When the Paramparā Breaks: On Gurus and Students in the Mahābhārata

7/30/2019 When the Parampar Breaks: On Gurus and Students in the Mahbhrata

1/30

35

John

nemec

When theParampar Breaks:On Gurus and Students in theMahbhrata

iyas te ha dhi m tv prapannamI am your student. Teach me who supplicates you.

Mahbhrata(Bhma Parvan) 6.24.7d

Introduction

The purpose o this essay is to illustrate the prevalence oguru-student relationships in the Mahbhrata.1 I will arguethat not only are stories o teachers and their students cen-tral to the epic, involving key characters and pivotal sceneso the narrative, but the guru-disciple relations presentedtherein are requently marred by the shortcomings o thecharacters involved, conused by the circumstances in whichthey are ormed, and morally complicated by the real virtues

o some o the characters who nevertheless break the lawsodharma, as they are expressed in the Mnavadharmastra(hereater reerred to as Manu). In a word, the Mahbhratadepicts what cannot but be described as ailed teacher-stu-dent relationships and in doing so narrates the very deterio-

1 For the purposes o this essay, I ollow Hiltebeitel in understandingthe Mahbhrataas a narrative continuum, as a work in progress, ratherthan [choosing] one variant or portion o the epic as a ixed or original

text. See Hiltebeitel 1976: 14-15. In other words, I intend to examine thenarrative and literary qualities o the epic in its present orm (by which Imean the orm canonized in the Poona Critical Edition), rather than toscrutinize the authenticity and/or relative antiquity o various passagesand variant readings o the text.


2/30

The AnThropologisTAndThe nATive36

ration odharmathat one would anticipate in the epic, giventhe works larger themes.

That such concerns play themselves out within the param-

eters o the ideally sacrosanct teacher-student bond a socialinstitution meant to perpetuate knowledge, both by control-ling access to it and ensuring its accurate transmission ur-ther expresses a certain concern or the integrity o the in-stitution. Historically derived rom and structurally similarto the ather-son bond, the Mahbhratanarrates the socialdangers o ailed teacher-student relationships, in particularthose involving princes and kings, as well as the role that theinstitution plays in maintaining the integrity o the social or-

der. In response to such a concern, the epic narrative elabo-rates an innovation on the institution o the guru, presentingthe teacher not merely as a learned mortal, as Manudoes, butas, in Kas case, a ully divinized guru, unmoved by the sel-serving, private concerns that so commonly aict teachersand their students in the Mahbhrata. To isolate the institu-tion o the guru in the larger epic, then, oers a window onone historical moment and a pivotal one, indeed in thedevelopment o the institution itsel, the moment when theidea o a ully divinized guru becomes ully articulated.

1. Ideals and Norms: Manu2 on the Institution of the Guru

Although the teachers3 (guru, crya) described in Manuare primarily brahmins and teachers o the Veda, rather thano the arts o war (as are the fgures o primary interest, orthe purposes o this essay, in the Mahbhrata), the law bookoers prescriptions or normative behavior and as such illus-trates the ideal manner in which any teacher should be re-

garded.4

Even i the martial arts are not the primary subjecto instruction there, Manuexplicitly links Vedic study with thewarriors pursuit o power, the ormer leading to the acquisi-

2 All quotations o the Mnavadharmastra (henceorth Manu) in thisessay reer to the critical edition presented in Olivelle 2005.

3 For deinitions o the various types o teachers, see Manu, 2.140-143.See also Manu, 2.191, where the terms guruand cryaare used synony-mously. Finally, see J. Gonda, The Guru, in Gonda 1965: 229-283, and

esp. 237-241 or a discussion o the etymology o the Sanskrit term guru.4 It merits noting that, while the teachers that concern us in this essayprimarily communicate the arts o war and transmit magical powers to beused in combat, they are nevertheless, more oten than not, brahmins andnot members o the warrior caste.


3/30

37

tion o the latter,5 and the text more generally suggests thatknowledge o various kinds can be ruitully acquired rommembers o any caste. It is even possible, in adverse times,

to learn the Veda rom a non-brahmin, and Manurequiresthe student to aord such a teacher the same deerence andrespect due to his brahmin exemplar, at least or the durationo the period o instruction.6 The prescriptions or and de-scriptions o the institution o the guru in Manu, thereore,are to a large degree indicative o the normative standards bywhich to judge the teacher-student relationship in general,and thereore are by no means inapplicable to the epic.

Furthermore, while it is perhaps impossible to know be-

yond doubt the degree to which the normative account o so-ciety presented in Manureects contemporaneous realities,7one can be certain that the author(s) o the text set out toencapsulate a set o social ideals, legitimate particular cus-toms, or even to invention tradition; it is even possible thatall o these ends were pursued, simultaneously.8 As suchand given that by all accounts Manuand the Mahbhrata

5 See Manu, 2.37c, where we are told that a katriyaintent on gainingpower should undergo the upanayana initiation in his sixth year, as op-posed to the usual eleventh: rjo balrthina ahe.

6 See Manu, 2.238-242.7 In my view, Olivelle is right in suggesting an indirect and abstracted, but

real, relationship between Manuand contemporaneous social lie, it being atext concerned with ideal human behavior that nevertheless relects, to somesigniicant extent, contemporaneous social realities. According to Olivelle:Although it presents the should more oten than the is and may occa-sionally engage in pious wishes and wishul thinking, the amount o detail itpresents with regard to diverse areas o human activity ritual, ood, mar-riage, inheritance, adoption, judicial procedure, taxation, punishment, pen-

ance shows that it was not divorced rom reality. See Olivelle 2005: 65-66.8 As a stra, Manucan be said to constitute, quoting Pollock, a verbal

codiication o rules, whether o divine or human provenance, or the posi-tive and negative regulation o particular cultural practices. Pollock goeson to catalog the possible relationships o stric works to actual socialpractices as ollows: stracould be viewed as oering a real blueprint orpractice; as merely describing, ex post facto, a cultural product and therebyexplicating its components or the beneit o a cultivated public; as pro-viding, in the guise o normative injunctions, something like a standardo taste and judgment to critics, that is as deining the classic; even asunctioning in some cases to invent a tradition; as constituting, in the

hegemonic manner o high cultures elsewhere, practices as sciences ortheoretical or actual control; oras endowing a practice with the status,legitimacy and authority directly conirmed by any Vedic charter, some-thing moststras aspire to become. See Pollock 1990: 17-26, esp. 18; 25-26.Olivelle quotes the latter passage in Olivelle 2005: 63.

When theParampar Breaks


4/30


were, more or less, contemporaneously redacted9 it is notinappropriate to presume that many, though certainly notall (Hopkins 1882-1885: 251), o the norms articulated in

Manuwere anticipated in the narrative o the Mahbhrataand, indeed, probably expected by its audience.10Manus account o the teacher-student relationship, as is

the general tone o the work, is prescriptive, afrming cer-tain norms and prohibiting a variety o actions. As the bookis organized in large part on the basis o the chronology oan individuals lie, the teacher is o primary interest in thesection dealing with the frstrama, which is the principlesubject matter o the second chapter. Ater the teacher re-

leases the student to enter into the householder stage o lie(3.1-4; 4.1; cf. 2.245-246), his presence in Manu is greatlydiminished, excepting intermittent reminders o the teach-ers preeminent stature (e.g. 4.182)11 and exhortations torespect and honor him.

O paramount importance throughout is the students de-erence to and respect or the teacher. He is regularly exhort-ed to revere and serve him (e.g. 12.83)12 and to give him hisobedience, this in order to gain access to the knowledge con-tained in him.13 The student must not argue with his teacher

9 See Olivelle 2005: 20-25;Bhler 1886: xcii-cxviii; Hopkins 1882-1885:239-275, esp. 268.

10 This is not to say thatManuwas already a ully ormed text that wasdirectly quoted during the time o the composition o the Mahbhrata,but rather that the normative social vision articulated in Manu, by andlarge, would have been known to the authors o the epic and their audi-ence. In other words, whether or notManuwas ully ormed by the timeo the completion o the great epic, both texts elicit a shared and received

common wisdom. Hopkins argues as much when he suggests that, whilethe Mahbhratawas unaware oMnavadharmastraas a complete, auton-omous, and authoritative text, the stram [i.e., Manu] was in great partcollated between the time when the bulk o the great epic was composedand its inal completion and previous to its collation, there had existeda vast number o sententious remarks, proverbial wisdom that loatedabout in the mouths o people, and as such were drawn rom the hearsayo the whole Brahman world. See Hopkins 1882-1865: 268.

11 Bhler considers the verse in question to be an interpolation. Olivelledoes not. See Bhler 1886: lxviii; Olivelle 2005: 54-55.

12 While Bhler considers the verse in question to be an interpolation,

Olivelle does not. See Bhler 1886: lxxiii; Olivelle 2005: 60-62.13 The analogy is with digging or water: Just as a man, digging with aspade, inds water, so too does the one who wishes to learn ind the knowl-edge contained in [his teacher]. See Manu, 2.218:yath khanan khanitreanaro vry adhigacchati | tath gurugat vidy urur adhigacchati.


5/30

39

(4.179-180),14 nor may he even tread on his shadow (4.130).Controlling his thoughts, disciplining his body (2.192-193),the student must show him utter deerence, whether by eat-

ing ood or wearing clothes o lesser quality (2.194), by occu-pying a lower seat (2.198), reraining rom speaking to himwhile lying down (2.195), or by standing down rom a vehiclebeore greeting him (2.202). He must never mock his teacher(2.199), and he must never abandon him.15 Loyalty is urthermeasured by the company one keeps, or the student mustavoid his teachers opponents (3.153) and absent himselrom the company o those who mock him (2.200). Bearingall o these strictures in mind, it should be obvious thatManu

proscribes the student rom harming his teacher (4.162).The same respect, moreover, must be granted the teachersteacher (2.205), as well as the teachers amily, and Manu isparticular to proscribe lustul encounters with the women othe gurus amily (2.211-214).16 The student is also linked ritu-ally with the teacher and his amily, as he must respect the ruleso ritual purity when his teacher or members o the teachersamily expire.17 The same respect is granted to ellow students,although the period o ritual impurity is shorter.18

In addition, the teacher is urther associated with the stu-

dents ather (and amily) in a number o passages: Manuex-plicitly requires the student to treat his teacher in the samemanner as members o his own amily (2.206), and he shouldnever treat his parents, older brother, or teacher with con-tempt (2.225).19 As is well known, the student should live withthe teacher or the duration o his Vedic training (2.164),and the text suggests that the second birth, into the Veda, israther more valuable than the frst, biological one, which de-pends on mere kma, the parents sexual desire (2.147-148).

14 Bhler considers 4.180-185 to be an interpolation; Olivelle does not.See Bhler 1886: lxviii; Olivelle 2005: 54-55.

15 See Manu, 11.60 .16 Bhler considers Manu, 2.213-215 to be interpolated verses, though

Olivelle disagrees. See Bhler 1886: lxvii; Olivelle 2005: 54-55.17 See Manu, 5.80-81. The impurity lasts or three days, while the impu-

rity ollowing the death o someone o the same ancestry (sapia) lasts orten days (or alternatively three or even only one), or which see Manu, 5.59.

18 It lasts or only one day in the case o the sabrahmacrin. See Manu,

5.71ab.19 Bhler considers Manu, 2.225-237 to be the innovation o a later re-dactor/compiler o the text, though he accepts the possibility that similarverses appeared in the original. Olivelle readily accepts the authenticity othese verses, however. See Bhler 1886: lxvii and Olivelle 2005: 54-55.



6/30


The teacher is even labeled the students ather in his sec-ond birth (2.169-171). In a word, and as Gonda suggests, thesimilarity o the ather with the teacher is the result o the lat-

ter having been developed on the model o the ormer: Ac-cording to Manu2.142 and Yjavlkya Smti1.34 the guru isthe one who perorms the saskras, maintains the child, andimparts the Vedato it. This must show that at least in the frstplace or originally the ather is meant (Gonda 1965: 241).

The aorementioned prescriptions are perhaps bestsummed up by the general injunction (2.191) that the stu-dent, whether enjoined by the teacher to do so or not, shouldrecite the Vedadaily and likewise always perorm those acts

that beneft his teacher:20

the student should always oer himhis loyalty, deerence, and respect. Finally, Manus extensivetreatment o student errancy is justifed by the idea that theguru is responsible or the karmic consequences o his stu-dents misdeeds, receiving the karmic ruits o his sins.21

As will be shown, truth-telling, whether by keeping a vowor uttering statements o act, is a virtue o particular impor-tance in the Mahbhrataand in particular in the guru-stu-dent relationships depicted therein.22Manu, however, doesnot explicitly associate this virtue with the institution o the

guru, though the text clearly expresses the value o truthul-ness23 and indirectly associates it with the institution in ques-tion by identiying it particularly with brahmins.24 On the oth-er hand, the text is explicit in linking to the institution o theguru another virtue o central concern in the epic, conorm-ity to the rules ovarramadharma. While Manureserves acertain subordinated position o respect or dras (2.136-137), the text also reviles the husband o a drawoman(valpati) (3.155) and is explicit in condemning those who

20 See Manu, 2.191: codito guru nityam apracodita eva v | kuryd ad-hyayane yogam cryasya hiteu ca. O additional interest in this verse is thesynonymous use o the terms guruand crya.

21 See Manu, 8.316-318.22 On vows, curses, blessing, and the like in the Mahbhrata, see Hilte-

beitel 1976: 38-39.23 See, or example, Manu, 1.29, a verse that Bhler thinks absent rom

the original orm o the text, but which Olivelle accepts as part o it. SeeBhler 1886: lxvi; Olivelle 2005: 52-54.

24

For example, brahmins must take an oath in court on truth itsel.Katriyas, by contrast, must swear on their vehicles and weapons. SeeManu, 8.113ab: satyena payedviprakatriyavhanyudhai. It is alsopossible (but less likely) that the dvandvacompound, vhanyudha, reersto the warriors army and weapons.


7/30

41

teach, or are taught by, members o the ourth caste (3.156),going so ar as to prescribe reviling (jugupsita) names ordras (2.31), though the injunction is immediately ollowed

(2.32) by another that recommends names connoting mereservitude (preya). Thus, certain caste-based taboos are rec-ommended in Manus account o the institution o the guru.

It is worth noting that, while cataloging a wide range opossible ailures on the part o the student, Manuis relative-ly silent on the possible ailures o the teacher. Apart romthe aorementioned prohibition rom teaching students o alow caste, the text merely suggests that the guru should notcharge a ee or his teachings (3.156), aside rom the daki,

and that he may not impart learning to those who have notasked or it, or to those who have asked in an inappropriatemanner.25 It may thereore be observed thatManuemploys astrategy o presuming the integrity o the teacher. (To an ex-tent, however, this may reect the act o the teachers senior-ity in relation to his pupils, who very oten would have beenpre-pubescent, or perhaps not much older.)26 Finally, onemust note that, while the text has not yet reached the point opresuming the teachers divinity,27 it assumes his conormityto dharmaand urther associates brahmins, the teachers un-

marked caste-status in Manu, with the liberating knowledgeobrahman, provided the teacher is well-versed in the Veda.28

The Mahbhrata, by contrast, narrates not an idealizedorm o the guru, but rather the ailures o both teachersand their students, and it occasionally depicts the institu-tion as an instrument with which to exercise power, bothby dint o the moral shortcomings, personal idiosyncrasies,and private desires o the teacher and as a result o the mor-al shortcomings o his students, leading almost inevitably

25 See Manu, 2.110-111. Presumably, the latter violation entails the stu-dents ailure to show proper deerence and respect to the teacher, or per-haps it involves the student lying to the teacher, examples o which appearin the Mahbhrata, about which see below.

26 It might also relect the bias o the probably brahmin authors o thework, it sel.

27 Gonda suggests that the guru has always been considered to be di-vine, though he also acknowledges an increasing deiication o the samein the history o the religion. Unnoticed is the great dierence in tone

and content oManus presentation o the guru rom that o the epic; inManu, while his integrity is assumed, the guru is depicted as rather more alearned elite than a divine being, quite a contrast rom the epics depictiono Ka as a ully divinized teacher. See Gonda 1965: 230-231; 280-283.

28 See Manu, 2.242.



8/30


to ruinous ends. In other words, the anxiety illustrated (byway o the many rules proscribing the students behaviortowards the teacher) in Manuover the integrity o the guru-

student relationship is urther elaborated in the narrative othe Mahbhrata, a text that, insoar as it catalogs the dete-rioration odharmaat the dawn o the last and morally dark-est o cosmic eons, the Kali Yuga, is ideally conceived or theexploration o such ailings.

2. Of Loyalty and Caste: Ekalavya

Recall, or example, the story o the outcaste prince,

Ekalavya.29

Young, determined, devout, the son o the kingo the Nidas, Ekalavya set out to learn the art o archeryrom Droa, the greatest guru o the martial arts. Droa,however, who knew the law (dharmaja), declined to teachthe prince out o respect (anvavek) or his students, thePavas and Kauravas, who were katriyas and thereoreloath to associate with the outcaste prince.30 That Ekalavyanevertheless crated and worshipped an image o the amousguru is testament to an unwavering loyalty, a virtue explicitlyattributed to him31 and by which he won unsurpassed agility

with bow-and-arrow.32It is Ekalavyas steadast devotion to his sel-selected guru

that makes him extraordinary and consequently evokessympathy or his plight, but abundance o one virtue doesnot guarantee sufciency in another. In Ekalavyas case, hisexemplary devotion is presumptuous, because it rendershim blind to his disqualiying caste-status. And while casteis a deplorable cause or exclusion rom a modern point oview, it was utterly justifable indeed, mandated under

the strictures ovarramadharma, or, as mentioned above,Manuis reproachul o the teacher who deigns to instruct adra, let alone an outcaste.33

29 See Mahbhrata, 1.123.10-39. All quotations o the Mahbhrata inthis essay reer to the enumeration o verses ound in the Poona CriticalEdition, or which see Belvalkar, Sukthankar 1933-1960.

30 See Mahbhrata, 1.123.10-11: tato nidarjasya hirayadhanua suta |ekalavyo mahrja droam abhyjagma ha. na sa ta pratijagrha naidir iti cin-

tayan | iya dhanui dharmajas tem evnvavekay.31 See Mahbhrata, 1.123.14ab:paray raddhay yukto yogena paramena ca.32 According to Gonda, it is with Ekalavya that the concept o the grace

o the guru is introduced. See Gonda 1965: 252.33 See Manu, 3.156c .


9/30

43

Nevertheless, Ekalavyas devotion is not opportunistic: heoers it not only in the quest to acquire Droas instruction,but also when the latter takes it rom him, and the devotion

that wins Ekalavya supremacy in archery consequently palesin comparison to his eponymous34 display o loyal obediencein the ace o his teachers exacting command. I am o coursereerring to Ekalavyas run-in with the Pava brothers andin particular their teacher. At some point ollowing his aus-terities, the Pava brothers enter the orest, along with adog that, barking incessantly, earns Ekalavyas wrath and isorced to swallow seven o his arrows, fred in simultaneoussuccession.35 The Pavas were amazed at that eat o ar-

chery, and Arjuna in particular was dismayed to hear the out-caste prince claim Droa as his guru, who had promised himthat he would remain unmatched in all the martial arts.36

Not to be made a liar, Droa quickly ound Ekalavya, wasgreeted appropriately by his student, and promptly demand-ed the latters thumb as daki. Declaring, There is nothingI will not give to my guru, Ekalavya, in an act o utter obedi-ence to his teachers harsh (drua) command, ulflled histeachers wish, but at the cost o his light touch in archery.37

Droas dakiexhibits a ruthless efciency, and not sim-

ply due to the uniqueness o the object he desires.38 To acceptthe git is to recognize Ekalavya as his student, and yet the na-ture o the demand presents him with an exacting choice, orto dey the order o a teacher is strictly orbidden, but to lose athumb is devastating or an archer. Thus, Ekalavya was orcedto choose between the teacher and the ruits o his teaching,and while his decision exemplifed his allegiance, it cost himprecisely what his devotion and loyalty had earned him.

The story is touching, and indeed the authors o the

Mahbhrata elt it necessary to justiy the violence done tothe prince: in the Droa Parvan, it is suggested that Ekalavyawould have been undeeatable in battle had he retained hisright thumb.39 Still, i the episode evokes sympathy by contrast-ing Ekalavyas aith in his teacher with his ailure to adhere tothe laws ovarramadharma, it also exhibits a second layer

34 The name Ekalavya can be translated Gets one cut o.35 See Mahbhrata, 1.123.15-19.36

See Mahbhrata, 1.123.25-28.37 See Mahbhrata, 1.123.29-39.38 On the nature odaki, see Gonda 1965: 198-228.39 See Mahbhrata, 7.156.19: ekalavya hi sguham aakt devadnav|

sarkasoragprtha vijetu yudhi karhi cit.



10/30


o conicting virtues, a clash o loyalty and truthulness. Eka-lavyas mastery o the art o archery puts in doubt the veracity oDroas promise to Arjuna, and to guarantee his word, Droa

must exploit the (albeit misplaced) loyalty o his disciple.Whats more and as is so oten the case in theMahbhrata the incident is tainted by the cross-purposes oone o the characters involved, in this case Droa, or the Eka-lavya episode is not the only occasion when Droa requestsan unusual daki.40 And the promise he made to Arjuna wasperhaps not an entirely benevolent one, or it is linked withhis desire to prosecute a personal vendetta. Just prior to theencounter with Ekalavya, Droa hinted at a orthcoming de-

mand the capture o Drupada in return avor or his in-struction in the martial arts, and while the others respondedto the appeal with silence, Arjuna enthusiastically assented toit.41 Shortly thereater, Arjunas devotion to his teacher (jux-taposed in the narrative with, and thereore implicitly com-pared to, that o Ekalavya) won him his gurus preerence.42

At issue is a personal slight, suered at the hands o ariend-become-king. Droa and Drupada played togetheras children, but when the latter ascended to the throne, heshunned the ormer, reusing to grant him a place o promi-

nence in his kingdom. It is with this that Droa set o to theland o the Kurus to oer his teachings, carrying his grudgealong with him.43 O course, he eventually pays the price orhis vendetta: although the Pavas capture Drupada, return-ing to him only hal his kingdom, Droa acquires a lielong

40 At least according to Manu, the dakiis more commonly a materi-al git, or example land, gold, a cow, or a horse (See Manu, 2.245-246).It is unusual to demand as dakithat ones students settle a personal

vendetta, and it goes without saying that Droas request o Ekalavyasthumb betrays the spirit o the institution.

41 See Mahbhrata1.122.40cd-44.42 Similarly, it is perhaps no coincidence that the amous scene in which

Droa tests his disciples (Mahbhrata, 1.123.45-67) closely ollows the Eka-lavya episode (Mahbhrata, 1.123.10-39). (It is in the scene in question thatArjuna amously sees only the head o a targeted bird, his concentrationbeing so exact.) The juxtaposition o the two scenes presents an implicitcomparison o Arjunas skill in archery with Ekalavyas. The comparison ismade more apparent in a short episode immediately ollowing the one inwhich Droa tests the concentration and aim o his disciples, one in which

Arjuna is said rapidly to ire ive arrows into a crocodile that had grippedDroas shin (Mahbhrata, 1.123.68-78). For the narration o the captureo Drupada, see Mahbhrata, 1.128.

43 See Mahbhrata, 1.122.38: drupadenaivam ukto hamanyunbhiparipluta| abhygacchakurn bhmaiyairarthgunvitai.


11/30

45

enemy in the process,44 and it is ultimately Drupadas son,Dhadyumna, who, having vowed revenge or the injusticedone to his ather, kills the vengeul teacher on the feld o

battle, despite an overwhelming appeal or mercy rom boththe Pava and Kaurava camps.45

3. On Truthfulness and Caste: Kara

While Droas demise is a major development, the Eka-lavya episode is o course a minor one in the scope o thelarger epic narrative, though it generates a lot o attentionand concerned interest, notably among Dalits, who (right-

ully) tell the story as an exemplar o the cruelties and injus-tices o caste hegemony. Nevertheless, the issues at play inthe episode are not isolated to it, and they reappear in rela-tion to some o the most important and signifcant charac-ters that serve as teachers or prepare themselves as studentsin search o knowledge in the art o war.

Take Kara, or example. In an eort to gain knowledgeo magical weapons, he approached the sage Paraurmaor instruction.46 Kara, however, whose mother Kunt hadabandoned him at birth, did not know his ancestry. To gain

access to instruction, he was compelled to lie about his ge-nealogy, claiming to be a brahmin. The ruse paid o, tem-porarily Kara acquired knowledge o superior, magicalweapons, but not decisively. When one day his teacherell asleep, his head on Karas lap, an insect (sometimessaid to be Indra, i.e., Arjunas ather) burrowed into the lat-ters thigh. In order not to disturb his teacher, Kara un-inchingly endured the pain. Eventually stirring, anyway,Paraurma noticed that his student was bleeding, queried

its cause, and upon hearing Karas explanation realizedthe latter could not be but a katriya, since a brahmin wouldnot endure such pain so steadastly.

It ollows that Karas antastic display o devotion cannotcompensate, in the eyes o his teacher, or his lie. To punishhim, Paraurma promises Kara will orget what he has beentaught at the very moment he needs it most, and, indeed, thiscurse bears itsel out on the battlefeld, when the wheel o hischariot catches in the mud, and Arjuna, prodded by Ka,

44 See Mahbhrata, 1.128.15-18.45 See Mahbhrata, 7.165, esp. 7.165.51.46 See Mahbhrata, 8.29.



12/30


kills him in his moment o vulnerable orgetulness.47 LikeEkalavyas, Karas punishment is to lose the very teachingshe so assiduously, but briey, acquired.

Lying costs Kara, despite his uninching loyalty to histeacher, and the epic again depicts a heroic act o virtue howelse can one interpret Karas endurance or pain? ore-stalled by contravening shortcomings in virtue. And althoughManu considers misrepresentation o ones caste to be theequivalent o killing a brahmin,48 in this instance one mightexpect that Karas great orbearance would in some way haveserved to mitigate, or even outweigh, the severity o his trans-gression. Regardless o how one calculates the dharmic equa-

tion, however, it is clear that the power o the episode inparticular, the sympathy one eels or Kara, who is almost butnot quite a tragic hero49 is derived rom Karas conictingvirtues and dharmic transgressions, along with the question-able cross-purposes o one o the characters involved.

The cross-purposes in question, o course, areParaurmas, or the teacher had his own agenda to pros-ecute: his indiscriminate disdain or katriyas is in service oa personal vendetta. Although he comes to be considereda god, the Mahbhratas contemporaneous audience prob-

ably did not yet acknowledge Paraurmas divinity,50 andregardless, his hatred o katriyas stemmed rom his desireto avenge the murder o his ather, Jamadagni, by a mem-ber o the warrior caste, Arjuna Krtavrya.51 (Its worth

47 That the wheel catches is o course the result o a dierent curse. It isKaras inability to deend himsel that results rom Paraurmas curse. SeeMahbhrata, 8.67.

48 See Manu, 11.56: anta ca samutkare rjagmi ca paiunam | guro

clkanirbandha samni brahmahatyay.49 Had Kara never learned his true ancestry, had he not been given the

opportunity to join his Pava brothers prior to the start o the civil war,and had he not consistently counseled Duryodhana to engage in treachery,one could rightly label him a tragic hero.

50 See Brockington 1988: 284-286; see also van Buitenen 1975: 193. Itis worth noting that Paraurmas repeated annihilation o the katriyas issaid to take place at the moment o transition rom Tret- to Dvparayuga.See Mahbhrata1.2.3.

51 Arjuna Krtavrya was properly welcomed, but he did not accept thehospitality due to his own bent or war. Stealing what he liked and ransack-

ing the house, he let, incurring the wrath o the amily and Rmas inparticular. Rma responded by attacking him, whose kin later respondedin turn, killing Rmas deenseless ather who, being an ascetic, reused toresist and instead waited or his sons protection, which arrived too late. SeeMahbhrata, 3.115-117, esp. 3.116.19cd .


13/30

47

noting that Paraurma himsel aced an Abrahamic task,when his ather demanded he kill his own mother to punishher singular lapse into incontinence. The fth o fve sons,

Paraurma aithully complied with his athers wishes bysevering her head with an axe, ater his our older brothersreused to do so).52 Thus, what seems to be a simple moralexhorting the value o honesty is not as simple as that. Notonly does Karas lie outweigh his heroic devotion, but also,like Droa with Ekalavya, Karas teacher is motivated by anagenda that relates only in the most general o terms to thestudent who is caught in its vortex. Indeed, under normalcircumstances, Kara, as a katriya, would make an ideal can-

didate or a brahmins instruction.4. On Truthfulness and Caste: Satyakma

Issues o caste, then abrogation o the laws ovarramadharma disqualiy Ekalavya rom Droas mar-tial arts studio, despite the act that in all other respects hewould have been the ideal student. In Karas case, an oth-erwise appropriate caste-identity disqualifes him in the eyeso his teacher, who has it against the warrior class. Both epi-

sodes stand in contrast to one in the Chndogya Upaniad,53which recounts the intriguing story o a boy who wishes tolearn the secret teaching concerning the identity otmanand brahman and urther highlights the severity o Karasencounter with Paraurma.

The child in question, Satyakma, approached his moth-er in order to learn the details o his heritage, this in an-ticipation o the questions his prospective guru would askhim. His mother, Jabl, was promiscuous in her youth and

as such was uncertain o who precisely athered the boy.Unable simply to identiy his ather, she instead instructedSatyakma to tell his prospective teacher that his name isSatyakma Jabl.54 Presenting himsel in this manner,his prospective guru, Hridrumata Gautama, observed thatonly a brahmin could speak as honestly as the boy had spo-ken, and he taught him the secrets o the Veda. Moreover,the text explicitly notes that the teaching he received was

52 See Mahbhrata, 3.116.1-19.53 See ChndogyaUpaniad, 4.4.54 In other words, he is Satyakma, the son o Jabl.



14/30


complete,55 and he is later depicted as a guru in his ownright, teaching the nature o sel and brahmanto others.56

Thus, a child o uncertain birth became learned in the

Vedaand knowledgeable in its greatest wisdom, and as suchthe episode stands in contrast to both the story o Eka-lavya and that o Kara, in contrast to the latter because oSatyakmas honesty and to both by virtue o the act thatSatyakmas (obviously dubious) caste-identity did not dis-qualiy him in the eyes o his teacher. The moral o thestory is that the truthulness Manuexpects o brahmins wasthought at one point to be not only prescriptive, but alsodescriptive, something patently not true o the Kali age.57

(On this view, it is Satyakmas brahmin-hood that led to hishonesty, not his honesty that qualifed him or a brahminseducation.) And yet, the story urther speaks to Karas ate,or he can equally be said not to know his heritage all themore reason he must accept the consequences o his lie.

5. On Truthfulness and the Teacher: Yudhihira

Nor is truthulness, or more specifcally its absence, uni-ormly regarded in the Mahbhrata. In one instance, at least,

55 However, the text does perhaps hesitate in endorsing the validity oteaching someone o such a dubious heritage. We are told that, servinghis teacher loyally or a number o years, Satyakma was taught one quar-ter obrahmaneach by a bull, by ire, by a wild goose, and by a water-bird.When Haridrumata saw him approaching with apparent knowing, he askedSatyakma how he learned the nature obrahman. Hearing that others, thanmen taught him, but that his teacher should teach him again, HridrumataGautama did so without leaving anything out.

I preer to think that the implication o this, however, is that the boy was

bound to learn the Vedas, not because o his honesty, but because o hiscaste, which, although unknown, was clearly indicated by his actions. SeeChndogyaUpaniad, 4.5-9 and Radhakrishnan 1953: 408-412; esp. 411-412.

56 Satyakmas learning is conirmed in the next passage, where weare told o his successul instruction o one Upakosala (See ChndogyaUpaniad, 4.10; c. Bhadrayaka Upaniad, 6.3.11-12), although heis associated with the wrong view that brahman is the mind (manas) atBhadrayakaUpaniad, 4.1.6.

57 Indeed, Manusuggests as much when mentioning the deteriorationodharmathrough the eons. See Manu, 1.81-86. (Note however, that bothOlivelle and Bhler consider the passage in question to be a later addi-

tion. See Olivelle 2005: 52-54; Bhler 1886: lxvi.) The story in question,however, being narrated in an Upaniad and thereore a part o the Veda,cannot by tradition be ascribed to anyo the our eons, but rather is time-less. It nevertheless is more indicative o the state o aairs in the irsteon, which is o course the most nearly perect o the our.


15/30

49

lying is sanctioned by a god and materially rewarded on thebattlefeld. I am o course speaking o Yudhihiras deceptiono Droa. Famous or being a truth-teller, the virtue so closely

associated with the frst caste, honesty so defnes Yudhihirascharacter that he is oten reerred to as the most brahmin-like o the fve Pavas.58 Yet, it is Yudhihira, at the behesto Ka, who amously lies to Droa about the death o hisson Avatthman. O course, it is a hal-lie, but neverthelessa ruse: the wheels o Yudhihiras chariot, which previouslynever touched the earth, sink to the ground shortly ater heloudly uttered the words Avatthm is slain, reerring notto Droas son but to an elephant o the same name.59

The urther irony lies in the act that Yudhihira is ly-ing to misleading, i you like his teacher, the one whoinstructed him in the arts o war, just as Kara had done hisown. Unlike Kara, however, who showed his teacher noth-ing but respect, reverence, and stoical devotion in allowingthe insect to burrow into his leg, Yudhihira goes on to fghtDroa in battle, hardly an act o loyalty to his guru.

Nor does the comparison end here. I do not think it isa coincidence that Kara is condemned or misidentiy-ing himsel as a brahmin while Yudhihira is successul in

wearing the same guise during the year o hiding in Virascourt.60 Ater all, given Karas true identity as the eldest othe Pavas, with a legitimate claim to the throne onethat Ka emphasizes in the Udyoga Parvan, while tryingto win Kara over to the Pava side prior to the war,61Yudhihira is something o a substitute or Kara. Similarly,it is perhaps no coincidence that Kara alls in battle aterhis chariot wheel sinks, just as the symbol o punishment orYudhihiras lie involves his chariot wheels sinking rom the

air above the ground merely to stand on it.It is or Arjuna, however, that Kara saves the ull orceo his anger and hatred. In part this is sensible, or a war-rior always measures his strength against other warriors,and Arjuna and Kara are two o the toughest. However, Iwould also like to think there is a urther, underlying andimplicit hatred in Kara, stemming rom the elicitous ate

58 See, exempli gratia, van Buitenen 1973: 15.59

See Mahbhrata, 7.164.72c-73b: avatthm hata iti abdam uccai cakraha| avatthmeti hi gaja khyto nmn hato bhavat.60 There is, o course, also a dierence in their guises: Kara deceives his

teacher, while Yudhihiras disguise is meant or general consumption.61 See Mahbhrata, 5.138-141.



16/30


that ultimately alls to Arjuna: it is through the latter andnot the ormer that the royal line ultimately passes, romAbhimanyu, his son by Subhadr, to Parikit to Janamejaya,

a subtle rebuke perhaps unnoticed by all but the most atten-tive in the audience, but a matter o central concern or thecharacters in question.

6. The Honest Guru in the Kali Age

The Mahbhrata also narrates a crucial instance o anhonest guru killed, in part, by his honesty. I am o coursespeaking o the ever-truthul Bhma, whose vow o celiba-

cy gives him the power to choose the moment o his owndeath, his erocious presence on the battlefeld thereorepresenting a serious obstacle to the Pavas prospects orvictory (Hiltebeitel 1976: 244-250).

A promise to Duryodhana leads Bhma to choose the Kau-ravas side in the war,62 though as the uncle, protector and,indeed, teacher o both the Kauravas and Pavas, Bhmaconcerns himsel with the welare o both camps, promisingto give Yudhihira sound counsel despite his commitmentto fght or the other side.63 And while by no means perect,

Bhmas respect or his role as mentor demands his honestyeven at the expense o personal well being. True to that ide-al, he reely answers Yudhihira when the latter, encouragedby Ka,64 enquires o him how he can be killed,65 and it ison Bhmas advice that Arjuna and the others attack him,using ikha as cover.66

7. Ka and Arjuna: On the guru of theGt

Nevertheless, while Bhmas counsel is both sound and piv-otally important to the Pavas in the war eort, it is Kasamously transgressive leadership that really guides them. As iswell known, he convinces Yudhihira to lie to Droa, inducesArjuna to kill a deenseless Kara, and encourages Bhma to

62 See Mahbhrata, 5.153.16-24.63 See Mahbhrata, 6.103.44-45; c. 5.153.16.64

See Mahbhrata, 6.103.50-51.65 See Mahbhrata, 6.103, esp. 6.103.70-82.66 Because he had promised never to harm a woman, Bhma reuses

to ight ikha, who once was a woman, as the men iring rom behindhim/her pepper Bhma with arrows.


17/30


18/30


presenting him with two irreconcilable obligations,71 reectthe Mahbhratas larger concerns regarding the integrity othe bond between teacher and student.

Indeed, the loyalty that is central to the guru-student dy-namic constitutes the very dilemma o the Bhagavadgt, orthere can be no doubt that the welare o his teachers standsat the core o Arjunas quandary:

How can I ight Bhma and Droa with arrows in battle,Madhusdana? The two deserve [my] worship, Enemy Slayer.Indeed, it would be better not to kill [my] highly digniied gu-rus and to enjoy even begged ood here in the world than tokill my greedy gurus and enjoy spoils dipped in [their] blood.

Nor do we know which is better or us: either that we win orthat they win against us. Having killed Dhtarras men, whoare standing in ront o us, we would have no desire to live.72

It is the very exhortation to obey the guru, to honor him,to do what is pleasing to him, that gives Arjuna pause. Thespirit oManuis utterly present in and indeed uels his di-lemma, just as a concern or the integrity o the teacher-student bond constitutes not only the dilemma o the Gt,but also requently occupies the attention o the epic poetsin the larger narrative.

Nor is it a coincidence that Arjuna takes Ka as histeacher immediately ater uttering the words just quoted,saying, aicted by the ault o being weak, I ask you, mymind stupefed bydharma, what would be better? Tell me orsure. I am your student. Teach me who supplicates you.73For, in a moment o conused despair, Arjuna resorts to thetuition o his riend-become-guru, who provides extensivemetaphysical and soteriological teachings to convince him

to pursue martial ends and, indeed, to kill. Nor again is it a

71 I here quote Matilal, who suggests that Arjunas question at the be-ginning o the Bhagavadgtais typical in that he was aced with a choicebetween two irreconcilable obligations. See Matilal 1989: 7-9.

72 See Mahbhrata, 6.24.4-6: katha Bhmam aha sakhye Droaca madhusdana | iubhi pratiyotsymi pjrhav arisdana. gurn ahatvhi mahnubhv reyo bhoktu bhaikam apha loke | hatvrthakms tugurn ihaiva bhujya bhogn rudhirapradigdhn. na caitad vidma kataranno garyo yad v jayema yadi v no jayeyu | yn eva hatv na jijvimas te

vasthit pramukhe dhrtarra. The translation is mine, but it is an ad-aptation o van Buitenens.73 See Mahbhrata, 6.24.7: krpayadoopahatasvbhava pcchmi tv

dharmasamhacet | yac chreya syn nicita brhi tan me iyas te hadhi m tv prapannam.


19/30

53

coincidence that Ka begins the long discourse that com-prises the teachings o the Gt immediately ollowing Ar-junas pleading, as a student (iya), or guidance.74 For the

Gtis nothing i not an instruction, and while the bhakti itultimately espouses is certainly notthe same asthe loyalty de-manded o a student by the institution o the guru, it is su-fcientlysimilar toit to justiy the comparison.

Whether to deend his kingdom or fght his teachers, Arju-nas dilemma is well known and has been subjected to a nearlyexhaustive quantity o analysis. It nevertheless is worth notingthat Kas exhortation to fght is supported by Manu, orthe law book suggests that a warriors royal dharmatrumps his

duty to honor his guru: a king should punish even his teacher(crya) or deviating rom the law.75Yet again, however, themoral o the story is not quite so simple, particularly whenone considers the content o Kas teachings in the Gtinrelation to his role in the larger narrative o the Mahbhrata,or, as has been mentioned, Kas counsel is persistentlytransgressive o the law. Despite all o his insistence in theGt on the perormance o ones own dharma or its ownsake and without consideration or the ruits, Ka in theMahbhrataconsistently counsels Arjuna and the Pavas

with utterly practical ends in mind, even at the cost o obedi-ence to dharma, and all in the name o ensuring a very realreward: control o the kingdom. Indeed, while consideredan incarnation o Viu, come to earth to preserve dharma,Ka is perhaps the character that is most ready to counselactions that transgress the law in the larger epic narrative.

O course, the contrast between the Ka-as-guru o theGtand the Machiavellian Ka o larger epic cannot butbe intentional. And while proponents o the view that the

Bhagavadgtis an autonomous work, incongruously and awk-wardly added to the Mahbhrata, may never be convinced othe epics overall narrative integrity, or which Hiltebeitel haspersistently (and to my mind eectively) argued,76 it mightnevertheless be useul to consider the relationship betweenthe two portrayals o Ka through the lens o the institu-

74 It is worth noting that the act that Ka oers such metaphysicalinstruction is doubly ironic: it is ironic that he oers a spiritual teaching to

promote war, and it is ironic that Ka, a katriya, oers such a teaching toa ellow warrior on the battleield.75 See Manu, 8.335: pitcrya suhn mt bhry putra purohita |

ndayo nma rjo sti ya svadharme na tihati.76 See ootnote 1. See also Hiltebeitel 2001: 1-3 and .



20/30


tion o the guru. For, while Kas counsel in the epic rec-ommends acts that contravene dharma, the laws recorded inManualso account or his role in the epic, in part at least. As

mentioned,77 the law book condemns the teacher to suerthe ruits o his students sins. With this dictum in mind, andgiven that Gndhr curses Kas amily line to extinction inorder to punish his inaction in the ace o total war,78 it is per-haps no exaggeration to understand Ka to have sueredthe karmic ruits o the dharmic transgressions he counseledthe Pavas to commit. Ater all, it is Kas amily line thatis extinguished, though the war is ought (and the dharmatransgressed) to preserve the integrity o the Pavas royal

power and, indeed, the Kurus royal lineage. On this read-ing, then, Ka counsels acts that transgress dharma, but thetransgressions pale in comparison with what they accomplish.The ends justiy the means, or the kingdom is retrieved romthe Kauravas malevolent hands and restored to the rightulheirs o the Kuru throne, who will do right by their subjects.Under Kas guidance, the Pavas transgress dharma insmall ways in order to protect the greater dharmic order,which will be provided by a Kuru kingdom justly ruled. Nev-ertheless, the dharmic transgressions do not go unpunished;

only it is the teacher, and not his disciples, who suer them.It is worth noting that the Gtclaims only Arjuna as Kas

student, while the latter counsels a number o the Pavasto perorm questionable acts.79 And the Mahbhrata ex-plains Gndhrs curse exclusively as a condemnation oKas inaction, his ailure to stop the war, while overlook-ing his active inuence as counselor. In light o these twoacts, Kas support o the Pavas as well as the curseendured as a result o it is perhaps better interpreted in

light o the bhaktio the Gt, and not merely in relation tothe institution o the guru. Give up all duties (sarvadhar-ma), exhorts Ka, and come to me, the only sanctuary. Iwill ree you rom every sin; do not despair.80 Perhaps such

77 See infra1, above.78 See Mahbhrata, 11.25.36-41, esp. 11.25.38.79 Perhaps, however, this act is mitigated by other reerences to Ka as

guru, in the mouth o Yudhihira, or example. See Mahbhrata, 14.70.21.80

See Mahbhrata, 6.40.66: sarvadharmn parityajya mm eka araavraja | aha tv sarvappebhyo mokayiymi ma uca. Ruben, quoted byHiltebeitel, also interprets Kas actions in the larger narrative in termso the doctrine o the Gt, or which (along with the authors own inter-preation o Kas expiation) see Hiltebeitel 1976: 287-296, esp. 288.


21/30

55

a role can be played only by a god and not a mere teacher.Nevertheless, one can say that both bhakti and the loyaltydemanded by the institution o the guru are synchronized,

though perhaps not identifed, in the epic narrative and inthe character o Ka. For, i the litany o ailed teacher-student relationships narrated in the Mahbhratasuggests,contra Manu, that one cannot presume that ones teacheris honest, loyal, and truthul, it is also true that, in the caseo Ka as a divinized guru, it is the teachers divinity thatensures his integrity, in turn demanding the same reciprocalloyalty rom his students that is prescribed in the law book.And while it is ironic that Ka is a katriya, given that he

teaches the nature o brahman, his caste-identity is epiphe-nomenal to his identity as a divinized guru.

8. The Father as Guru, and the Limits of Loyalty

Kas relationship with his student, while both extraor-dinary and eminently successul, is not the only instance inthe Mahbhratao an unbroken teacher-student bond, how-ever. I, as mentioned earlier and as Gonda suggests,81 theguru-disciple relationship evokes and parallels the ather-son

bond whether through the similarity in ritual obligationsvis--vis both ather and guru, the metaphor o rebirth intothe study o the Veda, or the act that the student lives in thehouse o the guru under a set o rules that makes the teacheran analog o the ather82 then it is worth noting the ways inwhich the epic depicts the latter. Interestingly enough, whilethe Mahbhrataoten tells o extraordinary problems stem-ming rom the ather-son relationship, the problems nor-mally do not stem rom the disloyalty o ather to son, or vice

versa; a mutual loyalty is usually secure in the epic narrative,meeting the ideals outlined in Manu. Instead, as we shall see,the problem is rather the opposite, a sureit o loyalty to the

81Manus explicit association o the two institutions, ather and guru, hasalready been noted, or which see infra1, above. See also Manu, 2.144-148.

82 Even the etymology o the term reveals a certain connection o thetwo. First occurring in the orm o an adjective reerring to an importantperson, used in particular with reerence to members o ones amily, the

term guru later appears as a substantive reerring to the teacher. (SeeGonda 1965: 240 .) As mentioned, it is quite likely that the institution othe guru as it is known in the Vedic period served in a social role analogousto that o the ather, with the guru serving to train the child in the Vedawhen the ather could not, or could not do so to the same eect.



22/30


detriment o the larger social order. (In other words, theproblem presented by these relationships is something othe opposite o the paradox presented by Kas transgres-

sive council: while Ka councils transgressive acts meant topreserve the larger dharmic order, the disciples in the ol-lowing examples virtuously pursue loyalty to extraordinarylimits, disrupting the larger dharmic order in the process.)

First, however, it should be underscored that the bondbetween ather and son provides or particularly emotional-ly evocative tests o a disciples loyalty to his mentor, not justin India, but universally. For example, Paraurmas aore-mentioned Abrahamic test, administered by his ather, is

reminiscent o the Ekalavya episode insoar as both demandthat the disciple choose unwavering aith or loyalty overan apparently tragic course o action. Matters are resolvedrather more avorably or Paraurma, however, whose a-ther, though testing him, never exploits the relationship orpersonal gain. Indeed, while the virtue o unblinking trustin the teacher, expressed in acts o utter obedience, is ex-ploited by Droa to steal Ekalavyas thumb, Paraurma ulti-mately negotiates his athers test unscathed. His obedienceeven wins him an unlimited number o boons, only three o

which he uses, one to restore his our elder brothers, whowere cursed to insanity or ailing to obey their athers com-mand, another to revive his mother, and a third to cleansethe sin and his memory o the entire episode.83

While Paraurma skillully acquits himsel o his athersabsurd demand, along the way proving himsel to be bothabstemious and unselfsh with an unlimited number owishes, it does not always end so well in the epic. Indeed,though admirable, emotionally satisying, and laudable in

the abstract, in the Mahbhrataflial loyalty is also shownoccasionally to be tragically overdone, with devastating con-sequences not or ather or son, but or society at large. TakeBhma, or example.

Devavratas vow o celibacy, like Paraurmas matricide,reects a sons concern to remain above all a loyal servant tohis ather, although atanu neither tests his son nor taxeshim with the burden o solving his problems, and, unlike theParaurma episode, this ather-son relationship is criticalto the core narrative o the Mahbhrata. As is well known,atanu was desperate to ulfll the demands o Satyavats

83 See Mahbhrata, 3.116.1-19.


23/30


24/30


It should come as no surprise that the private bond o sonto ather could create such widespread social unrest. Ater all,the Mahbhratais concerned largely with the lives o kings

and princes, and in the epic, as with any work concerned withroyalty, flial loyalty carries signifcance beyond the amilialbond it seals, or political sovereignty is passed rom atherto son. Loyalty, moreover, is demanded not only o a kingsprinces, but also o his subjects, just as those loyalties are test-ed in civil war. Clearly, then, more than a sons personal bondwith his ather is at stake, or the loyalties implicated by itshape the destiny o an entire kingdom, and the very idealsthat are expressed in Manus normative description o the

institution o the guru are tested in the civil war.Put in this light, Ajunas proposed (in the Gt) course oaction to live an ascetical lie in order to avoid fghting histeachers and elders can be understood precisely as this sorto overreaching act o loyalty, chosen in the ace o a moraldilemma. For, to give up his duty to protect the kingdom, as-signed to him by the strictures ovarramadharmaand hisprivileged position as a Kuru prince, would spare him romthe patently unpleasant and morally ambiguous duty o kill-ing his mentors and relatives, but it would condemn the king-

dom to the rule o wicked men. Even loyalty and flial loy-alty, at that has its limits in the morally corrupt Kali Yuga.

9. Conclusions: Social Control, dharma, and the Divinized Guru

Whether one is concerned with the relationship o a-ther to son, a king and his princes, or a teacher and hisstudent, the bond implied by the relationship in question ismore than merely a private one. Like the union orged by

marriage, such bonds are both private, shared exclusivelyby the two individuals bound by them, and public. They arepublic because they coner particular rights and license cer-tain socially relevant, powerul act, rom hereditary rights,to the right to access sacred scripture and other relevantorms o learning, such as the martial arts, to the right torule as king. It should come as no surprise, thereore, thatManuso assiduously regulates the institution o the guru. Inexpressing a normative model or social behavior (therebyarticulating a normative social order), the law book mustdelineate the parameters within which the institution o theguru, the primary vehicle or the perpetuation o useul andsalvifc learning, should unction.


25/30

59

Nor should it surprise that the epic, in narrating the ad-vent o the most corrupt o cosmic eons, should tell the sto-ries o ailed teacher-student relationships. Such ailure was

understood to be inevitable in the increasingly immoral Kaliage. There should be no surprise, then, that the Mahbhratadescribes teachers pursuing personal agendas or privatereasons (e.g., Droa, Paraurma) and narrates the exploita-tion o the institution o the guru to the detriment o eitherteacher (e.g., Bhma counseling Yudhihira) or student(e.g., Ekalavya). It is characteristic o the Kali Yuga that thestudents encountered in the epic are oten uneven in charac-ter, possessing an abundance o, in particular, the virtue most

vocierously prescribed in Manu, aith in and loyalty to theteacher (e.g., Ekalavya, Kara), while simultaneously lackingin other essential qualities, such as truthulness (e.g., Kara)or obedience to varramadharma(e.g., Ekalavya, Arjuna inthe Gtbeing a near miss).

In narrating what cannot but be described as ailedteacher-student relationships, moreover, the Mahbhratainvokes the very social norms encapsulated in Manus treat-ment o the institution o the guru. Indeed, the narrativepower o a number o the episodes recounted, above, stems

rom the epics det evocation o the very social norms pre-scribed in the law book. While Manucatalogs social ideals,the Mahbhrata invokes them to create narrative tensionand to portray a decline in dharmathat is characterized, inpart, by the conrontation o conicting dharmic values andnorms. Thus, Ekalavyas ate is regrettable because o hisgreat loyalty, but mandated byvarramadharmaand drivenby both his teachers need to prove his truthulness and hisdesire to prosecute a personal agenda. Kara attracts sym-

pathy in part because his true identity suggests he should beking, and largely because o his admirably uninching loy-alty not only to his guru, Paraurma, but also to his patron,Duryodhana. His lie, however, is sinul, even i his teacher ismotivated by a personal vendetta, and his loyalty to Duryod-hana is misplaced, knowingly so, given Kas overtures inthe Udyoga Parvan. Devavrata is admirable or his steadastcommitment both to his vow and to the truth more gener-ally, which allows him to serve the Kauravas without blemishto his reputation and to counsel the means to his own deathwithout appearing to be suicidal, or oolish. Yet, it is his vowthat sets in motion the disastrous string o events culminat-ing in the devastating ratricidal war.



26/30


ThatManuand the Mahbhrataare equally concerned withthe social order is readily apparent. Ater all, as Olivelle has al-ready argued, the socio-political environment that prompted

the composition o the great epic was not too dierent romthat o [Manu] (Olivelle 2005: 38). It was an environmentmarred by threatening oreign invasions and troubled by thehistorical reality and especially the historical memory o ruleunder the Buddhist Mauryas, a period that knew the rule odrakings, as well as a signifcant loss o inuence amongstthe brahmins (Olivelle 2005: 37-41). What I wish urther tosuggest is that the two texts also share a concern or the integ-rity o the institution o the guru, evidenced in Manus legalis-

tic prescriptions and the epics ailed guru-student bonds. Atthe least, the texts attempt to evoke concern or social order,and obedience to the laws odharmagoverning them, by in-voking the institution o the guru and problems marring it.

Perhaps it is more than a coincidence, then, that theauthors o both Manu and the Mahbhrata present theirworks in the orm o narratives put across by both teacherand disciple, the latter providing most o the narrative un-der supervision o the ormer,86 or by raming the texts inthis manner the authors rhetorically claim a certain propri-

ety and integrity or their works, marking them with the au-thority o the institution o the guru. However, while Manuinnovates on the previous literature o the dharma tradi-tion in presenting a narrative structure that consists o adialogue between [a] teacher and others desiring to learnrom him (Olivelle 2005: 25),87 the rame story establish-ing this narrative structure is much less elaborate than thato the great epic. The Mahbhratas rame story88 not onlymentions the teacher passing the job o narration to his stu-

dent, but it also provides extensive details o the context inwhich he does so, thereby emphasizing the nature o thesocial order promoted in the text.

The audience is told that Vysa, with the help oVaiapyana, his disciple, recounts the story o the epicin order to educate the current heir to the Kuru throne,Janamejaya, Arjunas great-grandson (and, not incidentally,Vysas great-great-great-grandson: teacher and student arehere bound by both a amilial and a guru lineage). Thus,

86 See Manu, 1.58-60 and Mahbhrata, 1.54.87 See Manu, 1.58-60.88 See Mahbhrata, 1.53.


27/30

61

the epic itsel is an instrument or a teachers instruction oa young king: in the rame story, we are told that the youngJanamejaya hears the epic in order to know not only his an-

cestry, but also to know how to preserve and protect the king-dom.89 That story, however, begins with yet another a curse.The then Kuru king, Parikit, was once hunting deer, and

in anger and rustration he wrapped a dead snake aroundthe neck o a sage who, under a vow o silence, did not an-swer him when asked whether he had seen his recently shotprey.90 The sage ignores the slight, but his son does not an-other instance o flial loyalty and the latter curses Parikitto die by the bite o Takaka, the snake-king, within a period

o seven days.91

Parikit assiduously avoids this ate, but thenallows a strange insect to sting and kill him, anyhow, in or-der to ensure the truthulness o the sages vow, and therebysaving the latter rom having uttered an untruth.92

Upon his death, Janamejaya is anointed king,93 and toavenge his athers death, he organizes a sacrifce to ridthe world o snakes.94 (Yet another act o flial loyalty, a sonavenging the death his ather readily accepted). Soon aterthe sacrifce commenced, a brahmin, stka, came to visitJanamejaya and, praising him,95 was granted a boon. Just

at the moment when the sacrifce would bring Takaka tohis end, having sent many snakes to their demise already,stka asks that his boon be granted in the orm o a par-don or the snake-king.96 Giving Janamejaya time to decidewhat to do, the brahmin uses a spell to suspend the snake-king in midair, above the fre, awaiting his ate. Knowingthe importance o serving a brahmins wishes, Janamejayain the end complies with stkas request, having secured apromise no longer to be bothered by the snake-king,97 and

it is at this point that the Mahbhratastory is recounted orJanamejayas beneft, with Vysa turning the narrative over

89 Hiltebeitel has recently written a long and important book on the sub-ject o the epic as an educational instrument, or which see Hiltebeitel 1976.

90 See Mahbhrata, 1.36.91 See Mahbhrata, 1.37.92 See Mahbhrata, 1.39.93

See Mahbhrata, 1.40.94 See Mahbhrata, 1.47.95 See Mahbhrata, 1.50.96 See Mahbhrata, 1.51.97 See Mahbhrata, 1.53.1-26.



28/30


to Vaiapyana.98 All ends harmoniously, in contrast to theterrible events o the Bhrata war, with the handover o thekingdom to Janamejayas able hands.

The rame story is instructive in a number o ways. Firstly,one should note that it presents the audience with a pair omoral dilemmas, one aced by Parikit, who must choose be-tween the dharmao maintaining his kingdom and his dutyto protect the integrity (in the orm o truthulness, in thisinstance) o the brahmins who live in it, the other by Jan-amejaya, who chooses to honor his promise to a brahminrather than indulge his prerogative to avenge his athersdeath. Secondly, both ather and son resolve their dilemmas

by honoring the brahmins with whom they are occupied.Thirdly, while Parikits act is similar to Bhmas in that bothexhibit extraordinary sel-sacrifce or the sake o another,99one nevertheless senses that, rather than oreboding, a newbeginning is promised in the rame story. Indeed, Janame-jayas decision, ar rom calling to mind the eelings o ex-cess that characterize Bhmas extraordinary vow, insteadsuggests a sense o proportion and discretion.

What is more, it also embodies the sort o respect or brah-mins that is so pervasively demanded byManu.100 Just as his

ather sacrifced himsel or the sake o a brahmins truthul-ness, Janamejaya surrenders his own personal vendetta (i.e., toavenge his athers death) in order himsel to honor a brahmin,in this case stka, who uses his promised boon to secure thesnake-kings pardon. All rejoice or Janamejayas having doneso, and one suspects that the deerence and respect Janame-jaya shows his brahmin guest, as did his ather the brahminsage living in his kingdom, embodies precisely the conormityto dharmaso amously advocated by Ka in the Gt, one that

guarantees the social order despite the arrival o the moral un-certainty o the last eon. The bond between katriyaand brah-min supersedes even the one between ather and son.

With this in mind, it is perhaps not out o bounds to con-clude that the concern evidently expressed in Manuand the

98 See Mahbhrata, 1.53.27 .99 It is worth noting that both igures in question are teachers o sorts,

the ather in Bhmas case, a brahmin in Parikits.100

Olivelle suggests, convincingly in my view, that the author oManu,has two goals: he wants to tell Brahmins how to behave as true Brahminsdevoted to Vedic learning and virtue, and he wants to tell kings how tobehave as true kings, devoted to Brahmins and ruling the people justly.See Olivelle 2005: 41.


29/30

63

Mahbhrataover the integrity o the institution o the gurupoints to the larger socio-political concerns contemporaneouswith the fnal redaction o the epic, to conclude, as Olivelle

does, that the authors o both [Manuand the Mahbhrata]probably came rom the class o educated and somewhat con-servative brahmins intent on protecting the rights and privi-leges o their class (Olivelle 2005: 38). This endeavor requiresthe preservation o the tradition o learning controlled by theinstitution o the guru, the preservation o the bond betweenbrahmins and katriyas, and assurance o the integrity o thelatters royal lineages, all in the context o a world in whichone can oten expect others to act immorally.

What, then, does this tell us about the history o the in-stitution o the guru? In the context o the epic narrative, itis or Ekalavya and Kara, and Bhma and Droa, that the

paramparbreaks. Caught in a morally complicated and con-icted world at the dawn o Kali Yuga, when the laws odharmaare prescriptive but no longer descriptive o human action,both teacher and student are all too oten shown to be all-too-human. But the institution o the guru, paradigmatically asso-ciated with a brahmin teacher and katriyastudent, occupiedwith the perpetuation o valuable and valued systems o learn-

ing, and enmeshed with the royal court, the king, and issues oroyal succession, is too important to surrender to the dharmictransgressions o men, so common in the Kali age. Perhaps,then, it is more than coincidence that the long tradition o theperect, divinized guru, which becomes the normative orm othe institution in the body o the extant textual corpus postdat-ing the epic, has Ka as its exemplar and precedent.

BiBliogrAphy

BelvAlkAr, s.k., sukThAnkAr, v.s.(1933-1960).The Mahbhrata:For the First Time Critically Edited, (19 vols.). Poona:Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

Bhler, G. (1886). The Laws of Manu,(Sacred Books o theEast, vol. 25). Oxord: Clarendon Press.

BuiTenen, J.A.B. van (1973). The Mahbhrata, (Vol. 1). Chi-cago: University o Chicago Press.(1975). The Mahbhrata, (Vol. 2). Chicago: Univer-

sity o Chicago Press.



30/30


(1981). The Bhagavadgt in the Mahbhrata: text andtranslation. Chicago: University o Chicago Press.

BrockingTon, J.l. (1998). The Sanskrit Epics. Leiden: Brill.

dhAnd, A. (2004). The Subversive Nature o Virtue in theMahbhrata: A Tale About Women, Smelly Ascetics,and God.Journal of the American Academy of Religion,72(1), pp. 33-58.

edgerTon, F. (1944). The Bhagavad Gt. New York: Harperand Row.

gondA, J. (1965). Change and Continuity in Indian Religion.The Hague: Mouton.

hilTeBeiTel, A. (1976). The Ritual of Battle: Krishna in the

Mahbhrata. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.(2001). Rethinking the Mahbhrata: A Readers Guideto the Education of the Dharma King. Chicago: Univer-sity o Chicago Press.

hopkins, E.J. (1882-85). On the Proessed Quotations FromManu Found in the Mahbhrata.Journal of the Amer-ican Oriental Society, 11, pp. 239-275.

mATilAl, B.K. (1989). Moral Dilemmas in the Mahbhrata. NewDelhi: Indian Institute o Advanced Study.

olivelle, P. (2005). Manus Code of Law: A Critical Edition andTranslation of Mnava-Dharmastra. Oxord: OxordUniversity Press.

pollock, s. (1990). The Idea ostra in Traditional India.In A.L. Dallapiccola (Ed.), Shastric Traditions in In-dian Arts. Stuttgart: Steiner.

rAdhAkrishnAn, S. (1953). The Principal Upaniads. New York:Harper Brothers.

Documents

When the Paramparā Breaks: On Gurus and Students in the Mahābhārata