CHAPTER SIX
Brāhmanism Warns about
Consequences of Abandonment
6.1: Ascendancy of Buddhism and other egalitarian Dharma threatened Brāhmanism
We do not know exactly how effective the Original Gita was in stopping the exodus of Kshatriyas. One thing was for sure: for three centuries following the death of the Buddha in 483 B. C. Buddhism rose in leaps and bounds and the prestige of Brāhmanism continued to decline steadily. Large number of Kshatriya men left their families and became Bhikkus of Buddhism, munis of Jainism and Ascetics of other creeds. As Buddhism became the dominant Dharma of India, Brāhmanism felt a great threat to its very existence. Buddhism had little regard for the Varnāshrama Dharma as its main motto was equality of all human beings based on right conduct and not their class of birth. This meant free admixture (Varnasankara) of the upper class women with the lower class men. To make matters even worse, even “lower classes” began to abandon Brāhmanism. Brāhmanism chronically worried that admixture of upper class women with the lower class men would lead to the birth of unwanted progeny (1:38-44) and decimation of elitist class (3:24). By now the Mahābhārata epic, the quintessentially Brāhmanic text, was very popular with the masses. The Original Gita, dealing with Arjuna’s Grief on the battlefield and prince Krishna’s lecture enunciating the Brāhmanism doctrines of the Gunas and Karma, was already part of the Mahābhārata epic. Taking advantage of the Mahābhārata’s popularity with the masses, some later Brāhmanic scholars seem to have decided to warn people about the serious consequences to individuals as well as the Brāhmanic society due to admixture of classes.
6.2: Brāhmanism warns against class admixture
The following seven shlokas, warning of the evil consequences of Varnasankara -upper class women producing children with lower class men- were interpolated later in the Original Gita between 1:37 and 1:45 by the proponents of Brāhmanism in a desperate attempt to shore up the weakening Varnāshrama Dharma in the face of ascendance of Buddhism and Jainism. Children of such union, being uncultured, would fail to perform proper rituals to appease ancestral souls. The result would be, they claimed, wholesale condemnation of everyone responsible for Varnasankara to hell. One clue to the later addition of these seven shlokas is the term Jāti Dharma -caste system (1:43). The caste system, in contrast to class system, evolved later in the post-Vedic period. In the following seven shlokas Brāhmanic seers issue a dire warning by means of Arjuna’s lamentation: 1:38-44: Arjuna said: Even though they (the Kauravas), goaded by greed, neither feel guilt in destroying their own family nor perceive crime in treachery to friends, why should we not have the wisdom to refrain from such a sin, O Janārdana, knowing well the evil in the destruction of the family? When families decline, their eternal family laws (Kula Dharma) perish; with the demise of sacred rites, impiety overtakes the entire family. The decline in family values leads to women becoming unchaste; corruption of women leads, O Vārshneya, to admixture of Varnas (classes). Varnasankara (admixture) leads to deprivation of manes-cakes and libations to ancestral souls, causing the souls to fall, which guarantees hell to families as well as to the family destroyers. The eternal caste virtues (Jāti Dharma) and family merits (Kula Dharma) become destroyed due to Varnasankara caused by the family destroyers. We have heard repeatedly, O Janārdana, that hell is verily the long-lasting abode of those men whose family religious practices have been ruined.
In the above shlokas, the Kauravas are the metaphor for the post-Vedic Kshatriyas who destroyed families by becoming Bhikkus. Brāhmanism put forth the argument here against Varnasankara as this leads to destruction of ancient rituals and traditions enshrined in various sub-Dharmas of Brāhmanism such as the Varnāshrama Dharma, Jāti Dharma (caste system), Kula Dharma (family traditions), etc. The bottom line is that Brāhmanism feared loss of elite status for the upper classes.
6.3: Brāhmanism glorifies and defends the upper classes
The following two shlokas with four hidden agendas were added by Brāhmanic seers to shore up Brāhmanism: 2:4-5: Arjuna pleads with Krishna: O Madhusūdana, slayer of foes, how can I counter-attack with arrows Bheeshma and Drōna who are worthy of worship? It is better to live in the world eating beggar’s food (be a Bhikku) than to kill these great masters. Even though they are desirous of wealth, they are my superiors. If I kill them, my enjoyment of wealth and desires will be tainted with blood.
The superficial meaning of the first shloka, of course, is that Arjuna feels guilty for having to counter-attack when attacked by two great sages whom he worships ardently. Therefore, he asks Madhusūdana (killer of demon Madhu), an expert in killing enemies, for some guidance. His alternative is to give up his Kshatriya Dharma and make his living by begging. The superficial meaning of the second shloka is that he can forgive their desire for wealth because they are both his superiors. Besides, if he won the war by killing them both, he would not be able to enjoy his blood-stained gains due to his sense of sinfulness over killing them.
6.4: Four hidden agendas
There are at least four hidden Brāhmanic agendas in these two shlokas all of which must be examined in the context of India’s history between 400 and 200 B. C.
1. The first hidden agenda: The phrase two “great sages worthy of worship” are most certainly the code words for Lord Buddha and Lord Mahāveera, both of whom were worshipped as great sages (Mahānubhavan) even by a large section of the Brāhmanic society. Both these great men were, as it were, “attacking” the corrupted Brāhmanism by their Nāstik philosophies. Both these teachers rejected just about everything Brāhmanism stood for: The Vedas, Vedic sacrifices, Varnāshrama Dharma, and supremacy of Brāhmins. Brāhmanism, now in precipitous decline, was in a rather precarious position of having to “counter-attack” both these leaders of the heterodox Dharmas. On the one hand, pro-Brāhmanism authors knew that there was great merit in the conduct-oriented teachings of the Buddha as well as Mahāveera. On the other hand, Brāhmanism wanted to hang on to its ritual-oriented ancient traditions. Brāhmanic seers were at a loss as to how they could counter-attack these opponents. For the record, the phrase “how can I counter-attack” (Katham Prathiyothsyāmi) cannot be applied at all in the Mahābhārata context. The attackers were Pāndavas, not Kauravas. So this shloka has no Mahābhārata context at all.
2. The second hidden agenda: Arjuna poses the question: Why should I not abandon Kshatriya Dharma and make my living by begging instead? This statement must be examined in the context of rise of Buddhism. A large number of Kshatriyas were becoming Bhikkus or begging monks of Buddhism, Digambaras of Jainism, and Sādhus of Asceticism around this time, disgusted by the decadence of Brāhmanic Dharma. Arjuna says rhetorically, in effect, “If I can’t lick them why can’t I join them!” By means of this shloka, Brāhmanism seers set the stage to counter Arjuna’s desire to abandon his Dharma in the following fateful shloka, which has been drummed into the minds of Hindus for over two thousand years: 3:35: Prince Krishna says: It is better to perform one’s own Dharma, however imperfectly, than to perform another’s Dharma perfectly. Better destruction in one’s own Dharma; the Dharma of another is full of fear.
It is interesting to note here that Brāhmanic seers admitted in this shloka that Brāhmanism was performing its own Dharma imperfectly, Kāmya Karma being the prime example of that imperfection, and yet it perversely defends its faulty performance by implying that death or destruction while imperfectly performing one’s own Dharma leads to heaven, and death while performing perfectly Para Dharma leads to hell. The fear mentioned is obviously that of going to hell for abandoning one’s socially designated duty (2:33), or for being responsible for Varnasankara (1:38-44). The Brāhmanic seers do not bother to stop for a minute to reflect, “Why are so many people abandoning Brāhmanism? What are we doing wrong?” Instead they attempt to promote their own decadent Dharma by perversely fear-mongering another’s Dharma, and by implying that death while performing Kāmya Karma leads to attainment of heaven (9:20). This type of perverse logic and fear-mongering afflicts the minds and actions of most Brāhmanic (Hindutva) leaders as well as their fanatic followers even today.
3. The third hidden agenda: The second of these two shlokas shores up the position of Brāhmins (represented by Drōna) and Kshatriyas (represented by Bheeshma) in the post-Vedic society when the prestige of these two upper classes was taking a good deal of beating due to their hankering for wealth, pleasure, and heaven (2:43) by means of Kāmya Karma. Brāhmanism considered the upper classes as worthy of worship (17:14). In these shlokas they are both described as “superiors worthy of worship even though they are desirous of wealth.” The fact is that in the Mahābharāta epic neither the patriarch Bheeshma nor Guru Drōna was desirous of any wealth whatsoever. They both had nothing personally to gain from this dreadful war. Bheeshma was a disillusioned old Kshatriya on his last leg, and Drōna was an old Guru waiting for his last breath. They were both on the dole of Kauravas and were merely returning, though reluctantly, the debt they owed them. In other words, they were both merely performing their bounden duty even though they were on the wrong side. Therefore, the phrase “even though they are desirous of wealth” cannot be justified in the Mahābhārta context. The real and hidden intent of these shlokas is: So what if Brāhmins and Kshatriyas have become selfishly desirous of wealth? Remember that they are the elite of the society and worthy of worship as per the dictates of Brāhmanic Dharma (17:14).
4. The fourth hidden agenda: How could one enjoy the wealth and desires tainted with blood? In the Mahābhārata context, the sin of killing the two great sages -Bheeshma and Drōna- could rob Arjuna of the enjoyments of gains he made by his deeds (Karma). The ensuing sense of guilt and sinfulness could defeat the very purpose of the deed.
In the Historical context, however, the reference to tainting with blood one’s enjoyment refers to rampant animal sacrifices sponsored by Brāhmanism and opposed by both the Buddha and Mahāveera. Both these Mahātmas abhorred animal sacrifices and questioned: How could one enjoy anything earned by violent means? Brāhmanism maintained that animal sacrifices were legitimate in the process of Yajnas (Karma) prescribed by the Vedas to attain wealth, pleasure, and heaven, and there is no need to feel any guilt or sin for enjoying the Karmaphalam ensuing from them. They had already addressed this issue in the Original Gita by explaining how the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma determined every person’s class and duty; and why one should perform his duty faithfully as dictated by them; and how by doing so one does not earn bad Karmaphalam. Once again, they buttress their own Dharma by their perverse logic: 18:47-48: Better is one’s own Dharma, though imperfectly performed, than the Dharma of another well performed. He who does the duty ordained by his own nature (Guna) incurs no sin (bad Karmaphalam). One should not abandon, O Kaunteya, the duty (Karma/action) to which (Varna) one is born, though it is attended with evil (such as sacrificing animals); for all undertakings are enveloped by evil, as fire by smoke.
In these two shlokas, Brāhmanism seers argued that all undertakings have something unpleasant about them, which they are totally helpless to change (3:5, 27, 33; 18:59-60). Everyone must helplessly perform his duty as dictated by the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma even if it means Kshatriyas killing their “own people” in the line of their duty, and Brāhmins killing animals in the performance of Yajnas. If a Brāhmin must sacrifice animals in the course of a Yajna he performs as per his priestly duty, he must do so accepting it as the dictates of his Dharma. There is no need to stigmatize such actions as evil or sinful. Any gain made in the course of such actions, say, a kingdom gained by Kshatriyas or priestly remuneration gained by the Brāhmins, is not tainted since they both were merely performing their respective socially designated duties as dictated by their Dharma.
These appeals to all classes of people not to abandon Brāhmanism Dharma did not help in stopping the wholesale desertion. As Buddhism began its ascendance, the fortunes of Brāhmanism continued to decline steadily. Soon Brāhmanism was in danger of disappearing altogether.