Different from each other in a hundred ways, Bhima and
Krishna share one personality trait in Sarala Mahabharata, which is a
remarkably creative retelling in Odia,
in the fifteenth century, of Vyasa Mahabharata. It is this: neither can
be contented.
In different respects, though!
Insatiable, says the poet Sarala, was Bhima’s hunger for a
fight, for food, for sleep and for sex. He was simple and guileless, and
pronouncedly sensuous. Wild, full of superhuman energy, and lacking in
patience, this son of god Pavana (Wind) would, often thoughtlessly, jump into a
fight. If he was fighting, he loved to feel his adversary’s blood in his hands.
Unlike Arjuna, he hated his adversary, once he got into fighting . Think of
what he did to Kichaka for coveting Draupadi – he killed him with such violence
that Kichaka’s body looked like a lump of flesh! The brutal way he killed
Dussasana was certainly not required by the oath he had taken in the Kaurava
court to kill him.
Now, killing the enemy from a distance with an arrow was not
for him. But archery was rated most highly in the world of Sarala
Mahabharata, in fact in all versions, in any language, of the ancient story
of the Pandavas and the Kauravas. Bhima’s mother knew that he would never be
adept at archery because he lacked intelligence and concentration. He proved
her eminently right. The preceptor Drona once set up an archery test for his
pupils. One, lacking in concentration and focus, would not be able to hit the target
and the archer had to do it in his first attempt; there would not be a second
chance for him. Bhima failed miserably. He could be easily provoked and once
provoked, he lost his sense of discrimination. Once, when his mother Kunti
showered abuses on Krishna in the language most foul, he could not stand the
words and raised his mace to hit her. Krishna’s intervention saved Kunti.
Later, in a fit of rage, he slapped the severed, living head of Belalasena, his
son, to his death because he did not support his claim he made in front of his
brothers, Kunti, Draupadi, Subhadra and Krishna that he was sole architect of
the Pandavas’ victory in the Kurukshetra War. For Bhima, it was an act of
betrayal of him by his son and he hit him hard. It was another matter that
whereas Bhima stood disgraced, Krishna gave his son moksha (liberation – from
the karmic cycle, the cycle of life and death). Violence was ingrained in Bhima’s
nature; in fact, it defined him best. On this account, both his mother and his
elder brother, Yudhisthira, the embodiment of dharma, considered him dusta (wicked) and sometimes scolded
him, calling him dusta.
His craving for food was well known. To just give one
example, when his mother sent him to the asura (demon), Baka, with a huge
amount of tasty food of many varieties that the villagers had cooked for the asura,
he was secretly happy. In the forest he had eaten roots and fruits for too
long. He was longing for cooked food. He was already gulping the food when the
asura came. The demon showered blows on him, but he kept eating unaffected by
the asura’s blows and abuses, and dealt with him only after he had consumed the
entire food. What happened to Baka is not difficult to guess.
As for his sexual conduct, from one point of view it was
above reproach since not even once in the narrative, did he cast a lustful look
at a woman who was not his wedded wife. His hunger for sex was with respect to
Draupadi alone. He had wild sex with his first wife, the asuri woman
(demoness), Hidimbaki, but he lived with her only for a short time. But one
could say that what would count as wild in the case of a human, would be
natural in the case of a demoness. As for Draupadi, he could never have enough
of her. She found his craving for sex with her unacceptable and his love-making
difficult to cope with. She had to complain to her other husbands and they
worked out a moral code of living with her. As for his sleeping habit, Sarala
says nothing. A reader of Sarala
Mahabharata would have hardly associated long sleep with him, had Sarala not
said in so many words that he could never have sleep up to his satisfaction.
There are no episodes in Sarala Mahabharata that bring out Bhima’s
craving for sleep.
This rare lapse in narration may be because Sarala’s concern
was not really Bhima in his narrative. He wasn’t interpreting him for his
audience across centuries. It was Krishna, who he was concerned with; he was sharing his understanding of the
Avatara with them. To understand the Avatara and the nature of divine
intervention in the affairs of the mortals was Sarala’s real purpose. Bhima’s
story provided a contrast and in a way served the balancing function in this
discourse on Bhima and Krishna.
To turn to Krishna
now. Warning Duryodhana about Krishna’s nature, said Sakuni to him: “danena
atriputi je manena atriputi / bhagate atriputi je jnanena atriputi (not content
with (ritual) giving, not content with honour / not content with devotion, not
content with deep wisdom or transcendental knowledge)” – one cannot satisfy him
with gifts, honour, devotion or knowledge. However much one gives him these
things, it would always be inadequate.
Krishna had gone to the Kaurava court as Yudhisthira’s
emissary. There he told king Duryodhana that in order to avoid war with him,
all the Pandavas wanted was just five villages. Duryodhana flatly refused. He
wouldn’t give anything to the Pandavas, he said. Born of the gods, they did not
belong to the Kuru family and being thus outsiders to the family, they had no
right to the kingdom. Later, outside the court, in private, Bhishma told him in
that it would not be right to send Krishna empty-handed; so, he should give
two, if not five, villages to the Pandavas. Duryodhana relented and was willing
to go by Bhishma’s advice.
This was where Sakuni said about Krishna’s nature as mentioned
above. As for Bhishma, for Sakuni too, giving the Pandavas was actually giving
Krishna. Duryodhana must not give Krishna anything in order to please him. He
simply could not be pleased (danena atriputi). He told him about king Bali.
Appearing as a dwarf at the jajna (fire sacrifice) king Bali was performing,
Narayana told the great asura king that he came from a very poor family and
asked him for a small piece of land in which he would perform his religious
rituals - all the land he required was whatever would be covered by three steps
of his. Bali thought that the dwarf didn’t know how little he was asking for.
He asked him to ask for a great deal more as dana (ritual gift), but the Dwarf
avatara wanted nothing more than three steps of land. Bali’s preceptor
Sukracharya warned Bali that the dwarf was Narayana Himself and he had arrived
to deprive him of all his possessions and power. Bali wouldn’t listen; a dwarf
is a dwarf, his steps are small, so how would it matter if the guru was right
that that he was Narayana Himself? But when the time to give dana came, the dwarf’s
foot was no longer a dwarf’s foot. Bali was the lord of the bhuloka (earth) and
the higher lokas (worlds) as well. In his two feet the Dwarf covered all that.
When the third foot emerged from his navel, Bali offered his head to him and
Narayana despatched him to the Netherworld. The great Bali perished because he
wanted to fulfil Narayana’s demand, said Sakuni to Duryodhana. Krishna was the
same Vamana, he told him, and had come to dispossess him of everything that he
had. He advised him to give Krishna nothing at all. If he gave him just one
village instead of two, he would absorb the entire universe of space in that
one village, like what Vamana had done, and Duryodhana would be left with
nothing to even stand on. So Duryodhana must abandon all thought of pleasing
Narayana with a gift of two villages.
The wise Bhishma intervened and told Sakuni that his
narrative was incomplete; so, his conclusion, wrong. After sending him to the
patala loka, Narayana made Bali the king there, where he was like Indra of the swarga
loka in every respect. Not just that. He Himself left his own abode and stayed
with him for his love for him. But all this made no impression on Duryodhana; quite
understandable, one would think. Who would sacrifice his today for his tomorrow,
especially when he has wealth, power and status!
So, Bhima and Krishna were similar in just one respect, but
unpack that similarity and you find a great difference. Bhima’s discontent was
with respect to his bodily cravings. He couldn’t get certain pleasures to the
level of his satisfaction. In Sarala Mahabharata, it is unclear whether
Narayana wanted anything from anyone: dana, mana, bhakti or whatever else. The
gods, the humans and the demons gave him things on their own, not knowing that
one cannot please him by giving him anything whatever - this is all that this
celebrated narrative by Sarala Das says. In the spirit of our ancient
knowledge, all we can say is the following: He is not pleased if you worship
Him, He is not displeased if you do not worship Him. He is not pleased if you
pray to him and sing his mahima (glory); he is not displeased if you abuse him.
Then what remains for us to do? Witness his leela perhaps? At least that’s what I think poet Sarala says to his
listeners and readers across centuries in his Mahabharata, popularly
known as Sarala Mahabharata.
Note:
Vyasa Mahabharata is about nara (the humans), whereas Sarala Mahabharata
is about narayana ( Supreme god Narayana); Vyasa Mahabharata is about
dharma (virtuous living), whereas Sarala Mahabharata is primarily about
moksha and secondarily about dharma. This is what I understand.
17.5.25
