Critical Krishna Options

[Brainiac]

This stood in contrast to the usual approach -- taking the verse out of context and treating it as an instruction or a teaching in and of itself, completely literally. Missing that it was perhaps spoken tongue in cheek, or intended to evoke a response. He visualized the scene. Sometimes it led to hilarious discoveries.

That was the thing that stood out to me as so odd, in Prabhupada's purports. Some verses are so clearly "off the cuff" and there would be a huge purport relating it to some obscure (or not so obscure) verse from Bhaktivinod's or Narottama's writings. Generally treated like an all-time instruction, and where numerous interpretations can lead to a variety of meanings, relevances and inspirations.

Remember that verse in the 3rd Canto which describes Devahuti and how famous she was for her beauty.

About that whole "Reading the 10th Canto will make you a horny devil" thing, a common friend once told me that when he read the 3rd Canto with all it's descriptions of Devahuti's beauty and her sex sessions with Kardama, he got "disturbed". We laughed as we suggested that the 3rd Canto should be banned for reading, just like the 10th Canto was.

[zanardi]

Some of us did attend EpiTaus classes.  The only downside was that as a listener you had to be wide awake, otherwise he fooled you with his "well-supported train of arguments" and had you believing something outrageous .  It could be a bit embarassing   if also refreshing .

He always paid attention to the dialogue nature of the narrative. Every verse in the Bhagavatam is spoken by someone in response to someone (the whole thing often being quoted by a third person in response to a question by a fourth one, etc.). He would always check to whose question, and what question, today's verse is the answer. Sometimes you had to go back several chapters for that. There was a risk he would ask the audience.

And that is exactly why I preferred Bhagavad-gita!

[Brainiac]

I saw a news item on Star News about an ancient Himalayan cave-temple that was supposedly where Lord Parashuram retired for meditation and yogic practices after his avataric career was over. This temple has some connections with Shiva, and apparently hosts a self-manifested deity due to the interaction of stalactite and stalagmite. This started me off musing about Parashuram.

I first read of Parashuram's story when I was six years old, but I find it odd how in ISKCON there is very little mention or discussion of Lord Parashuram and his eternal pastimes. He doesn't even seem to have a feast day in his honour. What could be the reason for this? I guess most people might know of his story from SB readings, but it seems that many Indians don't know much about his story either. After I saw that news report I asked some friends if they knew anything. After they replied 'no' I rather gleefully offered this choice tidbit: 'Did you know that Parashuram killed his mother because his father told him to?' You can imagine the looks on their faces.

This took place in the context of a wider discussion of what meanings and relevances these stories have for us today, and what symbolisms they might offer. What morals, meanings or relevances can we extract from this matricidal episode in Parashuram's life? The importance of parental obedience, perhaps? Surely there are better ways to teach this moral virtue that asking your child to kill one of his parents? And on the mere suspicion of adultery, to boot! This makes Parashuram the Hindu/Vedic candidate for the oldest use of the Nuremberg Defence: 'I was only following orders.'

(Comfort may be obtained from the fact that she sprang back to life on Parashuram's request, after receiving a boon for "whatever he liked" from his immensely-pleased father. So what was the effing point of it all? )

Killing his mother wasn't the main event in the life of this avatar, though. Parashuram was reserved for much better things like slaying twenty-one generations of kshatriyas. Mind you, he was just taking revenge after a group of kshatriyas killed his father (after Parashuram had killed their father because he stole their family cow), but twenty-one generations worth of genocide is overdoing it a tad??

Just take a minute to think about that. Twenty-one GENERATIONS of kshatriyas. Think about the logistics. He killed one entire generation, then must have waited a decade or two for the next generation to grow up before he slayed them. Twenty-one times over. He must have killed many fathers in front of their own wives and children, who would have rightly grown up without fatherly influence and hating Parashuram (quite rightly) as a result, only to be slayed when their time came. One might wonder why he didn't kill off their wives too so that they couldn't breed. Perhaps it is non-brahminical behaviour to murder a woman just as much as it is non-brahminical not to wash out your mouth after eating, but he might have killed them before they impregnated their wives so there would be no next generation to slay? Sounds a bit of a deliberate action for Parashuram to bide his time and wait for impregnations to occur or children to be born so that he could continue his murderous rampage and ensure a continuous supply! Twenty-one generations of a caste slayed without discrimination of devotee or demon, or of whether they could be considered guilty of the original offence. Twenty-one generations of pure bloodshed. "Indeed, in the place known as Samanta-pañcaka he created nine lakes filled with their blood." (SB 9.16.18-19)

From a commentary to Valmiki Ramayan: "He even cuts off the foetuses in wombs of their queens, in order to stop the menacing progeny and offers the blood of the foetus as oblation. And that blood became five streams called shamanta pancaka."

Lovely. And do you remember that story of how Rama married Sita? How did he win her hand? He was challenged to wield Shiva's powerful bow and ended up breaking it. Fair enough, but Parashuram heard of this event and rushed to the spot in a foul mood, almost murderous, and extremely angry that Rama has broken Shiva's mighty bow. He challenges Rama to wield Vishnu's bow and if he succeeds then the two would engage in a duel. But hold on a second! Parashurama is supposed to be an incarnation of Vishnu. Rama is similarly supposed to be.... an incarnation of Vishnu. What the hell is this all about, when two Vishnus walk on the same earth, bump into each other and fail to recognise? And notice Parashuram's immediate inclination to fight: "I'm a better incarnation than YOU are!" Nara-Narayana never had these jealousy problems, did they?

So why aren't these wonderful heroic and eternal pastimes discussed very much in ISKCON or other spiritual circles? Could it be because unthinking galoots who wish to reinvent Hinduism as a peace-loving and nonviolent religion find themselves embarrassed to describe a god who represents nothing but complete violence?

Lord Paraśurāma still lives as an intelligent brāhmaṇa in the mountainous country known as Mahendra. Completely satisfied, having given up all the weapons of a kṣatriya, he is always worshiped, adored and offered prayers for his exalted character and activities by such celestial beings as the Siddhas, Cāraṇas and Gandharvas.

[Homer]

So why aren't these wonderful heroic and eternal pastimes discussed very much in ISKCON or other spiritual circles?

Television.

[Brainiac]

Television.

Lol, I think this issue is a fit subject for Aastha TV. It'd be a damn sight more interesting discussion than the weedy rubbish they serve up usually.

One might say that Parashuram's actions were "justified" because the kshatriyas were a corrupt and unruly lot (kinda like how Kalki's future actions will be justified because most people then would be moronic zombies), but still the slaying (and waiting to slay) 21 generations of a caste is certainly overdoing it. And all because someone stole his family cow.

[Homer]

Television.

Lol, I think this issue is a fit subject for Aastha TV. It'd be a damn sight more interesting discussion than the weedy rubbish they serve up usually.

One might sat that Parashuram's actions were "justified" because the kshatriyas were a corrupt and unruly lot (kinda like how Kalki's future actions will be justified because most people then would be moronic zombies), but still the slaying (and waiting to slay) 21 generations of a caste is certainly overdoing it. And all because someone stole his family cow.

Gods are into twisting the knife.

[Gerard]

But hold on a second! Parashurama is supposed to be an incarnation of Vishnu. Rama is similarly supposed to be.... an incarnation of Vishnu.

There are scholars who suppose that the struggle between the brahmanas and the kshatriyas was also (obviously) a family feud. The brahmana family line of Bhrigu - in which line Parasurama was born - was very active in editing the texts, so to make that family line more important they also wanted to have an avatar. This editing of those texts is known as the "Bhriguization process".
That would mean no moral tales, no symbolism, no esoteric meanings, just the history of politics (and text editing).

[babu]

how would there be a second generation if the first generation was killed? this evidence points to the fact of advanced vedic medicine procedures of gene splicing and cloning

[Strange Pilgrim]

Just take a minute to think about that. Twenty-one GENERATIONS of kshatriyas. Think about the logistics. He killed one entire generation, then must have waited a decade or two for the next generation to grow up before he slayed them. Twenty-one times over.

It's been a long, long time since I've studied this stuff, but according to the Puranas didn't people in this fantasy ancient time supposedly live for hundreds of years, or thousands, or something like that? If that were the case, and people attained marriageable adulthood at about twenty or so, then it's plausible that these twenty-one generations were all living at the same time. A person's great-great-21 times back grandparent could still be alive when he was born.

Not that I believe any of this stuff any more; I find it all bizarre, surreal, irrational, horrific, illogical, immoral, internally contradictory, fairy (freaky fairy) tales. Which is why I've been enjoying and appreciating your analyses here VERY much. But I thought I'd throw this in for the heck of it.

[Strange Pilgrim]

Oh, and add to that list of adjectives: incredibly sexually overwrought. Which was referred to earlier, in the 10/31 post in this topic. Very weird.

[0Aran0]

Twenty-one GENERATIONS of kshatriyas. Think about the logistics. He killed one entire generation, then must have waited a decade or two for the next generation to grow up before he slayed them. Twenty-one times over.

Don't knock it till you've tried it.

[Brainiac]

Lessons learned so far:

1. Laughter is worse than incest
2. Don't steal people's cows

[Kalisurfer]

I first read of Parashuram's story when I was six years old, but I find it odd how in ISKCON there is very little mention or discussion of Lord Parashuram and his eternal pastimes. He doesn't even seem to have a feast day in his honour. What could be the reason for this? I guess most people might know of his story from SB readings, but it seems that many Indians don't know much about his story either. After I saw that news report I asked some friends if they knew anything. After they replied 'no' I rather gleefully offered this choice tidbit: 'Did you know that Parashuram killed his mother because his father told him to?' You can imagine the looks on their faces. 


Killing his mother wasn't the main event in the life of this avatar, though. Parashuram was reserved for much better things like slaying twenty-one generations of kshatriyas. Mind you, he was just taking revenge after a group of kshatriyas killed his father (after Parashuram had killed their father because he stole their family cow), but twenty-one generations worth of genocide is overdoing it a tad??

Whenever you read about how personalities were killed by an incarnation of God, it was always pointed out the it was for their benefit karmically, getting liberated from the human or demon form by the hand of God or whatever incarnation of Vishnu may be doing the deathly dead. So 21 generations of folks liberated sounds much more positive, clean and tidy than slaughtered or killed.

It does seem ISKCON is rather choosey as to which incarnations of Vishnu to worship, not to mention all the other Gods deemed demigods in the Vaisnava tradition, who are not worthy of much attention, unless of course putting them up on a side alter for the benefit of donations that come in from the Indian community members who grew up worshipping them.

Sounds like Parashuram may just be one good Press/Publicity agent (Charismatic Devotee/Giuru) away from becoming a major incarnation!

[Brainiac]

Whenever you read about how personalities were killed by an incarnation of God, it was always pointed out the it was for their benefit karmically, getting liberated from the human or demon form by the hand of God or whatever incarnation of Vishnu may be doing the deathly dead. So 21 generations of folks liberated sounds much more positive, clean and tidy than slaughtered or killed.

Shame their passage to heaven is through the path of bloodshed, death and destruction though, rather than as one would expect such passage to be as ascending a stairway of light.

Another conundrum: One would think that the Judaeo-Christian concept of demonicide (if such a word exists!) is a bit more clear-cut. The 'saved' go to Heaven while the demonic go to Hell. This latter event happens even if someone like Archangel Michael kills demons in battle. Yet in the Vedic tradition this becomes topsy-turvy: demons are miraculously liberated after being killed by the Hand of God.

[Brainiac]

I don't really have all that much to say about Lord Rama. Of all the manifestations of God I've been acquainted with, Rama really seems to be one of the wonderful ones. Still I have a couple of observations. The discussion I was having on Parashuram inevitably led to a discussion on Lord Rama as I had brought up the point about his breaking Shiva's bow. One of the discussion participants exulted: "Just see what a great apostle of dharma Rama was! Such a wonderful maryAda-puruSottama! He even sacrificed his wife after hearing the indirect chastisement of a local dhobi (washerman)."

I couldn't restrain myself from stating the obvious: "Rama did what any man would do. His wife was kidnapped by Ravana and he did whatever he could to get her back. What you should be asking yourself is after all the shit he went through to get her back, what kind of dharma must he adhere to that he has to sacrifice his beloved wife (and Queen!) on the words of a common and lowly washer of undergarments?"

This adherence to dharma over and above all else is a big problem that I have. Everyone and their five-year-old kid knows that in a traditional monarchy, the son inherits the throne after the father-King dies or otherwise retires. When the Queen of England dies, Prince Charles will be crowned King. After him the job will fall to Prince William, and so on and on. Everyone knows this. So how in the hell does King Dasaratha agree to his second wife's demands that the eldest son Rama should not be King (on the eve of his coronation!) and should in fact be banished to the forest for 14 years, and that her song Bharat should actually be King?? Never mind that Bharat was actually a nice enough guy to refuse the position, go after Rama and try to bring him back, and having to be consoled with the thought of taking Rama's padukas back and considering himself some sort of Regent in deference to Rama's "symbolic" rule through the padukas, it shouldn't have happened.

People blame Manthara, the twisted and evil old crone of a chambermaid of Queen Kaikeyi's, who poisoned her mind enough to make these demands. The same point could be made again: how does a lowly old chambermaid get into a position where she can whisper into the Queen's ear about matters of royal succession, assuming that she is clever enough to comprehend them? If that had happened somewhere in British history, I daresay such a person would be immediately hung, drawn and quartered! What led to Kaikeyi's agreement with this person's views, when Kaikeyi had loved Rama since birth as if he was her own son, and what led dim old Dasaratha to comply with his wife's crazy demands?

And above all, what made Rama agree with these demands?? Why was he so spineless that he unquestioningly gave up his right to the throne the day before his coronation, when the entire kingdom was besides themselves with expectant joy for the sunrise of that blessed day, because complying with the (severely misguided) wishes of his father and "mother" meant being a true follower of "dharma"? I guess Parashuram was being a follower of dharma as well, when he killed his mother on the orders of his father! ("Oh yes, there's the justification, he was just being dharmic!")

One might say that if Rama didn't go into the forest, Ravana would never have kidnapped Sita and Rama would have had no reason to go after him and the Ramayana might never have happened. Er, why not? If Vishnu specifically took an incarnation to sort Ravana out, he could have figured out plenty of ways to do it. Krishna was pretty creative when it came to killing demons and he was the King of Dvaraka too, are we saying Rama isn't intelligent enough to figure out a way? After all, if Rama had gone after Ravana as the full-fledged King of Ayodhya, wouldn't it have been a better battle with an army of men as opposed to an army of monkeys? And some of these monkeys walked and talked as well, did this battle happen sometime during one of the transitive stages of evolution?

So many post-Ravana tragedies could have been avoided. After all, that lowly washerman objected to taking his own wife back after she had been in another man's house, citing the example of Sita and how Rama was weak-minded enough to take her back. Huh? A lowly little curmudgeon criticising the King? Off with his head! But no, Rama sends a pregnant Sita away in tears because he must "uphold dharma", and his two children Luv and Kush grow up in Valmiki's hermitage without a father or any enjoyment of their princely privileges. With the result that they do not even know him when they finally meet him! Is it any wonder that, after a stringload of further indiginities, Sita can't take it any more and leaves the planet leaving Rama in tears? What kind of tragic story is this? And what is it meant to teach us?

[Brainiac]

I was rather harsh in the last post. I actually like Rama a lot. Most people think that the pinnacle of Rama's career was killing Ravana, but not me. I've always felt that Rama embodied something of a heartbreakingly tragic figure. Rather than the usual avataric behaviour of wreaking havoc on others (demons and the like), Rama seems to have havoc wreaked on him. First he loses the opportunity of being crowned, and then he is exiled to the forest for 14 years. Even while undergoing various hardships that would break the heart of any loving Ayodhyite, his wife gets kidnapped. Even when he goes through the process of getting her back, more hardships follow by way of the deliberate sacrifice of separation from Sita. Is it any wonder that he "left the planet" by committing suicide? There is something very tragic about Rama. In pictures one always sees him calmly smiling, but this smile is like an inadequate band-aid on the ever-widening crevice of his broken heart.

About 18 months ago, I chanced across a copy of Tulsidas' Ramcharitmanas, and I didn't read all of it but I flicked through it and read some portions. There was a very beautiful verse in it which went something like this: The black colour of the universe is due to it's being located on a strand of Rama's beautiful black hair. I thought that was a very beautiful image that showed originality.

Prabhupada also said something similar once, that the blue colour of the sky is the reflection of Krishna's blue effulgence. I used to think nature was very boring but over time I have begun to appreciate nature's beauty. At around the same time I took this photo of the sun in a beautiful blue sky with some clouds:

 380033312_714d00fcc4_o.jpg ( 467.34K ) Number of downloads: 1

I considered it a 'natural' photo of the Three Prabhus: Caitanya as the 'yellow' sun, and Nityananda as the 'blue' sky. Advaita's white beard is represented by the clouds.

[Dhyana]

It's a beautiful photo.

That tragical streak of Rama tended to make me rebellious. I felt he was an anti-advertisement of surrender to authority and self-sacrifice. Not even the integrity of his own judgment of Sita did he get to keep. I avoided getting absorbed in the story.

[Brainiac]

And what's the deal with Ravana and his ten heads?

Many people literally think that he had ten heads. Wouldn't that look rather odd? They artistically represent it with one head in the centre, with four on one side and five on the other as in the above smiley. This would definitely be an odd sight, though aesthetically acceptable. But who is to say it was so? He could have had one central head, and nine jutting out of one side. If Ravana happened to nodding his head vigorously to the beat of some cool music he could have broken everything in the palace, and it would also be an easy way of knocking out someone you didn't like just by looking away.

Or who's to say he didn't have all his heads on top of the other? The possibilities for the formation are endless; pyramids, rectangles, cuboids, cylinders, go crazy!

Don't these literalists have the faintest idea of basic anatomy? Inside every head is a brain that is connected to the rest of the body via a spinal cord, not to mention the external head itself being connected to the body by skin, necks, etc. Ten heads means ten brains connected to ten spinal cords all in the same body. Or did he have one spine after all, that split into ten branches at the neck-level to connect all the ten heads/brains to a central spine? The pundits can debate this one as they clearly have nothing better to do.

The symbolic explanations of this curiosity do better than the literal ones. In the Indian movie Sampoorna Ramayan (1961) Ravana has one head, and at the point where he is debating the pros of cons of going to war with Rama, the ten heads pop out of the main one one after the other each advocating a different point of view. I thought that this was a good symbolic image of the internal debate he was having.

The same idea gets taken to ridiculous levels in animals though, Ananta-sesa the thousand-headed serpent, and so on...

Beneath Rasātala is another planetary system, known as Pātāla or Nāgaloka, where there are many demoniac serpents, the masters of Nāgaloka, such as Śańkha, Kulika, Mahāśańkha, Śveta, Dhanañjaya, Dhṛtarāṣṭra, Śańkhacūḍa, Kambala, Aśvatara and Devadatta. The chief among them is Vāsuki. They are all extremely angry, and they have many, many hoods - some snakes five hoods, some seven, some ten, others a hundred and others a thousand. These hoods are bedecked with valuable gems, and the light emanating from the gems illuminates the entire planetary system of bila-svarga.

Why are they all extremely angry? So many valuable gems and nothing to buy?

[Brainiac]

A good episode in Krishna's life that shows a startling implementation of rationalism is when he suggested that the Vrajavasis dispense with their usual rituals in favour of worshipping Mt. Govardhan, who was supposedly the real benefactor of the community. This episode was broadcast recently in an episode of Kahaani Humaarey Mahabharat Ki. It was so good that I copied the script from the English subtitles. Krishna is affectionately known as 'Kana' in this series. Here is the transcription of what occurred:

Narrative: And in Gokul, the sacrificial ceremony to honour Lord Indra was about to begin.

Nand: Be particular about cleanliness.

Villager: Yes, Nand.

Nand: There should be no shortage of anything. (Villager nods) This sacrificial ceremony is very important for us.

(Kana arrives and sees the preparations)

Kana: Father, is there a festival in the village?

Nand: (smiling) Consider it a festival, Kana. We are preparing for the sacrifical ceremony to honour Lord Indra.

Kana: A ceremony for Lord Indra?

Nand: Yes. For Indra.

(Kana looks mystified)

Nand: Kana, we perform this ceremony every year to please Indra.

Kana: But Father, what is the motive for pleasing him?

Nand: Kana, Indra is the lord of the clouds due to whom we get rain, which helps us in farming, so that we can grow crops and get fodder for the cattle. And our overall life depends on it. That is why we please Indra in anticipation of abundant rain. (Kana starts smiling) We've been following this tradition for generations.

Kana: And what if we don't perform this ceremony?

(Nand and villagers look at each other, concerned. Balaram and cowherd boys smile)

Yasoda: Kana, you shouldn't say that. Lord Indra might get offended and curse us.

(Kana looks bemused)

Kana: That means we don't pray because of our faith, but due to fear. (Nand, Yasoda and villagers look at each other, Balaram smiles) What kind of god is this who forces us to pray due to fear? Devotion should be due to love and not out of fear. Aren't I right, Father?

(Nand and Yasoda listen intently with narrowed eyes as if they are slowly being enlightened)

Kana: And with regards to the prayer, we should pray to the earth that provides us food. Pray to this cow that gives us milk. We should pray to Mount Govardhan, to which the clouds collide and it begins to rain. (Villagers look gradually convinced) We should pray to the forests that provide us with medicinal plants. They provide us so much, yet don't threaten us. They don't ask for anything. Therefore they deserve our prayers.

(Villagers nod to one another in agreement)

Kana: Listen to what I've said, Father. There is no need to perform this ceremony to please Lord Indra.

Senior Villager: Nand, explain to your son that he shouldn't speak nonsense. Tell him to keep his tongue under control. If his words anger Lord Indra, there will be havoc.

(Villagers look to Nand for his opinion)

Nand: But Uncle, I feel what Kana said is true. What he says makes sense. I agree with his opinion. (Kana smiles)

Cowherd boy: Yes, praying to Lord Indra is futile. Even though we do so much every year either there is a flood or a drought.

Senior villager: All of you have lost your senses. (To Nand:) You are making a mistake by believing a child's nonsense.

Nand: Whether it's a child or an old man, we should respect his opinion. What Kana says is true. Therefore this year we won't perform this sacrifical ceremony.

If you understand Hindi, view this episode (starts around 5:40). The clip is cut short, so the rest of it can be found here.

[Brainiac]

I found this episode rather unusual because it seems very odd how a devastating indictment of irrational superstition was provided by none other than Krishna himself. And he even explained his own viewpoint in a rational manner.

Although I suppose rationalists, atheists and the like might disagree with his conclusion (yet the animists and pantheists may delight), this is a very clean indictment of superstition and religious belief. It contains all the essential elements of the argument in a microcosmic dialogue; we follow religions and beliefs because we feel that we may be benefited thereof, we could also follow them because we have been brought up in communities where they are practised and have been "for generations".

But what might happen if we don't follow them? This is the question of an intelligent mind - posed by Kana - who questions belief and wants to know if they have any value. And you can see the dramatic effect in the clip, how this chap actually dares to raise his tongue and question our traditions. The answer is quickly forthcoming but which is typically superstitious: "God might curse us", and the Bible for example is full of these kinds of threats. This means that we don't necessarily pray because we have faith or because we do it out of love, but because of fear and "what might happen". Or even because there might be nothing else to live for, life might be dull, drab, lifeless and boring. "What kind of god is this that forces us to pray out of fear?" Or for what might happen? We might be better off doing something else instead that has some actual and practical value and benefit.

Like the senior villager who condemns this as nonsense, these kinds of views can draw a substantial amount of criticism, or even demonisation and expulsion, as we can see from the rhetoric and actions of the Religious Right. However, those who have the capability to think deeply enough about these issues will be open-minded (and open-hearted) enough to think for themselves, see and consider the futility of their dearly-held views, apply the litmus test of practical value to them, and finally realise that discarding them might be necessary when they form obstacles to progress.

What a wonderful episode this was. So enlightening.