Previous NextSome Characters of the Mahábhárata 12 February 1968, Ranchi Published in: Discourses on the Mahábhárata Notes: official source: Discourses on the Mahábhárata this version: is the printed Discourses on the Mahábhárata, 2nd edition, version (obvious spelling, punctuation and typographical mistakes only may have been corrected). I.e., this is the most up-to-date version as of the present Electronic Edition. (1) In the intellectual sphere, the most important aspect of the personality of Krśńa was the creation of great personalities and the setting of a clear demonstration to humanity that satya ultimately triumphs and papa is ultimately defeated. Whatever Parama Puruśa does in the mental sphere, that becomes a reality for human beings. What devotees think internally remains mental imagination only. To depict Ramachandra as an ideal human being, Valmiki and Tulasidas had to compose the epics Rámáyańa and Rámacaritamánasa. The events described in these epics are not real. But the characters and the events of the Mahábhárata are factual. (2) Jayadratha: Humans should ask of Parama Puruśa only non-attributional devotion. Sometimes they ask material or psychic things from Him, but Parama Puruśa may or may not grant such things. Jayadratha asked a special boon from Shiva, that he should die neither during the day nor at night; in other words, he wanted to become immortal. God blessed him as he wished, and Jayadratha actually died at dusk, which was neither day nor night. (3) Shakuni: A certain part of the human mind always remains concealed in almost every case. “Let others suffer” – Shakuni harboured this sort of sadistic internal desire. You will come across some people in every village who get a crude pleasure in setting people against one another. Shakuni was the Prince of Gandhara (present-day Afghanistan). In those days Gandhara was one of the provinces of the Gandhara Empire. Gandhara was famous for its distinctive style of art. Shakuni knew in his heart of hearts that only those who received Godʼs favour would be victorious. And thatʼs why by setting the Kaoravas against the Pandavas he in fact did a disservice to the Kaoravas. Shakuniʼs role in the Mahábhárata was very, very significant. The final outcome of the war establishes the fact that it is simplicity that always triumphs, not duplicity. (4) Karna: In many cases aristocratic blood is given more importance than oneʼs individual noble deeds. Karna was the first child of Kuntii, although she was not legally married to anyone. He was her son by a king named Suda. Such things received social support in those days. Later, Karna was brought up by a charioteer. Throughout his life be was an out-and-out idealist. He was the most trusted friend of the Kaoravas. He has some striking points of similarity with Bhisma; for example, if someone did some service to him, he always remained faithful to him. He followed a code of simple morality. (5) Strict adherence to spiritual morality may lead to the parting of friends. (6) It is often found that ultimately it is spiritual morality that wins over simple morality, but common people always commit mistakes on this point. It is never proper to extend support to immoralists. As Bhisma, the grandfather, had accepted the food and drink of the Kaoravas, he continued to support them. Of course he tried in his own way to change the attitude of Duryodhana, but he didnʼt exert pressure on him. Karna did not even try to change Duryodhanaʼs attitude, much less exert pressure on him. (7) On points of sincerity and devotion, Bhisma had no parallel, but in point of valour, Karna was certainly greater. There was a curse on him that during the war his chariot wheels would stick in the mud. Under such circumstances he might pray for a truce with his enemies, as a righteous fight always presupposes two equal fighters. But it must be said to his credit that Karna didnʼt make any such request of his enemies. (8) Although he fought against the Pandavas who were always backed by Krśńa, he breathed his last with Krśńaʼs name on his lips. Karnaʼs was an excellent character, except for one defect: he valued simple morality more than spiritual morality. (9) Dronacarya: He was the tutor of both the Kaoravas and the Pandavas. He taught them the scriptures as well as military skill: He was both shástraguru and shastraguru. (10) Then why was he defeated in the fight? Teachers should, as a rule, have equal love and affection for all their students, but Dronacarya was clearly partial to Arjuna. Still later, when he discovered to his displeasure that Arjuna was growing to be a greater warrior, he disclosed some secret military skills to Ashvatthama, his own son. (11) Ekalavya, another disciple, had profound regard for Dronacarya, but when Dronacarya came to know that Ekalavya was born of a low-caste family, he outright refused to accept him as a disciple. This outright refusal was extremely unbecoming of an acarya. Not all are competent to become acaryas. Partiality is a serious lapse on the part of any teacher. (12) So far as archery was concerned, Ekalavya was more expert than Arjuna or Ashvatthama. Once Dronacarya went to Ekalavya and noticed his excellent feats of archery. On being questioned, Ekalavya let him know that having accepted Dronacarya as his teacher, he had acquired that sort of skill. But shockingly, in the name of guru daksina (sacerdotal fee for the master), Dronacarya demanded the thumb of Ekalavya) and thereby spoiled the brilliant career of Ekalavya. Shrii Krśńa had to conceive of such a character just to open the eyes of other members of society. It is only proper that one treat the virtuous and the sinful alike. We must look upon all with equal respect, thereby maintaining harmony in society. And as a result of his discriminatory treatment of his disciples, Dronacarya had a serious fall in the battle. (13) Dronacarya was neither an ideal man nor an ideal teacher. So it became imperative to eliminate such an acarya from society. Thatʼs why Shrii Krśńa resorted to duplicity and advised Yudhisthira to announce before the assembled people in deceptive language, “Ashvatthama hatah iti naro kunjaro va” – “Ashvatthama is killed. This may be Ashvatthama the man or may be Ashvatthama the elephant.” The Ashvatthama who was killed was in fact an elephant, not Ashvatthama, the son of Dronacarya. But the announcement was made in such a way that Dronacarya was convinced that his son was killed, and was overcome with grief. It was easy for the Pandavas to slay him. (14) Arjuna: He acted on the advice of Lord Krśńa. Both the Pandavas and the Kaoravas, on the eve of the Mahábhárata war, went to Lord Krśńa and approached him for military help. (15) It was essential to bring about a balance between justice and politics. Politics always relies on diplomacy. Krśńa pretended to be asleep. Duryodhana sat at the head of Krśńaʼs bed and acted in conformity with royal dignity, but Arjuna preferred to sit at Krśńaʼs feet. So when Krśńa woke up from his false sleep, his eyes first fell on Arjuna. (16) Krśńa contrived an indirect diplomatic plan. He proved that spiritual force was much stronger than physical force, and that it was only spiritual force that could show light to the world. Duryodhana, in spite of having a vast army, couldnʼt realize that only the force of righteousness could win the war, and not the crude physical force. 12 February 1968, Ranchi -- Source: Some Characters of the Mahábhárata Published in: Discourses on the Mahábhárata Release: Electronic edition version 9.0.19