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!

Fairy Tales

All of us have grown up on a staple diet of bed-time or rather any-time fairy tales. Be they ‘Snow-white and the seven dwarfs’, or ‘Cinderella’, or ‘Rapunzel’ or Panchatantra and a host of local and vernacular ‘pari-katha’, tales have been told since time immemorial. Every child has lapped it up and has never had enough of it.

Bollywood star Mr. Hrithik Roshan is supposed to have said that fairy tales are the poison of our world since they do not speak of real life where there is no happy ending! If this is not blasphemous, it sure is ridiculous, to say the least.

Can you imagine a childhood without such tales? Such tales help children create a world of their own where they can take plunges in chocolate lakes, slide down the valleys and fight the evil gnomes and smile at the sun and the moon! The flowers speak to them, good spirits bail them out in trouble and flying horses and magic carpets take them to different countries. Is this poison? Ask any child psychologist and you will be told that these tales help children in “liberating the imagination of children”. It helps them grow up to healthy adults whose childhood memories enable them to fight evil and wrongs of the society and are not ‘already-lost’ to the vagaries of the real world. It helps children to triumph over their personal and cultural anxieties and introduces hem to a world that they might not get to see.

Life is not a bed of roses, but to tell them that life is not all that good because all things come to an end is such a sadistic approach to life and that too a budding life at that. Childhood is a time for fun, exploration and vivid imagination. Let the colours bloom and let then look forward to the rainbow, why paint it all black?

I haven’t quite got over the silly remark made by the Bollywood hero, but if fairy tales are a poison since there is no happy ending, how come every movie of his has happy endings? If fairy tales are a poison, it would be good to remind Mr. Roshan, that Krrish (probably his most successful movies amongst the few ones he has) was nothing but fairy tale character.

So children and adults, do not take Mr. Roshan’s verbal diarrhea so seriously. Go on and read more of such tales, after all many a Bollywood movie is based on fairy tales.

Friendship Day

Last Sunday was Friendship Day and all day long I kept receiving messages on the essence of Friendship form many of my friends. The stores all around my place were selling friendship-bands, strings, rings – what have you? All this made me wonder, just what is a friend?

Aristotle has said that a friend is a single soul in two bodies. Where do we find such soul-mates these days? Were there earlier? All of us have grown up on the legends of Krishna-Sudama, so I will not repeat it. But what about other famous friends? We have read about the friendship of Duryodhan and Karna in Mahabharat. Karna, despite the knowledge of the Pandava’s being his younger brothers, does not desert his friend Duryodhan when he needed his help the most. A friend in need they say is a friend indeed. But could this not be seen as Karna’s indebtedness to Druyodhan’s favour done to him when the world was questioning his royalty?

What about another famous pair from Mahabharata – Krishna and Arjun? Weren’t they friends too? Krishna in Mahabharata portrays all the qualities that we ought to look for in a friend. According to George Herbert, “the best mirror is an old friend” and Krishna was an apt mirror to Arjun. Krishna was the one who showed Arjun who he was and what he ought to do, especially during his time of dilemma, a time when many of us look for friends. The Gita delivered by Krishna was profound knowledge to know oneself, and that is why even today, studying Gita is considered to be swadhyaya – ‘study of thy self’.

Finally a small Greek legend that epitomizes the concept of friendship. Damon and Pythias were two good friends and both were the followers of the famous philosopher Pythagoras. At one point of time, Pythias was accused of plotting against Dionysius I. Pythias was sentenced to death as a punishment for plotting against Dionysius. Pythias requested to visit his home before he was put to death, but Dionysius did not accept this request as he was sure Pythias would never return. Pythias suggested that he hold Damon in his place till he returned. The friendship was well known, so Dionysius accepted the request, but went on to suggest that if Pythias did not return within the stipulated time, then Damon would be executed in his place. Both agreed. To cut the story short, till the due date, Pythias did not return and as promised Damon was readied to be executed. As the executioner was about to execute Damon, Pythias turned up just at the nick of time. He then went on to explain that on his way back home, his ship had been attacked by the pirates and how he was thrown overboard and how he had to swim back to reach just on time to save his friend. Dionysius who heard it all was moved by the friendship and released both and even employed then as counsels in his court.

This legend has inspired many a modern version of remakes and adaptations which have been viewed over and over again as an example of friendship, just as we have modern adaptations of Krishna-Sudama. Today, friendships do not have such altruistic flavours, but, so what; there is no harm in reliving the old legends and myths with such glorious examples.

Here’s wishing all my readers a Happy Friendship Day, albeit belated!

Devi Annapurna

This myth is in continuation to the game of dice being played by Shiva and Parvati. After Shiva was upset for losing everything to Parvati in betting during the game of dice, he was upset and left for the forests. Lord Vishnu intervened and made him agree to play the game again, wherein he won all that he had lost. Parvati got angry and accused him of cheating, which led to a verbal altercation. Lord Vishnu then appeared and reasoned out with both, that it was his wish that came out once the dice were thrown. It was all an illusion created by him which led to the delusion! We will take the myth from here.

The altercation between Shiva and Parvati, soon became a philosophical debate. At one point, Shiva reacted that everything in the world was maya, illusion, there was nothing in real. What you see exists like a mirage, not a reality. He goes on to say that everything including food is an illusion. Parvati is Mother Nature herself and the mother of all, felt insulted. She did not agree with this aspect of Shiva’s philosophy and to prove her point decided to leave and left in anger.

Parvati’s leaving created a chaos in the world. Life came to a standstill and there was no growth and generation. Man, animals all started perishing for want of food. Even the sages felt that salvation could not be achieved, if the body was not nourished. Seeing so much of sadness and anguish, Parvati was moved to tears. She could not see her children suffering. So she appeared in Kashi, Benaras (present day Varanasi), and opened a kitchen from where she started serving food to one and all.

On hearing this, Shiva ran to Parvati with his begging bowl and told her that he was wrong. Food was not an illusion and it was the only reality, if there was one. Parvati smiled and fed Shiva with her own hands. This form of Parvati came to be worshipped as Annapurna (anna means grains and food, purna meaning completeness) Devi.

In one of temples in Varanasi, it is said that the offerings is first fed to the devotees and the goddess is offered bhog or prasad only after all the devotees have been fed – this is in continuation with the underlying message that the goddess Annapurna feeds her children first.

In Gujarat, she is worshipped in Unjha as Umiya Mata. In one of the temples of Annapurna Devi in Cherukunnam, Kerala, every devotee is served food in the temple. As part of the practice, a small food packet is hung in one of the branches of a tree. This is to cater to the thieves who move around at night, even they should not go without food, after all, they too are children of the Goddess, slightly wayward, though! Close to Chikmagalur, Karnataka, in the temple of Annapurneshwari Devi (as she is known locally), all the devotees visiting the temple are provided breakfast, lunch and dinner and even shelter at night. In Bengal, Annapurna Devi has been eulogized in the poem Ananda Mangal, written by Bharatchandra Ray.

Annapurna Devi is worshipped across India. Food is critical to survive and without food, no amount of philosophy or debate or higher thinking can mean much, if the body does not receive nourishment. This myth elucidates this very basic aspect of life. Probably that is why in our religion, we do not observe a complete fast. Even during fasts, some nourishment is provided to the body in the form of milk, milk products, fruits, etc. to sustain and carry on with your faith and belief system. The body cannot and should not be deprived of the basic nourishment that it needs. The simple myth carries a very important message.

A Game of Dice

A recent research on Shakuni made me focus on the game of dice. Why is the game of dice so important and integral to some of the myths in our mythology? Also are there any other references of the game of dice other than that of Mahabharata? Let’s see.

The significance of the game of dice has been read by one and all. The visual depiction of the game too has been viewed by many. The game of dice and the vice of gambling associated with it is evident in the way Yudhishtira loses all his assets and family, including his wife even after repeated efforts to stop the game. The way he loses it all is one aspect, just as the fact that there was also some amount of trickery in the game, but that is another subject. For the present, we will stick to the game of dice.

The game of dice, or chaupar or paasa, as it were better known was similar to a board game with dice. Except that these dice were not cubical as they are in  the modern times. These were rectangular, six sided dice with two sides being the smaller sides with no numbers. That left four longer sides which carried numbers 1 to 4. Dice were made of different objects, like terracotta, Vibhitaka nuts (the fruits of the Vibhitaka tree, which were sometimes the size of a hazelnut), ivory, bones, wood and even metals. The method of the game varied from location to location, but the basic motive generally remained gambling, besides recreation. This we see as the common theme in all the myths associated with the game.

The first myth is associated with Lord Shiva and Parvati. According to the Puranas, Lord Shiva and Parvati used to play the game of dice regularly. Once the game got so interesting that they started betting during the game. Parvati pledged her jewels, Shiva pledged his trident, and Shiva lost.  To get his trident back, Shiva pledged his serpent, which too he lost and this way, Shiva was left with just his begging bowl. Humiliated, Shiva left for the forest. Lord Vishnu intervened and asked him play again and win back all that he had lost. Shiva went on to play again, and this time he won everything back. Parvati smelt a rat and called Shiva a cheat and this led to an argument, till Lord Vishnu came and revealed that the dice moved as per his commands and that is how Shiva had won. He also went on to say that a game of dice was as unpredictable as life and was always beyond control, sounding the players to be careful before wagering during the game. The story moves on, but we will discuss the rest of the story some other time as the rest does not have anything to do with a game of dice.

The next story is associated with Lord Krishna and Rukmini. According to this tale, the King of Vidarbha had promised her daughter’s hand to Shishupala. His daughter, Rukmini was in love with Lord Krishna and both run away (Krishna was supposed to have ‘kidnapped’ Rukmini). Rukmin, the brother of Rukmini felt insulted and vowed never to return to his region till he had not avenged the insult by killing Krishna. A battle followed, but Rukmin lost, and was granted a lease of life by Krishna. However, Rukmin never returned to his region to honour his vow. Krishna and Rukmini get married in Dwarka. As the story moves on and during one such family wedding, all the relatives instigate Rukmin to invite Balarama, Krishna’s elder brother to a game of dice as he had a weakness for gambling. During the game, Rukmin and his group win by cheating which infuriates Balarama and he ends up killing Rukmin for cheating. The game of dice was organized at a grand scale and the trickery was acknowledged by an aakashvani (voice from the skies).

There are quite a few stories in our mythology which gives importance to the game of dice. At the core of the game, is gambling and at times cheating. This very clearly shows that the game was associated with a lot of merry-making, drinking and wagering just about anything, land, kingdoms, humans and even wives! Though this was played in full public view, there were many instances of misdemeanor and breaking of rules for an ulterior motive. But as Lord Vishnu said in the myth of Shiva and Parvati, a game of dice is an unpredictable and an uncontrollable game. Players should be careful, and as any vice, know when to say no and must have the ability to withdraw.