Ecology in the Mahābhārata PDF

Preview

Summary

Ecology in the Mahābhārata? Danielle Feller, University of Lausanne Summary: This paper examines several narratives found in the Mahābhārata, dealing with topics which look remarkably similar to some of our modern ecological concerns: the massacre of the deer in the Dvaitavana, the quasi-total exter...

Description

Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Ecology in the Mahābhārata Danielle Feller Pandanus ‘13/1, vol. 7, No. 1, 2013 (pp. 21-34).

Related papers

Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Epic Heroes Have No Childhood Danielle Feller

Revealing Śiva’s Superiorit y by Ret elling Viṣṇu’s Deeds: Viṣnu’s Manifest at ion Myt hs in t he Skandapur… Sanne Dokt er-Mersch Ways and Reasons for T hinking about t he Mahābhārat a as a Whole Vishwa Adluri, Joydeep Bagchee, Fernando Wulff Alonso

Ecology in the Mahābhārata? Danielle Feller, University of Lausanne

SUMMARY: his paper examines several narratives found in the mahābhārata, dealing with topics which look remarkably similar to some of our modern ecological concerns: the massacre of the deer in the Dvaitavana, the quasi-total extermination of the nāgas, rākṣasas and kṣatriyas, as well as the problem of the earth’s overpopulation. It seeks to understand whether these passages do indeed betray something akin to our present-day ecological awareness, or if they rather address social and moral issues.

0. Introduction In some of its narratives, the mahābhārata1 evidences concerns which might be called “ecological” – ecology being deined as: he scientiic study of the processes inluencing the distribution and abundance of organisms, the interactions among organisms, and the interactions between organisms and the transformation and lux of energy and matter.2

Ecology is, obviously, a modern science. herefore, it appears methodologically problematic to seek traces of ecological awareness in ancient texts, and this has been commented on before. For instance, in a recent study of ecology in relation to Hinduism, Lance E. Nelson (2008, p. 97) rightly cautions us: When examining an ancient tradition, such as Hinduism, for material that speaks to our contemporary concern for ecology and the environment one must begin with an awareness that this concern, along with its particular conceptual construction of the “environment,” is quite new, dating perhaps from the mid-twentieth century when events irst triggered awareness of an impending environmental crisis. … he Hindu tradition has 1

2

Hence abbreviated MBh. All the references are to the critical edition (Sukthankar 1933– 1959). See http://www.caryinstitute.org/discover-ecology/deinition-ecology.

PANDANUS ’13/1

22

only fairly recently begun to address the environmental question directly. So when asking, as of any of the great religions, “What does it say about ecology?” we must perforce look for indirect rather than direct evidence.

So far, we can only agree with Nelson’s views. However, what he writes next seems less persuasive (Nelson 2008, p. 97): One has to look hard, however, for hints of the late modern awareness of nature as nature, where the natural world is valued in itself for its diversity, the uniqueness and welfare of certain species, and so on.

Similarly, Lutgendorf (2000, p. 279), who writes about the forest in the Sanskrit epics: he forest is for [the kings] primarily a zone for exploitation and consumption, and there is no sense in the epics of the modern notion of the “fragility” or endangerment of the forest ecosystem.

I would argue, on the contrary, that the great Sanskrit epic contains several stories which address issues which look remarkably similar to some of our modern concerns, such as: • Animal populations which dwindle excessively due to over-hunting (MBh 3.244.2–14). • Earth’s overpopulation (MBh 1.58.25–47 & MBh 11.8.20–26). • Inter-species relationships, especially the quasi-extermination of “dangerous” species – such as nāgas (MBh 1.18.9–11; 1.34.6–13; 1.47.19–25), rākṣasas (MBh 1.172), and even kṣatriyas (MBh 12.48–49). I propose here to examine the solutions which are ofered for these problems in the Indian epic, and then to determine whether or not these concerns can be classiied as “ecological”.

1. Yudhiṣṭhira’s dream (MBh 3.244.2–14) During their long exile in the wilderness, the Pāṇḍavas have been staying for too long in the same place, the Dvaitavana, and they have exterminated practically all the animals of that forest (MBh 3.244.2–14; transl. van Buitenen 1975):

Ecology in the mahābhārata?

23

Vaiśaṃpāyana said: When Yudhiṣṭhira Kaunteya was sleeping that night in Dvaitavana, there appeared to him in his dream3 some deer with tears in their throats. hey folded their hoofs and stood trembling. he great king said to them, “Say what you have to say! Who are you and what is your wish?” At these words of the famed Pāṇḍava Kaunteya, the deer, the remnant of many killed, replied to Yudhiṣṭhira, “We are the deer that survive in Dvaitavana, Bhārata. Change your abode, great king, lest we all be killed of. All you brothers are heroes and expert armsmen, and you have reduced the herds of forest game to but few. We have been let as the seed of the future, O sage, may we prosper by your grace, Yudhiṣṭhira, Indra among kings!” Upon seeing the trembling and frightened deer that survived as mere seed, Yudhiṣṭhira the King Dharma felt very sorry: and the king, who was intent on the well-being of all creatures, agreed: “You are speaking the truth, and I shall do as you say.” At dawn the good king woke, and illed with compassion he said to his brothers concerning the deer, “Deer talked to me last night, survivors of their herds. “We have dwindled,” they said, “hail to thee. Take pity on us.” hey spoke the truth, we should show the forest game compassion. It has been a year and eight months now that we have lived of them. here is still the lovely wood of Kāmyaka with its plentiful game at the edge of the desert by famed Lake Tṛṇabindu. Let us spend our remaining days there happily.”

Here the animals of a particular forest – or of an ecosystem, one might say – are threatened with extinction due to human activity, in this case, over-hunting. It is likely that not just one species is menaced, but several: the term used here, mṛga, means either “wild animal” in general, or it can mean “deer”, as van Buitenen chose to translate it.4 Both meanings seem possible: if they hunted only for food, the Pāṇḍavas would mainly slay deer, but it is also not ruled out that they would at least occasionally hunt for sport, in which case other animals could get killed as well. It is interesting to note that the animals, even though they, naturally enough, feel strongly about the issue – they have tears in their throat, they tremble – address the problem in a so-to-say “scientiic” way. hey have waited till the very last moment to call for mercy, but now their herds have dwindled so that “they have become seed”: bījabhūtāḥ (3.244.7), or

3

4

svapnānte (MBh 3.244.2), literally: “at the end of a dream” or “at the end of sleep”. It makes no doubt that Yudhiṣṭhira is sleeping, since he subsequently wakes up (pratibuddhaḥ, 3.244.10). Yet he never questions that the dream relects reality. His translation is sometimes even over-determined in this respect, for instance when he translates kṛtāñjali as “they folded their hoofs”!

PANDANUS ’13/1

24

“only their seed is let”: bījamātrāvaśeṣitān (3.244.8).5 hat is to say, their numbers are still high enough to allow them to repopulate the forest, but not for much longer. hus the deer have in mind the long-term survival of their species, not their immediate individual safety. On the other hand, Yudhiṣṭhira responds emotionally: he feels compassion for the animals. He uses the term dayā (pity or compassion) three times (3.244.10, 11 and 12), whereas the deer themselves do not use it.6 His speech, in which his dharma-rāja personality blends with his insistence on compassion, displays quasi-Buddhistic undertones. Yet fundamentally, the Pāṇḍavas’ right to kill the forest animals is not questioned – not even by the animals themselves. he only provision is that the brothers should not completely exterminate them, but allow enough of them to live to perpetuate the species.

2. he treatment of noxious species In the above passage, we have seen how the mahābhārata defends the view that entire species should not be wiped out to satisfy human greed. Now, the mṛgas are mostly useful animals, since they can be eaten. It is therefore also in the long-term interests of humans not to exterminate them entirely. Let us now examine how other, more harmful and inedible creatures fare. We shall see in the case of nāgas, rākṣasas and even kṣatriyas that the text propagates the view that they should not be completely decimated, even though their numbers should be kept low. 2.1. Janamejaya’s snake-sacriice he irst book of the mahābhārata narrates the story of Kadrū and Vinatā’s bet, which resulted in a great feud between Vinatā’s son, the bird Garuḍa,

5

6

he terms śeṣa, śeṣita, or śiṣṭa (remnant, let over) are used no less than six times in this passage to designate the surviving deer. Now, it is well-known that let-overs are unit for consumption. his may be what the deer are indirectly hinting at. Even though, revealingly enough, Yudhiṣṭhira says they do when he reports their speech to his brothers.

Ecology in the mahābhārata?

25

and Kadrū’s sons, the nāgas or snakes.7 Kadrū and Vinatā had a wager over the colour of the divine steed Ucchaiḥśravas’ tail: the loser would become the other’s slave. Vinatā correctly asserted that the tail was white, while Kadrū falsely claimed that it was black. hen she ordered her sons, the snakes, to hang upon the horse’s tail, thus making it seem black from a distance. Since they irst refused to obey her, she cursed them all to be burnt in the ire of king Janamejaya’s snake-sacriice (sarpa-sattra) (MBh 1.18.9–11; transl. van Buitenen 1973): he Grandsire himself, however, heard this all-too-cruel curse pronounced by Kadrū; and, although it went far beyond what fate had ordained, he and all the hosts of the Gods approved her word, for the good of the creatures, as he saw how many Snakes there were. hey were powerful and mordacious, their poison was virulent; to counter the virulence of their poison, he bestowed the art of healing poison on the great-spirited Kaśyapa for the well-being of creation.

As we see here, the god Brahmā does not counter the curse, however unjust it is, for the good of the (other) creatures, since the snakes are an extremely harmful species, and it would seem unwise to allow them to live. But subsequently, he relents and somewhat tempers the efects of the curse. he following passage is narrated by one of the snakes, Elāpatra, who overheard the gods discussing Kadrū’s curse (MBh 1.34.6–13; Transl. van Buitenen 1973): hen I heard the Gods speak. “Harsh are the great Snakes,” they said, O lord, “harsh!” while they were sorrowfully drawing near to Grandfather, O illustrious king. he Gods said: What woman indeed, Grandfather, would bear the sons she loved and then curse them in this way? Who but harsh Kadrū, and in front of yourself, God of Gods! And you, Grandfather, even approved of her curse and said, “So shall it be!” We wish to know the reason why she was not stopped. Brahmā said: here are too many Snakes, they are harsh, terribly brave, and covered with poison. At that time I did not stop her, as I wished the creatures well. It is the eagerly biting Snakes,

7

he nāgas, though they are inspired from cobras, are of course not ordinary snakes, but supernatural beings, who can change their form at will. hey are usually depicted with several heads. For this story, see Feller (2004, Chapter 4).

26

PANDANUS ’13/1

the mean and evil and virulent ones, that are doomed to die, not the law-abiding Snakes. Now hear by what cause those Snakes will escape from their deadly danger when that time has come. A great seer will arise in the lineage of the Yāyāvaras, who will be famed as Jaratkāru, an ascetic and master of his senses. his Jaratkāru will have a son, an ascetic too, by the name of Āstīka:8 he will put an end to the sacriice. And those Snakes will escape who have been true to the Law.

Because Brahmā did not at once cancel Kadrū’s curse, the gods are astonished, for two diferent reasons: irst, because the curse is unfair, and secondly, because Brahmā, as the grandfather or progenitor of all the creatures, should protect those creatures – unlike Kadrū who destroys her own progeny. So Brahmā introduces a new clause: only the evil snakes will be killed in the sacriice, not the good ones (dhārmika). hus the species will not be completely extinct, and will moreover be purged of its bad elements. Yet, whether such a selection is really possible seems doubtful, because as we read on (MBh 1.47.19–25), we see that millions of snakes fall rather indiscriminately into the ire, and that the main culprit, Takṣaka, because of whom Janamejaya wanted to perform the snake-sacriice,9 is saved in extremis by the sage Āstīka’s intervention. 2.2. Parāśara’s rākṣasa-sacriice In MBh 1.172, we ind the story of the rākṣasa-sattra (demon-sacriice) undertaken by the seer Parāśara, the grandson of Vasiṣṭha and future father of Vyāsa, the author of the mahābhārata. Parāśara wishes to avenge his father Śakti’s death, who was killed by a rākṣasa (MBh 1.172; transl. van Buitenen 1973): […] And the mighty seer Parāśara Śākteya, greatest of all scholars of the Veda, sacriiced with the Session of the Rākṣasas. When the sacriice was spread out, the great hermit burned the Rākṣasas, young and old, in memory of the killing of his father Śakti. […] hereupon Atri, the noble-minded seer, betook himself to that Session, supremely diicult of access to others, wishing to put an end to it. So did Pulastya and Pulaha and Kratu10 come to the great ceremony, O slayer of enemies, since they wished the Rākṣasas to live.

8 9

10

Āstīka’s mother is a snake, also named Jaratkāru. Takṣaka, bound by a curse, bit Janamejaya’s father Parikṣit and caused his death, even though, as it turned out, he could have prevented it. When Janamejaya comes to know of it, he undertakes the snake-sacriice to avenge his father. See MBh 1.36.9–1.53. All are ṛṣis, sons of Brahmā.

Ecology in the mahābhārata?

27

At the slaughter of those Rākṣasas, O bull of the Bhāratas, Pulastya11 spoke these words, Pārtha, to the enemy-tamer Parāśara: “Does nothing stop you? Do you take pleasure, son, in the massacre of all these unaware and innocent Rākṣasas? You that are so very virtuous are perpetrating the most lawless, total extinction of my progeny, Parāśara, greatest of Soma drinkers! […] All this was always known to Vasiṣṭha, great hermit, and so was this annihilation of the wretched Rākṣasas, son. You have been the instrument in this sacriice, scion of Vasiṣṭha. Give up this Session and be blessed. Let this be its completion for you!” When Pulastya, and also the wise Vasiṣṭha spoke to him in this fashion, Śakti’s son Parāśara put an end to the Session of all the Rākṣasas […].

We see that the episodes of the sarpa-sattra and of the rākṣasa-sattra are quite similar in content and narration. Indeed, it is likely that the irst inspired the second. Both sacriicial sessions are undertaken to avenge the death of the yajamāna’s father, killed by a representative of the sacriiced race; in both, many innocents are killed due to the fault of one; in both, a Brahmin who is related to the family of the sacriiced race intervenes to put an end to the slaughter. he only noteworthy diference between the two stories is that the text insists that the rākṣasas are “unaware and innocent”, whereas in the context of the sarpa-sattra the extremely dangerous nature of the snakes is systematically stressed. But of course, in other passages of both epics the rākṣasas are mostly depicted as an extremely harmful lot. In efect, what is taking place in both sacriices is a drastic limitation – though not a complete extermination – of the numbers of snakes as well as demons. 2.3. he overburdened Earth: Rāma Jāmadagnya’s kṣatriya-sacriice and the Mahābhārata war he same idea, namely, that the numbers of noxious species should be kept low, though not completely eliminated, is rather surprisingly also found in the case of the kṣatriyas.12 he ebb and tide of the kṣatriya population is linked on the one hand with Rāma Jāmadagnya’s13 repeated slaughter of all 11

12

13

he sage Pulastya, Rāvaṇa's grandfather in the patriline, is the direct ancestor of the rākṣasa-race, according Rāmāyaṇa 7.2. Here we see that according to ancient Indian classiicatory systems, the classes (or varṇas) practically qualiied as “species” in the technical sense. In later texts he is more frequently called Paraśurāma, “Rāma with the axe”.

28

PANDANUS ’13/1

the kṣatriyas, and on the other with the great destruction of warriors during the mahābhārata war. One narrative pertaining to Rāma Jāmadagnya’s deed is found in the Śāntiparvan. At the end of the war, the Pāṇḍavas, accompanied by Kṛṣṇa, go to see Bhīṣma who is lying on his bed of arrows. hey cross the bloody battleield, strewn with the corpses of all the warriors slain during the great war. Kṛṣṇa then introduces the topic of Rāma Jāmadagnya (MBh 12.48–49; transl. Fitzgerald 2004): […] While they were on the way, the strong-armed Kṛṣṇa, the joy of all the Yādavas, told Yudhiṣṭhira about the ferocity of Rāma Jāmadagnya. “Way over there, son of Pṛthā, you can see the ive lakes of Rāma. He used them to refresh his ancestors with the blood of kṣatriyas.14 hat lord stripped the earth of kṣatriyas twenty-one times over, but now, in our days, Rāma has quit doing that.” Yudhiṣṭhira said: When you tell me that Rāma stripped the earth of kṣatriyas twenty-one times over, I have a lot of trouble accepting that. If Rāma burned the seed of the kṣatra, O bull of the Yādavas, how did the kṣatra rise up again, O you of unlimited ferocity? O bull of the Yādavas, how did that exalted one, the blessed Rāma, destroy the kṣatra? How did it grow back again? Kṣatriyas were killed by the millions in the great Bharata war, and kṣatriyas were littered all over the earth, O best of speakers. […] [hen Kṛṣṇa explains why Rāma Jāmadagnya exterminated the kṣatriyas twenty-one times, to avenge his father’s death at the hands of a king. hen he gave the earth to Kaśyapa and retired to a removed spot.] Ater that, O bull of the Bharatas, śūdras and vaiśyas began acting on their whims with the wives of brahmins. When there is no king in the human world, the weaker are oppressed by the stronger, and no one has any control over his own possessions. Ater some time, the Earth entered the Rasātala underworld, for she was not being protected in accordance with prescription, that is, by kṣatriyas preserving Law. Kaśyapa supported Earth on his lap [lit. on his thigh – ūru] as it sank down, so tradition calls the earth “Urvī”. he Goddess Earth then propitiated Kaśyapa and made a request of him, asking for kṣatriyas with brawny arms to be her guardians. “Brahmin, there are some kṣatriya bulls who were born in the clan of the Haihayas whom I have preserved in the midst of other men; let them guard me, sage.” [Kaśyapa inds a number of kṣatriya youths who had been living in hiding, mostly among various sorts of animals.] hen Kaśyapa, having brought together those whom Earth had listed, consecrated as kings those kṣatriyas who were esteemed for their heroic might. hese men you see here about you are the sons and the grandsons of those men who established the lineages. 14

he Ganguli-Roy translation renders this more explicitly (MBh 12.49): “here Rama offered oblations of Kshatriya blood unto the manes of his ancestors.” he idea being, of course, that Rāma is performing a kṣatriya-sacriice.

Ecology in the mahābhārata?

29

We see from this passage that the kṣatriya race is submitted to repeated growth and destruction: irst, twenty-one ...