed to have hidden his weapons in a thorny tree called the Sami tree in nearby Dedana village. As a part of the ritual, on every Dasherra day this tree is worshipped, and the ritual is known as ‘Sami-pujan’. It is said that this tree remains green all-round the year and does not either increase or decrease in its size.

Virata was a kingdom ruled by the Matsya king by the name Virata. Its capital was Virata Nagari, modern Bairat in the Jaipur district of Rajasthan.

The Myth of Sikhandi

An artist's impression of Sikhandi

The story of Sikhandi is well known and we will not delve in the myth which binds together some of the main characters of Mahabharata, viz. Bhishmapitamah, Princess Amba, King Salya, etc. What is of significance here is that Shikhandi was the son of King Drupad and was Princess Amba in his previous birth.

As per the local lore, Sikhandi was not a man in the sense of having masculinity. So Sikhandi is supposed to be moving around in despair to attain masculinity to take part in the famous war of Kurukshetra, as he had to fulfil his wow of killing Bhishma. When after all the efforts failed, he was dejected and came to Bahucharaji. The lore goes on to say that in this region stayed a Yaksha by the name of Mangal. When the Yaksha saw Sikhandi, who was miserable and crying and pitiful, he asked her what was wrong. Sikhandi told him his story and how it was a desire to be a man and avenge the insult heaped onto him from his previous birth.

Hearing all this, the Yaksha took pity on Sikhandi and decided to trade genders with Sikhandi, till he achieves his imminent objective. The lore goes on with more twists and turns and adding to the already complicated issue, which we will omit here.

It is said that from that day onwards, this place gets its importance of a place where lost masculinity can be gained.

Though there is no empirical evidence to prove the veracity of either of the above mentioned episodes, but the popular local belief and the presence of the eunuchs in the region is enough to strengthen the belief system. Also the proximity of Virata and Panchala from Gujarat lends some credence to the association in some form or the other.

The fact that Lord Krishna had such an influence in the region and a follower of his in Arjun makes the myth highly believable for the local populace. It also gains currency in the fact that Mahabharata is an epic of India and the locale had a share of prominence in the great epic!

Arjuna's Dilemma

On this Janamashtami, Lord Krishna’s birthday, I would like to clear some dark clouds shrouding the name of Lord Krishna. Lord Krishna’s role in Mahabharata has been seen by many as that of a conspiring opportunist who takes advantage of situations and even goes against the rules, especially during the final war of Kurukshetra. In short, many have compared him to the modern-day politician. I will discuss one such act of his which has been criticised by many an intellectual.

Before the war of Kurukshetra began, Arjuna did not want to fight citing some quite obvious reasons of killing so many innocent people for a mere piece of land, of which some had nothing to do with it. He wanted to avoid the mass-killing. The Nobel laureate Mr. Amartya Sen in his Theory of Consequentialism propounds that one must weigh the consequences of every action that one takes and he goes on to say that by coaxing Arjuna to fight, Lord Krishna instilled in him what Mr. Sen refers as ‘consequence-independent judgments’. He goes on to ask if this was this fair on the part of Lord Krishna.

At the onset I am not sure Arjun’s reluctance to fight had anything to do with the Theory of Consequentialism. His reluctance to fight was due to state of dejection, coexisting with a predominance of tamas (meaning lethargy and darkness), and this is considered to be detrimental to ones spiritual and psychological well-being. Instead of considering this as a reaction in the field of morality, one needs to consider this refusal to fight as a psychological reaction on Arjuna's part, which Lord Krishna had to cure through the process of counselling.

In order to be able to make the right moral decision, one must have the right psychological balance first. All this, needless to say, was consequential calculation on the part of Lord Krishna. While Arjuna was confusing compassion with cowardice, the dialogue between the two (better known as Bhagvada Gita) was to make him recognise the same. Lord Krishna was against weakness and cowardice and not love for ones fellowmen. Apart from Arjuna's need to go back to the required state of his mind, from where he could grow psychologically, ethically and spiritually, it seems that once he had come to the battlefield with his responsibility to give leadership to a vast army as a General, it may be quite questionable whether he could relinquish his commitment all of a sudden, at the very last moment. Lord Krishna wanted him to fight for the establishment of justice. When maintenance of justice was the principle involved, it was imperative on a kshatriya (the warrior) to resort to appropriate means, including taking up of arms.  To borrow Mr. Sen’s term again, was this (i.e. establishment of justice) consequence any less?

Let me provoke with a question which one might relate to better. Would taking up arms by our Government against a huge (or rather ever-increasing) group of terrorists be seen as spilling of blood, even when we know that some of them have been our brothers till some time back? Would we have said the same thing about General Sam Maneckshaw if he had declined to fight the Pakistanis just before the battle stating he did not want to spill the blood of his own brothers? Then why this double standards when it comes to judging mythical heroes?

Kurukshetra was no ordinary war for a mere piece of land. It was a war for the establishment of justice. All norms of civilised behaviour had been broken, all diplomatic efforts had been explored and every possible effort to avoid the war had been resorted to. The war itself was a consequence of immense greed and selfishness and a series of misdeeds towards mankind in general. The war was the last option and there was no going back to the discussion table (as per our corporate jargon). The only choice one had was to have a just war then or an evil war later. With so much at stake, was it not right on Lord Krishna’s part to instil in Arjuna a sense of duty that dictated that there must not be any slackness in the actions performed in anticipation of the results?

You tell me!