Joshua Wells CCS 490C Professor Bruce Sullivan PhD. 28 March 2012
A Case Against Krsna Lord Krsna claims to be absolutely omnipotent and, while unfathomably complicated, ultimately benevolent. However, any close scrutiny of him reveals his true nature… he is an amoral, selfish, and untrustworthy deity. Within the Bhagavad Gita he speaks to Arjuna of the importance of upholding dharma at all costs, without attachment to the outcomes of one’s action. Lord Krsna reveals his origins, power, mission and his self-concept to Arjuna:
Although I am unborn and imperishable, although I am lord of all beings, I assume my own nature and take on existence through my illusory power, for whenever dharma lapses and adharma increases, heir of Bharata, I create myself; to protect the virtuous, destroy the wicked and restore dharma I take on existence in age after age. (Smith 358)
Lord Krsna identifies himself to Arjuna as the greatest defender of, and the ultimate arbiter of dharma. He is the one who has worked to protect and to guide its course since the beginning of time. Additionally, he claims that he follows this very course that he has protected, guided and laid down. Lord Krsna asks that Arjuna follow his dharma fully and completely without question. However, Lord Krsna’s hypocrisy is evident when he is not speaking with Arjuna. Whenever he is seemingly displaced or hidden from the sight of Arjuna; when he instead must face the realities of battle head-on, Lord Krsna disregards his own supposedly timeless lessons. Time and time again he supports adharma on the battlefield, the location where the dharma of the ksatriyas should be most strongly exemplified. He puts his old goals first and shows a consistent disregard for the life and well-being of others, especially those outside of his immediate inner-circle, and at times those who should be within it. At best his actions say ‘do as I say – pay no attention to what I do’; and, at worst his actions reveal that he is either malevolent or lacking in power, and likely both.
The untrustworthiness of Lord Krsna is revealed consistently throughout the Mahabharata. Even his own family cannot depend upon him to deal honestly or with empathy. This extends even to his own sister, whom he gives Arjuna permission to abduct in order to make her his wife (81). Such an action, even if permissible on the part of Arjuna, seems to be a poor choice on the part of Lord Krsna and likely adharma towards his own family. Even a man who abducted his own wife would most likely be against the abduction of his own sister. Lord Krsna’s, and by extension Arjuna’s, lack of ethics and empathy extend to other women as well, such as Draupadi, the wife of the Pandavas. Following Yudhisthira’s loss at the dice game, Draupadi is violated in front of both the Pandavas and the Kauravas. “Duhsanasana grabbed Draupadi’s garment in the middle of the hall . . . and began to pull it from her.” (147).
Such a traumatizing event it seems, could easily have been thwarted by Lord Krsna, a question which Draupadi herself ponders. Draupadi later speaks of “the terrible treatment she underwent in the hall while her husband did nothing to protect her”. Rather than stopping this in first place, Lord Krsna replies “that the wives of her enemies will weep” (166). From the standpoint of a powerful deity that is supposedly all-knowing and beyond space and time, this seems extremely after the fact. Why would Lord Krsna not have acted at the moment to prevent her violation and public humiliation? Even if he was the one who caused her garments to reappear (147), could he have not have stopped this in the first place? Either Lord Krsna is being honest in that he could not truly help her, which reveals a power limitation on his part; or, Lord Krsna is dishonest and devoid of basic empathy and simply chose not to intervene.
Non-intervention would make sense on the part of Lord Krsna as Draupadi’s violation
