Sage Durvasa

When I was a child, amongst all the rishis, the one who intrigued me the most was Sage Durvasa (pronounced with the ‘a’ silent), known more for his anger. When I grew up, I found the character of Sage Durvasa all the more intriguing, since he was a rishi, a sage, who ought to have overcome all temptations and emotions, including anger, but not in his case. If knowledge was supreme and the way to all bliss, then why was this sage, known more for his anger than anything else? Why was he referred to as the one who was ready with a curse for offenses as minor as the one Shakuntala got for not responding to him when she was lost in her own reverie?

Durvasa cursing Shakuntala

The cause lies in one of the myths associated with his birth.

According to one of the Purana, once there was a heated argument between Lord Brahma and Lord Shiva. There was so much energy in the argument that the gods decided to flee out of fear. This upset Parvati and she complained to Lord Shiva that his anger was creating a lot of trouble for her and the other gods. When Shiva realized it, he decided to ‘deposit’ his anger in to Anusuya, the childless wife of Sage Atri and Durvasa was supposed to have been born out of this. Durvasa was thus a personification of Shiva’s rage and anger, an aspect that Parvati complained about. Durvasa literally means ‘ill clothed’, while some have said that it meant, one who was impossible to live with, which I believe has been taken from the above myth.

Though sage Durvasa was known for his anger and curse at the drop of a hat, his benevolent side has largely been overlooked. His curse to Shakuntala in Kalidasa’s Abhijnanashakuntalam, which changed the destiny of Shakuntala and his curse to Lord Indra which led to the samudra-manthan (read This is Utkarsh Speaking: Kumbh Mela), are some of the curses which have been responsible for his image. However, he has also given boons which have had very positive effect on the benefactors.

The most important boon that he conferred on was the boon of calling any god to beget children to Pritha or Kunti after being satisfied with her services. Irrespective of this being a case of his foresight or a fictional need, there is no denying that the boon was of immense help leading to the birth of six heroes in the epic Mahabharata.

Another lesser known myth has to do with Draupadi’s disrobing. Though popular renditions of the episode of saving Draupadi from the disgrace of disrobing are ascribed to Lord Krishna, a lesser known myth ascribes it to Sage Durvasa. According to the Shiva Purana, once while bathing, Sage Durvasa’s loin cloth floated away in the current of the river and he was left with nothing. At that moment, Draupadi, tore off a piece of her sari and saved the sage from an embarrassment. Pleased with her act, sage Durvasa blessed Draupadi that if she ever was in a similar predicament, there would be an unending supply of cloth for her.

Sage Durvasa has been an important character, who seemed to be a catalyst to many important events in mythology, both good and bad. While he creates a dramatic divide in the Abhijnanashakuntalam, he enables the samudra-manthan, which made the gods immortal. While his boon enabled the birth of the key characters of the epic Mahabharat, he also saved a distraught Draupadi from a public shame.

Before we conclude, here is a relatively lesser known myth ascribed to Sage Durvasa, which I am not sure is a benevolent curse or a harmful boon.

Towards the end of the epic Ramayana, in the Uttarakhand, Lord Brahma sent message to Lord Ram to return to Vaikuntha as Lord Vishnu. The messenger was none other than Yama, the lord of death, who had come in the form of an ascetic. Prior to getting into a discussion with Rama, Yama, made a condition, that while they were discussing, there should be no disturbance, whatsoever else, the person disturbing would lose his life. Rama entrusted Lakshman with the task of not allowing anybody inside the room and stationed him outside the closed door. While the discussions were on, Sage Durvasa came to the palace and asked for an urgent meeting with Rama. Lakshman tried to explain that Rama was in an important meeting with some ascetic and was under strict instructions of not being disturbed. Sage Durvasa was angry that Rama was giving priority to some ascetic over him, and his brother had the temerity to stop him. Durvasa was angry and told Lakhsman that if he did not get to meet Ram immediately, he would burn down the city of Ayodhya. Lakshman reasoned out to himself, that instead of having the whole Ayodhya burn down, it had rather be him.

Lakshman went inside the room and broke the news of Durvasa’s arrival and his need to be met immediately. Ram calmly stepped out of the room, met Durvasa and spent time with him till he left satisfied. But Yama’s condition too could not be broken. Ram instructed Lakhsman to go to the river Sarayu and proceed for the heavens. On reaching the Sarayu, Lakshman was escorted to the Vaikuntha, where he assumed the form of Adishesha, which became the seat of Lord Vishnu and waited for Lord Ram to return to Vaikuntha.

I am left with my doubt – was this act of Sage Durvasa, a curse or a boon? Was this an act of allowing Lakshman to ascend the heavens and wait for Lord Ram or was this to be seen as the cause of Lakshman’s ‘death’? Was this to be viewed as Durvasa creating an unwanted situation or was this the final act of showing Lord Ram’s respect for the learned and keeping his word to Yama, even if that meant the life of his brother?

You tell me!



Picture courtesy Wikipedia

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.

Krishna – the deserter

All of us know how Lord Krishna stopped Arjun from fleeing the battlefield, just before the battle of Kurukshetra in the epic Mahabharata. A lesser known myth tells us of Krishna himself doing the same at one point of time, but with a difference.

After Krishna killed his uncle, Kansa, he installed Kansa’s father, King Ugrasen on the throne of Mathura as the King of the Yadavas. The killing of Kansa had upset Kansa’s father-in-law, the mighty and powerful, King of Magadh, Jarasandha, since two of his daughters were married to Kansa and were now widows. Both the daughters returned to Jarasandha and urged their father to avenge their plight.

Jarasandha decided to kill Krishna and laid siege on Mathura. The army of the Yadavas was no match to that of Jarasandha’s huge army, but the Yadavas managed to send them back under the able leadership of Krishna. Jarasandha is supposed to have attacked Mathura more than seventeen times, each time inflicting a huge blow to the Yadavas and the casualties kept mounting and soon the Yadavas had an army which was only name-sake.

It was then that Krishna decided to leave Mathura and got Lord Vishwakarma to build a new city for them. Vishwakarma made a walled-city called Dwarka, the city with gates, which was well fortified and safe on an island on the West. However, the Yadavas saw this eviction from Mathura as an act of weakness and protested. Krishna explained to them, that he was capable of killing Jarasandha, but his time had not come, and he would not do anything which was against destiny. Also, Jarasandha’s enmity was not with the Yadavas, but with him. Krishna felt that risking the lives of so many and inflicting casualties on the community was unfair. After a lot of deliberations, King Ugrasen agreed with Krishna’s views and they decided to shift.

Soon Jarasandha laid siege, and this time set the entire city of Mathura on fire. But Krishna and others had already slipped out of Mathura. This singular act of his, earned him the epithet of ‘Ranchod-rai’, one who flees from the battlefield, or the deserter. Time and again, Krishna has been taunted for this desertion and even called a coward in Mb, but many see this as an act of practical sense. Putting an entire community at risk for what was a personal enmity was unfair. Also, it is always better to fight an equal war and when one is ready. The Yadavas were not ready and were no match to the mighty army of Jarasandha. Balarama, the elder brother of Krishna had protested to this plan of desertion, but Krishna prevailed, much to the dislike of Balarama and many others.

Fighting in battles is not just an act of bravery, but also that of strategy. Jarasandha never attacked Dwarka which was well fortified, proves the point that Krishna’s decision was that of good war strategy, which in the long run led to no casualties and no bloodshed. His decision to take on Jarasandha later when he had able support of warriors worthy of Jarasandha, proved beneficial to the entire community.

A single epithet of the deserter did not reduce his importance, rather only enhanced it as a master-strategist with a practical sense rather than a misplaced sense of patriotism.

The critical difference of Krishna’s desertion and Arjun not wanting to fight the war of Kurukshetra, is that Arjun had developed cold feet and was having moral dilemma whereas Krishna’s desertion was part of war-strategy. You can read more on this in one of my earlier articles  Arjuna's Dilemma .

There exists a famous temple of Ranchod-rai in Dakor, Gujarat. The formation of the temple and the idol of the temple have its own rich mythology, which will be for some other day.

So did Krishna ever manage to eliminate Jarasandha? That too is for another day!!!

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?