Chandra Tara & Adultery – Concluding Part

Earlier we have read how Tara decides to stay back at Chandra’s place and Brihaspati’s pleas of returning Tara go unheard, as Chandra feels that he had not forced Tara to stay back.

An angry Brihaspati went to Lord Indra and sought his help in retrieving his wife. When Indra sent his emissary to seek the release of Tara, Chandra sent him back with a mouthful. Chandra’s contention was that if a woman willfully left her home to stay with another man, then what was the fault of the man she chose to stay with? Also, family bliss was dependent on both the husband and the wife being happy, but if the wife was not happy, then how can one ensure the happiness of the family?

Tara was unhappy with Brihaspati not just for her reasons of sexual pleasure. She was also unhappy, because Brihaspati had forcibly made love with Mamta, the wife of his brother. He further went to ridicule Indra for fighting against supposed adultery, when Indra himself was known for many such escapades. Soon matters came to the stage of a war amongst the gods, with Chandra on one side and Indra on the other. However, Lord Brahma intervened and it was decided, without asking Tara of course, that Tara would have to return to Brihaspati. Brishaspati was happy and took Tara back with him.

But Tara was pregnant when she went back with Brihaspati. When a son was born, Brihaspati started making arrangements for his naming ceremony, but then Chandra objected to it, saying that it was his right to do so. Once again matters came to a war-like situation and Lord Brahma had to intervene in the claim for the son. Lord Brahma asked Tara as to whose child was it, since only a mother knew the father of her child. Tara said that it was Chandra’s. Chandra was happy and took his son away and named him Budh.

An interesting myth that is part of astronomical myths. Chandra as we know was the Moon, Tara represented the stars. Brihaspati is the planet Jupiter and Budh is the planet Mercury. The love of Tara can be seen till date when they come out twinkling when the moon is out!

The conversation between Chandra and Brihaspati and the emissary of Indra is quite interesting. Nowhere was Tara chastised for her decision of willfully staying on with Chandra and the latter misses no opportunity to ridicule Brihaspati for his inability to keep his wife happy. This myth is discussed in detail in the first book of Srimad Devi Bhagavatam, in Chapter XI, “Birth of Budh”. Some of these issues have been discussed threadbare and without any restrain.

In the war of gods, Tara does not face any defamation or retribution from her husband, Brihaspati. Chandra justifies by saying that Tara was with him out of her choice and would not force her to leave. Lord Brahma decides against Tara’s wish to stay with Chandra, but without any reprimand. The birth of Budh is also resolved in favour of Chandra. The entire dissatisfaction of Tara was based on physical aspects of looks and love-making skills of Chandra as against her husband. No aspect of emotion, love, etc. is discussed or brought out. Is this to say that these aspects do not have any bearing on a relationship? Is sexual satisfaction the driving force of maintaining a relationship or was this myth only implying that no matter what be the cause, a married woman belongs to the husband? (Refer to the earlier myth of Swetaketu)

Chandra is considered to be the first of the Chandra-vamshi, followed by Budh and then his son Pururava (This is Utkarsh Speaking: Urvashi and Pururavas). The heroes of the epic Mahabharat are all chandra-vamshis and surely go on to display their preoccupation with sex. To sum it, let me quote Prof. Satya Chaitanya, “The moon is the deity of the mind in both Vedic literature and subsequent Indian philosophy. And the mind is a slave to passions. In any case, a legacy of the moon god thus is one of powerful sexual longing – amoral or immoral – and this becomes the legacy of a vast number of kings in the lunar dynasty. King after king falls because he becomes a victim to unbridled sexuality.” And this as they say is history of epic proportions, as we see Yayati, Shantanu, Vichitraveer, etc. are examples of this.

The above myth is significant from the perspective that adultery is discussed in ancient scriptures threadbare. The intention of this article is not to be judgmental, but to relate a myth and its source for us to understand the position taken by each, irrespective of the resolution. What is important is not the outcome of the controversy, but the conversation that takes place.

If one opines that Tara, the woman is only a means to discuss the topic of adultery, then that would be an extremely myopic view. The way she exercises her choice, stays on with Chandra, and is not faulted ever, is significant in the narrative to bring out her position of a woman, who had a choice.

Chandra Tara & Adultery - Part 1

There are three main characters to this article, Brihaspati, Chandra and Tara.

Let’s talk about Brihaspati first.

Mamta was the wife of rishi Usija, the elder brother of

Brihaspati

Brihaspati. Brihaspati once felt the desire to make love to Mamta. Mamta resisted by saying that she was already pregnant with Usija’s son and there would not be any place for Brihaspati’s son, which she was bound to conceive if he made love to her. She also went on to say, that the foetus was learning Vedas and might not like another child in there, however, she added, that the choice was his. Brihaspati could not control his desire and decided to make love. At that moment, the foetus from inside tried to stop him by saying that he had arrived there first and there was no space for another one and thus he should stop.

Brihaspati was now angry with the foetus that even at the stage of a foetus it tried to stop him, he cursed the foetus to enter into a stage of darkness. Thus the foetus was named Dirghatamas, the blind sage. But another child was also conceived and was named as Bharadvaja (the one born of two). (Incidentally, Bharadvaja was the father of Drona in the epic Mahabharata). Many later scholars have termed this ‘forced’ union as a rape; however, what is interesting to note is that Mamta doesn’t stop Brihaspati from making love to her on the grounds of impropriety. She only stops him, on the grounds that there wouldn’t be enough space for two foetus together. Does this hint at some sort of permissiveness in the then society?

This is similar to the Swetaketu myth, where Swetaketu observes another sage taking hold of his mother’s hand and taking her away with him. His father observes this and doesn’t say anything and later explains to Swetaketu that it was natural for both men and women to have more partners, as all other creations of God did! However, Swetaketu was upset by this state of ‘affairs’ and made a law that no woman would be allowed to take another man, if her husband loved her and provided for her, and if she did, then that would be a grave sin and the same for the men too. He felt that man was different from animals and as only he was endowed with the faculty of brain, which taught him the difference between culture and the lack of it. Thus, he could not behave like animals.

Brihaspati was a great sage and goes on to become the guru of the gods. With this background of Brihaspati, let us move on to the myth under discussion.

Let us now take up Tara and Chandra.

Tara was the beautiful, buxom and the young wife of Brihaspati. Once Tara visited the land of Chandra, the moon and both fell madly in love with each other. Tara

Chandra

was so enamoured by the looks and his mastery in the skills of love-making that she decided to stay back with Chandra. Brihaspati waited for her for some time and then sent his disciple to get her back. When Tara didn’t return with the disciple, Brihaspati himself went to fetch her from Chandra’s place.

Brihaspati apprised Chandra that it was evil to keep Tara with him as she was his wife and thus Chandra’s gurupatni (wife of guru) who is akin to a mother. Having sex with ones gurupatni was an act of sin and that he could curse him for such sin. Chandra laughed him away by saying that a man, who had no mastery over himself, couldn’t levy a curse on anybody, besides the fact that he had not forced Tara to stay with him. As regards adultery, Chandra mentioned that according to the Dharmashastras, there could be no impurity due to adultery, as she was chaste after every menstrual cycle!

Brihaspati had no answer to Chandra and went back, but couldn’t reconcile with the absence of his wife and was beginning to long for her. So he came back again after a few days, but this time he was stopped at the entrance by the gatekeepers of Chandra. This further infuriated Brihaspati and he shouted at Chandra from the gates saying, that if Chandra didn’t return his wife immediately, he would curse him and reduce him to ashes.

Chandra came out and ridiculed Brihaspati by saying that what would an old man like him do with such a beautiful woman like Tara, when he couldn’t even pleasure her appropriately? It was sad that men of scriptures had such beautiful wives when they had no idea how to satisfy them. He went on to challenge Brihaspati by saying that he could do whatever he wanted to and would not give Tara to him, unless of course she wanted to go all by herself.

An angry Brihaspati went to Lord Indra and sought his help in retrieving his wife. When Indra sent his emissary to seek the release of Tara, Chandra sent him back with a mouthful. Chandra’s contention was that if a woman willfully left her home to stay with another man, then what was the fault of the man she chose to stay with? Also, family bliss was dependent on both the husband and the wife being happy, but if the wife was not happy, then how can one ensure the happiness of the family?

Let me leave the readers with the above thought.

We will continue the rest of the story, tomorrow……till then keep thinking about Chandra’s contention….. 

Abhimanyu’s Death

Yesterday, we read about the death of Abhimanyu which seemed to be part of the war-strategy of Lord Krishna. Did he seem like a villain who was out to eliminate the young Pandava princes and get them to sacrifice each of them and leave the Kuru clan with no survivor (except Abhimanyu’s unborn son, Parikshit)?

Not exactly! Yes Abhimanyu was killed as a part of a plan, but a plan which was way beyond the battlefields of Kurukshetra.

Before it was time for Vishnu to take the mortal birth of Krishna, each of the gods were expected to contribute towards the massive destruction that was expected on earth, i.e. in the war of Kurukshetra (as they say, everything is destined). Many sources say, that the Pandavas, who were the sons of gods, were actually the representatives of the said gods (like Yudhishtir represented Dharma, Bhima represented Vayu and Arjuna represented Indra, etc.). As a part of this design, Abhimanyu was the reincarnation of Chandra, the Moon-god’s son, Varchas.

As an arrangement, Chandra did not want to part with his son for too long and so had agreed to part with him only for sixteen years and also wanted his son to be known as a hero. This was known to Krishna, and thus he is supposed to have ensured that Abhimanyu died a heroic death at the young age of sixteen and leave the world and go back to his father, Chandra.

The fact that the death of Abhimanyu was the turning point in the war has been well accepted by one and all. The death of his favourite son, from Subhadra, made Arjuna cry for blood and bring out the warrior in him.

This should be seen as the utilisation of a useful piece of information for a larger cause – a great skill to possess in the field of strategy. The vows of Draupadi, the hardships they had to undergo, the treachery and the unfairness meted out to them, besides Krishna’s rendition of Gita had not quite had the desired effect on Arjuna that was needed in the kind of battle that was being fought. Abhimanyu could have been eliminated as any other death in the battlefield, but the way he got killed, roused the passions and anger in a relatively cold Arjuna who was not fighting to his potential and was avoiding all the seniors of the Kaurava army. His death changed the whole attitude of Arjuna and there was no looking back thereafter.

Many scholars have also opined that this could have also been done to serve as a lesson to one and all that half knowledge is dangerous and that wars have to be fought through a combination of strategy and bravery, not just the latter.

So can we still blame Krishna for the death of Abhimanyu, or should we see as a masterstroke in the master plan?