Wednesday, December 08, 2004

Krishna Vs Rama (I am a little confused)

This article appeared in the Economic Times last week. I think the article is a nice attempt to look at leadership and learn from the epics. But I'll have to admit that it leaves me a little confused about what's the right thing to do and what's the right way to be!

Krishna is manipulative and can trick people to do what is Dharma. Rama suffers for something that wasn't Dharma (Kaikeyi's wishes)! Rama is the ideal man. Krishna is the ideal strategist. Rama was emotional and obeyed his parents. (But yes, Rama did suspect Sita post return-to-the-throne). Krishna was anything but emotional. Rama was loved by his subjects but I am not sure if he was considered a leader. He belonged to the 'great man' category! Krishna was loved by the Pandavas and of course the girls and cows too! But I guess he was more of the charming guy rather than a goody-goody one. What disturbs me most is the talk about the means not being as important as the ends (given that the end aimed for is justified). Or have I been conditioned to believe so?

Will someone throw more light, please? (If you're not an Indian or haven't heard about the Indian epics - the Ramayana and the Mahabharata - I apologize. This post might not be understandable. Suggest you Google and get to read the gist of these EPiCS somewhere on the web. Will try and post some good links on these as soon as I can)
***************************************************************************


Krishna: the best example of a leader SAMPAT SINGH AND S MANIKUTTYTIMES NEWS NETWORK [ FRIDAY, DECEMBER 03, 2004 02:18:27 AM]
The Ramayana and the Mahabharata are two great masterpieces of ancient Indian literature presenting two philosophies of life. Valmiki’s Rama represents idealism and Ved Vyas’ Krishna, realism. In 1970, Osho Rajneesh published a book titled Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy, in which he compared Rama and Krishna. Ram is a character. Krishna is an actor; he involves himself without being involved. He is a catalyst energising others into action. He refuses to circumscribe his life with ideas and ideals. For him life is larger than all ideas and ideals put together. They are for life; life is not for them. It’s the same mind that gives rise to both good and evil, virtue and vice. Both aspects are different transformations of one and the same energy. Krishna doesn’t deny these dualities. A mirror reflects everything that appears before it, but unlike a camera, it doesn’t retain impressions. A man of mirror-like consciousness will relate with people and things, but he won’t enter into relationships involving attachment. Rama is a doer; he acts for his ideals and is therefore called marayada purshottam. Krishna on the other hand, is an incomparable actor; he turns the whole world into his stage. He plays a friend and a foe without being involved in friendship and enmity. Krishna is called leela-purshottam. He accepts all contradictions and ambiguities of life. He isn’t afraid of them. That is why he’s called complete, or, purnavatar. Krishna’s mission of life was to uphold dharma. His whole life is like an open book. He wears no mask. Whatever he is, he is. He doesn’t deny anything; he is transparent. It’s true that life is full of contradictions and absurdities. To Krishna all that doesn’t justify escapism. He does what is situationally appropriate. Since it’s not possible to remain a mere witness, it’s better to act with complete self-knowledge and moral courage.

Creative destruction There’s one event in Mahabharata, which generally doesn’t catch popular attention: the burning of the Khandava forest. After the plan to kill Pandavas failed, Dhritarashtra was forced to give them a share of the kingdom. Keeping Hastinapur to himself and his sons, he gave a little-known town Khandavaprastha to the Pandavas. On a hot summer day, younger members of the Pandava family with Krishna’s family went for a picnic to the nearby Khandava forest. There they drank, sang and danced. Suddenly everyone saw that the forest caught fire and Krishna and Arjuna together guarded all sides so tightly that no creature fleeing from the blaze could escape. Furiously driving their chariots, the two slaughtered everything in sight. Fire consumed almost all vegetation and life. It’s not known how the fire really started. But, the question remains: why Krishna and Arjuna acted so ruthlessly and so mercilessly? Of course, the Pandavas were planning to build Indraprastha, a city bigger than Hastinapur, which they did. And, they may also be trying to fulfil the duty of a ruling king to provide more land for cultivation. Forests had to be cleared for human settlement and entire region made rich and fertile.

Swadharma as ordained by swabhava Krishna makes a distinction between ends and means. Ends can be idealistic. But if means are absolutely pure, they will soon become ends and the distinction between ends and means will disappear. Is a pure end ever fully achieved? It’s always there as an ideal. Often at times the problem is to choose between greater evil and lesser evil. If it’s found necessary Krishna breaks his own vows. Violating the kshatriya code, he once even ran away from the battlefield because discretion could sometimes be a better part of valour. His elder brother, Balarama, decided to remain neutral in the battle at Kurukshetra. Krishna knew great issues were at stake. He was also aware that both sides looked at him as a friend. Neither side was totally right nor totally wrong. The way he divided himself is extraordinary. He told them they had two options: he or his army. It’s obvious if one is anxious for victory he wouldn’t choose Krishna without his army and, more so when he says, he wouldn’t fight. The Pandavas chose him because they knew he was a great strategist, at one moment a sober statesman, but very often also the shrewd manipulator bent upon achieving his purpose irrespective of means employed. He manipulated killings of all outstanding warriors of the Kauravas’ army. They knew his presence was more important than his participation. Krishna is perhaps the best example of a leader as a catalyst available in world literature. He has no interests, no position, no power. Yet on almost all important occasions when great events occur in Mahabharata he is present. He does nothing, his presence makes things happen. The word Krishna means centre. He is the centre of attraction. He stands for certain values of life and wants to destroy all those who make other suffer. Unlike Rama he doesn’t try to walk on a straight line. He deviates when it is situationally appropriate.



14 comments:

Lumbergh-in-training said...

Krishna is either a shrewd politician or a clever general but not a leader. Rama is the ideal leader, found only in text books and cannot survive in the real world. It was a good thing Krishna was with Dharma otherwise the world would have been screwed up.

My Re 0.97 (2 cents :D)

Nimmy said...

Thanks for those thoughtful comments...appreciate them! But...let me continue the debate. Don't you think Krishna was indeed a LEADER? He helped people understand their potential, the right/wrong, he inspired them, he loved the 'good' people, he SERVED Arjun by being his charioteer and letting him fight his battle! He did not wield the bow n arrow but he got Arjun to do what the latter was best at! What is it in him that does not seem to you to befit a leader? Curious...

BB said...

While we compare Rama's and Krishna's personalities, we also have to take into account the ages they lived in. Rama lived in Treta Yuga when morality was at the highest after Satya Yuga. Krishna lived in Swapara Yuga close to the onset of the Kali Yuga when the morality was at the lowest. Although Rama and Krishna had similar mission in life, which is to preserve and guide humanity, their protocols were radically different. Rama preserved and guided humanity thru his selflessness and single mindedness. On the other hand, Krishna adopted radical ways to preserve and guide humanity thru goodness. He was aware that in Kali Yuga, the morality would degrade to almost nothing, therefore his example to his progeny was to preserve and guide humanity with his message of protecting good over evil at any cost.

Nimmy said...

Nice interpretation, I must say, Mebby2k! :-) But tell me, Wasn't Ravana also an example of an evil force akin to the forces in Kaliyug??? Isn't that also an example of lowest morality!! - To take away some one else's wife!!??

techrsr said...

I just finished reading the Mahabharata (Rajaji's version) and Krishna in it struck me as a depressingly bad avatar. I hate to imagine he is elevated to Godhood - he was probably just a petty and manipulative general who interfered in the affairs of a family and completely destroyed them. If you have read the last portions of Mahabharata replete with Krishna's chicanery and underhanded behaviour, I wonder why people will like him. This, added to his unholy philandery and twisted morals and sense of justice make him one of my most despised avatarams.

By contrast, I love Rama. He was the epitome of the ideal man and was as much a good man of his time as a brave, courageous warrior.

I liked other characters in the Mahabharata than Krishna - I found real divinity in Dharmaputra's constant pondering of what is just, I found valour in Arjuna and his ability to question whether what he did was right. I found rectitude in Gandhari and found valour in warriors like Drona, Ashwattama, Satyaki and Abhimanyu, whose lives I consider some of the greatest tragedies of Indian mythology. I don't see why Krishna of all people was made into the holy representative of justice. His so-called divinity does nothing to me. However, I get goosebumps when I think of the nobility of Rama, Parasurama and Balarama.

Nimmy said...

tech (or is that Rajesh? :-)) Thanks for leaving a comment and a passionate comment at that!

Well, let me be honest with you and admit that I don't detest Krishna the way you seem to ....though I have often pondered and mulled over his inappropriate methods. I find him charming and charismatic, all said and done. Meanwhile, wouldn't you agree that he did whatever he did so justice would prevail and not in order to serve his own interests? I am saying this despite the fact that I would rather run away in shame and lead a life of isolation than use inappropriate means as a justification of the end.

Ironically, even though Rama is the epitome of a good son, I have sometimes wondered why he was so submissive to Kaikayi's whims and why he let his Father die of guilt. I must say that I am the kind of person who does not mind leaving things open and ambiguous. I might not have understood Krishna's methods and precisely because of that I will not let it lead me to any rigid conclusions. Don't get me wrong...I am not taking a dig at you here. Just stating my views. For that matter, I like the way you have expressed your thoughts...without any doubts or inhibitions whatsoever!

Have you tried discussing Krishna's methods with any of your senior relatives well-versed in the Gita? There are plenty of interpretations including management philosophies that are derived from Krishna's sermon to Arjuna. I personally love the Gita section in Mahabharat and think it is (teachings) a great way to go about one's life!

Gandhi is said to have been a great believer in the Gita's philosophy. I wonder what he would have thought about Krishna's methods and manipulative approaches. I wish we had clear answers....! Maybe this deliberation will lead to more knowledge! :-) Please don't hesitate to engage me in a debate.

Also, I checked your blog and loved it - the photo blog. I was thrilled to see your music blog but unfortunately I was unable to play the music that you have shared with your readers. Will try again later.

BTW, I too play the Guitar but am not as much an expert as you seem to be! :-) I love to play carnatic music on the Guitar...! OK...more later. Do keep in touch! :-)

Srikumar K said...

Gandhi believed in the 2nd chapter of Gita only. That is text that's best for any leader or follower. Krishna's country totally perished in front of his own eyes just before his own death. In Mahabharata war he was reponsible for the death of his own soldiers. Rama died leaving behind a thriving kingdom. If anybody wants to become a leader of his own people, not his enemy's, follow Rama and stick to truth and truth alone. But keep reading 2nd chapter of Gita.

Nimmy said...

Thanks for the comment, Srikumar. Interesting take. I am actually not too familiar with the story around Krishna's mortal end.

Anonymous said...

That's all A++. But, tell me more about Ram. Why is he the ideal man? Was he not divine, was he not a millionaire, why let his wife, and people suffer for years? You see my question? Tell me more about Ram. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Nowadays, Krishna values are misused by so many liars and cheats. But only good people can follow values of Rama. Besides Krishna is highly revered by riches, NRIs, sudras. Rama is revered by hard working people, kshtriyas and brahmins who lead simple and honest life.

Anonymous said...

RAM VS KRISHNA

1) PEOPLE LOVE BOTH WHILE, BUT REMEMBER ONLY ONE NAME WHILE THEY DIE
THAT'S RAM

2) WE CALL "RAMA RAJYA" CAUSE HE IS THE BEST KING ,SO WHO IS A KING, A LEADER WHO LEAD HIS SUBJECTS OR A NORMAL PERSON ? RAM IS THE BEST LEADER

3) RAM IS THE MOST POWER FULL WARRIOR , KRISHNA IS NOT.

4)MANY PEOPLE SAY RAM DOUBTED SITHA MATHA , THE AGNI PRAVESH WAS NOT TO CLEAR HIS DOUBT ,BUT THE DOUBT OF WORLD. HE PROVED TO THE WORLD THAT SITHA IS AS PURE AS THE AGNI.

5) RAM IS IDEAL SON,BROTHER,KING,HUSBAND,MAN&EVERY THING, IS KRISHNA SO IDEAL?

6)EVEN GODS WORSHIP RAM, DO THEY WORSHIP KRISHNA?

7) READ VALMIKI RAMAYANA AND KNOW HOW THE WEAPONS ARE ACQUIRED BY RAM AND YOU WILL KNOW HIS POWER

8) RAM WAS POWERFULL BEYOND MEASURE
BUT HE REMAINED AS AN IDEAL MAN FOR US TO TEACH EVERYTHING , DID KRISHNA?.

9)RAM IS FOR A COMMAN MAN , CAUSE HE IS A COMMAN MAN BEYOND LIMITS.
IS KRISHNA?

10) THE NAME OF RAM IS ENOUGH TO ATTAIN MOKSHA,IS THE NAME OF KRISHNA ENOUGH?

11)GLORY OF KRISHNA:"A MAN CAN LOVE A MILLION WOMEN"
GLORY OF RAM:"A TRUE MAN LOVES A WOMEN IN SINGLE WAYS"

12) LORD BRAHMA SAID UNTILL THERE IS HUMAN IN THIS WORLD THER WILL BE THE NAME OF RAM AND RAMAYAN WILL EXIST, WILL NAME OF KRISHNA EXIST?

13)LORD SHIVA SAID : " THOSE WHO RECITE THE NAME OF RAM THREE TIMES IS EQUAL 1000 TIMES OF ANY GOD"
SAYING RAM THREE TIMES IS EQUAL TO "VISHNU SAHASRA NAMA"

PROOF IS THIS SLOKA SAID BY SHIVA TO MAA PARVATHI
" SHRIRAMA RAMA RAMETHI RAME RAAME MANORAME
SAHASRA NAMA THATHULYAM RAMA NAMA VARANANE"
IS NAME OF KRISHNA THAT POWERFULL?

"RAMO VIGRAHAVAN DHARMAHA"="THE STRUCTURAL FORM OF DHARMA IS RAM"

DO YOU KNOW WHO SAID IT "MARICHA" A DEMON , THAT THE GLORY OF "RAM"

WHATS THE GLORY OF KRISHNA?

THIS IS ONLY A DROP OF OCEAN

BEFORE SAYING OF RAM THINK A MILLION AND MILLION OF TIMES A WORD SAYED CAN NEVER CAN BE TAKEN BACK..........

Unknown said...

First of all, we must know that lord Brahma is creator, lord Vishnu is protector and lord mahadev is transformer. Its not Sri Ram vs sri Krishna. Lord Shri Krishna gave us the ways to dealt with the society in changing era. He ate, killed kansa and romanced because it was his karma, but remember he always follower of Sri Ram. Now Sri Ram is not simply god. Lord Ram never suspected Devi Sita Mata. Sita Mata was herself incarnation of Adi Shakti. Lord Ram and Sita sacrificed their lives for the sake of the society. Because they treated the society or Praja as their own children. Also Lord Ram and Sita mata fulfilled the curses of several gods and dev rishi's. Their separation was happened to fulfill the all curses which were given to both in Lord Vishnu and Mata Laxmi form. Raavan never ever got original sita mata with him. Ram galat nahi they aur nahi hain. Aaj ki date mein husband wife affairs karte hain aisa naahi ram ji aur sita mata aur krishna bhagvan aur radha mata ne sikhaya. Always remember------- "RAM NAAM SATYA HAI"

Saurav Mudgal said...

Ram ji didnt suspect Sita ji. It was to keep his people happy.

Anonymous said...

Lord Rama went through all bad times and faced agony himseld.Rama's actions are prime examples of good behaviour, ethics and present an ideal before people and inspire to practice and follow good things. Krishna never had to face tough situation himself. He did nothing himself butasked others to do what he thought was good. Rama's is widespread.Most of people agrue without knowing the facts.whareas Krishna was limited between Mathura, vrindavan, Hastinapur Kaurava and Pandavas.Some people are misguding the society by spraeding wrong massage about rama and justiffying Krishna's policies. Even today in any field whether it is business or any other profession, yiu can't be respected without truthfullness and good ethics.So how can Krishna's policies be followed.Whatever krishna said that may be true only in war times that also two enemies. i still consider that lord Krishna was wrong to incite Pandavas and kauravas for a war. And in the war lord krishna did everything wrong and cheatings.That's why Lord Krishna can never be regarded as musch lord Rama.