can krsna be trusted?

moksa · September 9, 2004

Now that I have finished my degree (with First class honours) I thought it might be nice to share one or two papers that I have written. However there are one or two font problems such as Kçùõa = Krsna but I am sure the drift of the work can be understood.

“Abandon all dharmas and instead seek shelter with me alone. Be unconcerned, I shall set you free from all evils.” (The Bhagavadgītā 18:66).

Before any discussion can take place about the above quotation, it is important to look at what is meant by dharma. Unfortunately the concept of dharma is too complex to go into great detail in this paper and is worthy of study in itself. There are a myriad of definitions given for dharma, such as Klostermaier’s (1998:58) definition of ‘law’ or Sharpe’s (1985:8) definition that it is seen as “the sacredness of moral duty”. Bhattacharya (1992:25-38) on the other hand devotes a whole chapter on the discussion and concludes that it has many different meanings and levels depending on the situation at hand. He summarises dharma as being “righteous, truth, morality, performance of duty, observance of religious duties, to maintain universal canons of law, justice and equity” (Bhattacharya 1992:31) which all form part of a larger virtue. For the purpose of this paper I do not wish to continue the subject of what dharma is because it detracts from my main study; for this reason, I will simply use the word dharma and allow the reader to determine their own definition of the term.

The most interesting aspect of the above passage is that it appears to be in complete contradiction to the message given in the rest of the Bhagavadgītā. The main theme of the Bhagavadgītā, which forms a part of the Mahābhārata, is that dharma has gone into decline and the God Kçùõa has appeared to restore the balance (Flood 1996:125). It is therefore, interesting that in the above passage, Kçùõa is saying to Arjuna that he should abandon dharma. What is meant by this passage is the discussion to be set forth in this paper.

I have identified two major interpretations for the above passage and two minor possibilities not usually considered by scholars. I will, hence, begin by first looking at the two lesser possibilities that the dharma of going to battle is in contradiction to the rules of āpaddharma when a king is said to be in distress, set out in the Śāntiparvan section of the Mahābhārata and/or Kçùõa is playing Arjuna to his advantage. I will then view a more orthodox explanation given by Śaükara, that Kçùõa is the universe and hence dharma is not as important as first indicated. Finally, I will conclude with the most acceptable reason that only the dharma taught by Kçùõa is correct dharma because he is not only the guardian of, but is dharma.

The Āpaddharma Parvans that form part of the Śāntiparvan (12) section of the Mahābhārata, discuss the dharma of the king when faced with distress and the possibility of losing the kingdom. It is stated in the Mahābhārata (12.128.18-19) that when a king is faced with ruin he “should not endeavour to save his Dharma or that of another at his own cost…” (Walimbe 1990:70). It is stressed that his life is superior to that of either artha or dharma (Walimbe 1990:84). However, it is mentioned that the king that chooses to fight to protect his dharma against overwhelming odds, is guaranteed Indra’s heaven upon death. Yet, this is not to achieve liberation at death but to attain heaven instead. It is better to follow the dharma of another caste until such a time that the kingdom can be reclaimed safely than it is to endanger one’s life needlessly (Walimbe 1990:71, 85). How is this relevant to the title’s quotation? Surely, it is not the realm of the Mahābhārata but the realm of the Bhagavadgītā that needs to be discussed?

It is important to keep in mind that the Bhagavadgītā forms part of the Mahābhārata and was never truly supposed to be considered as a separate text (O’More in van Buitenen 1981:ix), with this in mind it is permissible to use other parts of the whole text to attempt the understanding of one passage. If it is also kept in mind that the above quotation was directed at Arjuna, a prince who is about to battle a greater army in the attempt to claim a kingdom for his brother, then the rules of āpaddharma become very relevant. The question then becomes a one of whether or not Kçùõa is attempting to tell Arjuna that he should leave the place of battle and abandon his dharma because he is outnumbered and risks losing the battle.

Although it could be argued that, as I will discuss below, Kçùõa is brahman and to abandon the battle that cannot be won would increase the chance of attaining liberation through Kçùõa rather than dieing in battle to attain Indra’s heaven; it would be incorrect to argue such a case because Arjuna does not state the seeking of liberation as his reason for wishing to leave the battle. Rather Arjuna’s reason for not wishing to fight is because he sees killing his own kin as breaking with dharma (The Bhagavadgītā 1:31, 1:36-45; Sastry [tr.] 1977:14-17). For this reason, Kçùõa seeks to clarify that the dharma of class, varõāśrama dharma or sva-dharma, is greater than that of general dharma, sādhāraõa dharma, which includes family and the wider society; that is Arjuna’s class as a Kùatriya, has the dharma of a warrior that needs to be performed as his own duty (The Bhagavadgītā 2:31-33; Sastry [tr.] 1977:55). However, van Buitenen (1981:3) reports that “…on the level of dharma Arjuna will be proved to have been right [not to fight]…” If Kçùõa’s advice to Arjuna is to do battle when it is later stated that to fight against the odds and to fight against one’s kin is to be avoided, can Kçùõa be trusted?

Sharpe (1985:76) points out that in popular folklore Kçùõa is depicted “as a youthful and mischievous ‘trickster’”. It is possible that the Kçùõa of the Bhagavadgītā has not lost any of his mischievous nature and may be seeking to trick Arjuna into abandoning his dharma at the very end of his discussion as a final means to convince him to commit and stand the chance of losing the battle. Certainly, despite his godly nature, Kçùõa appears not to know or care for the outcome of the battle (The Bhagavadgītā 2:37-38; Sastry [tr.] 1977:57). Although Sharpe (1985:76) suggests that the Kçùõa of the Bhagavadgītā is seen as a “mature leader of men” as opposed to his popular depiction, van Buitenen (1981:4) points out that earlier in the Mahābhārata, Kçùõa sends his men to fight on the opposing side, while he himself, takes a non-combative role as a charioteer in the battle. While Kçùõa, who also is a Kùatriya and as such has the same dharma duties as Arjuna, has cleverly avoided his sva-dharma and preaches to Arjuna the opposite of what he is doing. It would appear upon second glance that Kçùõa is on the opposing side to Arjuna and has taken his non-combative role as a charioteer in order to offer bad advice and possibly even spy.

However, the depiction of Kçùõa is not one of a human nature in the Bhagavadgītā but one of a god in the form of an Avatar, a god in human form. It could be argued that the reason Kçùõa is in this position is because he is there to restore dharma and would therefore not offer false advice on the subject to Arjuna (The Bhagavadgītā 4:7-8; Sastry [tr.] 1977:121). Yet, as a god, Kçùõa falls into the trap that the Bçhadāraõyaka Upaniùad (1.4.10; Olivelle [tr.] 1996:15) sets, in that gods not wishing to lose men as ‘livestock’, are not to be trusted in the affairs of attaining liberation. This is especially potent when one considers that Kçùõa “persuaded Yudhisthir to speak a lie for the defeat and killing of Drona…” (Bhattacharya 1992:26) and claimed that such an act was not adharma, against dharma; considering that the whole basis of Indian religion is based upon the search for truth to escape the ‘big lie’ of illusion, māyā it becomes increasingly difficult to trust Kçùõa’s words concerning dharma. However, is Kçùõa really pertaining to be a god or is he simply realising a higher truth that forms the basis of Śaükara’s philosophy that everything is part of brahman? If this is the case then Arjuna is no different to Kçùõa; if Kçùõa is brahman, he is no different to anybody saying, ‘I am brahman.’

Although much is suggested that Kçùõa is the same as brahman, Kçùõa does not actually state it, rather it is left to Arjuna to make the statement and this is left unconfirmed (The Bhagavadgītā 10:12-13; Sastry [tr.] 1977:266). Kçùõa does say that he is the foundation or the abode of brahman (The Bhagavadgītā 14:27; Sastry [tr.] 1977:394) but this does not imply that he is one and the same as brahman. What Kçùõa does is to teach what brahman is and how to attain it and it is this teaching that could be deemed as being the ‘foundation of brahman’. Śaükara’s interpretation of the Bhagavadgītā (5:8; Sastry [tr.] 1977:419) includes “…this whole universe is unreal…neither are dharma and a-dharma its basis.” He looks at the fact that if what we experience in the now is unreal, then dharma is also unreal and should be abandoned.

Furthermore, part of Kçùõa’s teaching includes that in order to reach brahman and liberation, one must abandon all desire and perform action without gaining karma (Flood 1996:125). Arjuna places great importance on dharma and this in itself can be viewed as attachment; by performing his dharma religiously, Arjuna is creating attachment to karma through his desire to do what is morally correct. Kçùõa by saying to Arjuna, ‘abandon all dharmas,’ and this is meant for Arjuna’s ears alone (Bhagavadgītā 17:63; Sastry [tr.] 1977:497), he is attempting to release Arjuna from the attachment to dharma.

Alternatively, if it is to be assumed that everything is brahman, then dharma and adharma are also brahman and can hence be dismissed as both being the same, as per Śaükara’s interpretation above. This is suggested from the beginning of the Bhagavadgītā when Kçùõa appears to see no difference on which side is to win because both sides are in reality the same. Neither group is capable of death or birth because in brahman they cease to be individual/independent entities; only brahman exists. Arjuna fails to distinguish this reality and believes the illusion that the battle is to occur between two separate entities and thus attempts to cling to dharma (Bhagavadgītā 2:16-30; Sastry [tr.] 1977:34-54).

Yet, Arjuna’s concept of the ‘oneness’ of family may also hint at the oneness of the situation at hand. Arjuna’s objection may simply be a metaphor against fighting within yourself, in which case it is Kçùõa that has initially failed to grasp the reality of the situation but only towards the end of the discussion comes to realise and asks Arjuna to abandon his dharma; after all it is Arjuna that identifies Kçùõa all encompassing nature with brahman. In such a situation there exists a paradox of ideas, on the one hand there is Arjuna with his dharma suggesting that it is wrong to fight your family possibly not only because they are family but also because they are in reality one with your self through brahman; on the other hand, there is Kçùõa’s argument that it is acceptable to fight because in reality there is only the oneness of brahman and hence you are not fighting anyone.

Thus far, I have looked at the reasons why to abandon dharma without actually looking at the second part of the quotation, and that is to ‘seek shelter with me alone.’ If it was to be assumed that Kçùõa is one and the same as brahman then this would simply imply the above argument to abandon attachment to dharma in order to achieve liberation through brahman, but suppose Kçùõa is not the same, or does not imply this meaning. It is possible to interpret this part of the sentence along with the second sentence as someone removing ‘false’ dharma and replacing it with new ‘correct’ dharma. This is more likely when one recalls how Kçùõa refers to himself as the restorer of dharma (The Bhagavadgītā 4:7-8; Sastry [tr.] 1977:121).

It is often puzzlement to commentators and readers alike, as to why the Mahābhārata appears to condone a variety of sins, such as gambling, fighting a war with one’s own family, lying, and so forth (Bhattacharya 1992:178). Walimbe (1990:123) writes that with in the Śāntiparvan (12) section of the Mahābhārata there exists a discussion between Bhīùma and Yudhiùñhira where it is advised to “discard” dharma that has been given falsely or by those who themselves do not practice it. It is also mentioned to be wary of those who teach against dharma and scripture. Here, there are two arguments, the first has already been mentioned that Kçùõa by being a charioteer is failing to practice his own dharma and is therefore suspect, and the second argument is that dharma before Kçùõa’s arrival was corrupt and hence the multitude of unexplainable sins. Therefore, it could be argued that Kçùõa in the said passage is telling Arjuna to abandon this ‘false’ dharma and instead follow the new correct dharma provided by him, the restorer of dharma, which keeps more in line with Vedic scripture and the Upaniùadic discussions of brahman. By ‘restoring’ the scriptural element to the ‘new’ dharma it also lays to rest many of the arguments against Kçùõa’s intentions and by being the charioteer, Kçùõa, the god is able to maintain an advisory position without compromising his own karmic actions.

To conclude, I have looked at a myriad of arguments as to the meaning of the title’s quotation. Firstly, I looked at the possibility that the reason to abandon dharma is to avoid losing one’s life in battle and continued the argument to cast doubt on Kçùõa’s intentions. I then looked at the possibilities that lie behind the much talked about brahman within the Bhagavadgītā and its various implications to the abandonment of dharma. Finally, I conclude that the most plausible explanation for the quotation is that Kçùõa has appeared to restore dharma; this would suggest that dharma was in decline or being falsely taught and because dharma is the focus of Arjuna’s problem, it is more likely that it was being taught incorrectly. It is, therefore, my belief that the most plausible answer to the abandonment of dharma is in fact the ‘old’ wrongly taught dharma and the shelter being offered by Kçùõa is the teachings of his new dharma that is more in line with Vedic scripture and the concept of brahman.

vanamali · September 9, 2004

This is the sloka known as as Gita carama or Krishna carama slokam. This is basically promising that anyone who SURRENDERS to Krishna will be freed from sins.

Sarva dharmaan parityajya maamekam saranam vraja

Abandon all dharma and SURRENDER TO ME

The second part of this line is important!

----------

What is surrender? (prapatti, saranagathy)

(from Ahobila Math article on Prapatti) Prapatti... has the following five angAs (accessories).

<font color="red">Anukoolyasya Sankalpam: Determination to perform whatever is pleasing to Sriman NArAyaNA....

Pratikoolyasya Varjanam: Avoidance of acts that are displeasing to Sriman NArAyaNA....

KArpanyam: Feeling of utter helplessness. One should cry in front of Sriman NArAyaNA for his inability to perform Bhakti (or any other)* yOgA and should be fully aware of the fact that he/she cannot attain moksham by their own efforts. Utter dependence on the mercy of the Divya Dampati is needed.

MahA VisvAsam: Intense faith that Sriman NArAyaNA will certainly grant moksham for the prapatti performed, eventhough one has committed countless sins....

Goptrtva Varanam: Begging Sriman NArAyaNA for offering protection. This is the prayer to the Lord for granting mokshA, wherein one pleads with Him, the sole refuge, to be present in the place (sthAnA) of bhakti yogA and grant its fruit of moksham to an akinchanA like himself/herself. </font color>

-----

*added by Vanamali

-----

So basically, if one surrenders to Krishna, Krishna promises to take care of him no matter what. The prapanna (person surrendering) "abandons dharma" but will end up fulfilling his or her dharma, not because of consideration of what is right or wrong, but only because the prapanna wishes only to please the Lord (who is the embodiment of dharma itself), and when dharmic action is what pleases Him, dharmic action will be taken.

So in other words, Krishna is saying; "Don't do it because of what you will get for it, or even because it's your duty... do it because I asked you to do it. Do it because you love Me."

This verse is the most beautiful and intimate teachings of the Lord, out of the Lord's infinite mercy towards humankind! And if you abandon all dharma and just surrender to Him....

"Aham tvaa sarvapaapebhyo mokshayishyaami maa suchah!"