vaividhya (multiplicity)

YAMA: THE UPHOLDER OF RITA/DHARMA

This piece is an attempt to understand the personality of Yama (death) in the backdrop of recent controversy caused by an article by an eminent scholar (Sudheer Chandra, in Hindi daily Janasatta 31 January 2010) where it was pointed out that Yama got enthralled by the flawless beauty of Savitri and granted several boons under her ravishing spell.

Before, coming to the discussion regarding Yama’s character as depicted in Sanskrit texts let me first probe little further whether that very Mahabharata episode incorporated in the Vana Parvan gives any such clue which might have caused Chandra to reach that conclusion. As for as, my reading of this narrative is concerned, for any modern mind this text offers ample testimony for any such interpretation, viz. (a) Yama not only comes in person to take away the life of Satyawan but also reveals his identiy and intentions before Savitri (which surprises her), (b) after having taken away Satyawan’s life Yama does not proceeds toward his quarter invisibly (which is considered to be the quality of gods) rather starts moving slowly in the direction of south and allows Savitri, enough space,to follow him, (c) moreover, Yama not only finds Savitri’s words as water to a thirsty person but he also confesses that he has never heard such words before as of those uttered by Savitri.I think these are the points which might have misled Chandra (I don’t think any modern mind can disregard these points if he/she solely rests his/ her interpretation of Yama’ personality on that very

Mahabharata episode only) to come forth with a sexually tinged exposition of this episode.

However, it’s my contention that in order to make his/her version of interpretation of some mythological character more logical, one is required to make use of all sorts of possible available materials critically so that one could do justice to the personality of the character in question. With regard to the case of Yama, in order to draw a coherent picture of his behavioral pattern, one needs to look at three major episodes available in Sanskrit texts, viz. Yama-Yami dialogue as reported in the 10^th hymn of the X book of Rigveda, Katah Upanishad and famous Savitri episode of Mahabharata. Here it is worth mentioning that in all the three texts Yama’s character shows two sharply distinguishable features (a) a harsh follower and practitioner of Rita (a Vedic concept which means ‘natural order’, this concept is later on taken over by the word Dharma) with a strict sense of justice, and (b) a benevolent and liberal soul who is easy to please. Rest of this piece will be devoted to highlight these two above mentioned qualities of Yama.

In the Yama-Yami dialogue of Rigveda it is reported that Yami, twin sister of Yama, becomes possessed of love for Yama and tried to seduce him of that following was the Yama’s reply;

They stand not still, they never close their eyelids

Those sentinels of gods who wander round us

Not me, go quickly, wanton, with another

Whirl round with him like the wheels of the chariot

Despite this Yami does not leave him rather starts instigating him and tries to arouse his manliness by calling him a weakling, nevertheless, Yama maintained the decorum as required by Rita, and kept on emphasizing the improper nature of the demand which Yami placed before him.

If we analyze the above quoted verse carefully two important points emerge which endorses my contention regarding Yama’s character. Firstly, he tries to make Yami realize the basic fact that they are constantly being guarded by the ever awaken divine sentinels so that one’s indulgence in any such improper act will considered to be the violation of Rita and will cause severe punishment. Secondly, Yama, sets her free to go with anyone, which brings his liberal attitude towards human relationships in light (viewed in the backdrop of multitude of honour killings in some parts of this country Yama’s attitude appears to be strikingly modern and liberal).

Now coming to the narrative given in Katha Upanishad, Yama grants three boons to Nachiketas as he had stayed in his house for three nights without having food and water. This story takes a very dramatic turn at the point, when Nachiketas urged Yama to explain the truth regarding the nature of existence after death, as the third boon. Before conceding to expound this secret and complex situation to Nachiketas, Yamas in his typical bargainer’s style tries to coax Nachiketas with several other attractive offers (including damsels unobtainable to humans which might be taken to be an improper offer considering the tender age of Nachiketas), but Yama being the hardcore adherent of Dharma wanted to be sure whether Nachiketas understands the subtle difference between so called good and gratifying or not and attaches value to good over gratifying or not.

Granting boons magnanimously, while maintaining the basic natural order seems to be part and parcel of Yama’s character, but its not always easy to do justice to both the aspects of one’s character on account of their highly demanding nature as a slight overdoing may cause grave violation to the other. This is what exactly is evidenced in this Savitri episode.

Now, one may ask what made Yama to do this overdoing.

After a careful reading of the Savitri episode of Mahabharata, it appears to be the case that this very episode comes under the section where the holy sage Markandeya was relating virtue eulogistic legends to console the banished Pandavas, thus the narrative itself is structured in such a way that Yama had to be defeated by the dint of Savitri’s Pati Vrat Dharma (Sheer devotion to her husband). If we see a generous and judicious character like Yama portrayed in such type of narrative structure its not difficult to understand that why this all happened in such a way, in other words, Yama could have only been defeated by becoming over generous. Moreover, we find that Savitri tries her best to invoke the most liberal humane side of Yama by appreciating him for his hardcore judicious stance which Yama, as expected, found very attractive.

Apart from these, a section of Maitrayani Shakha of black Yajurrveda narrates a fascinating story of the death of Yama and subsequently the grief of Yami, alludes to a kind of interpretation from where Yama appears to be a mortal who got elevated to the position of death god, on account of his being ardent practitioner of Dharma and his judicious nature, after his death.

Thus in the light of above mentioned facts it’s hard (if not impossible, as one must allow scope for multiple readings) to accept any kind of sexual tinge in the Savitri-Yama episode (if we allow such sexual interpretations without sufficient textual support one must be ready to confront a situation when citing Yama’s generosity for Nachiketas someone may adorn him with the tag of homosexual).

SPIRITUALISM vs SEXISM

I often find it hard to understand, why is it that for most of the times we ought to conceptualize things in terms of polar opposite notions, so much so that the adherence to one requires the complete denial of other. It’s not the case that I am unaware of the fact that maintenance of these so called opposite categories provides us with necessary tools for the theoretical understanding of these categories; however, we need to proceed with this unavoidable caution that with such a tool we will only have partial understanding of these concepts in terms of their intricate interrelationships. Here, for instance, let’s consider what makes people think that spirituality necessarily involves negation to sexism. As a matter of fact, most of our Rishis (sages), following Varnashrama, didn’t hesitate in cherishing desire for beautiful ladies while pursuing spiritualism. As for as, my own take on this (and other similar issues) is concerned, undoubtedly,I find this to be a healthy practice (in terms of amalgamation of right proportion of subjective and objective necessities), so that both soul and body could attain required nourishment. Here, it is important to emphasize the fact that this idea is only intended to support the view that there is nothing called pure negative, and we need to allow a synthetic approach in order to have a sort of practical understanding of these concepts rather than treating them to be irreconcilably wide apart like never meeting banks of a river.

SALVATION vs BONDAGE

There is a huge body of literature especially in spiritual-philosophical literature on these polar opposite concepts, but here I shall confine myself in the realm of Indian philosophical traditions only. As soon as the idea of salvation is defined in terms of non-attachment and their by ultimately reaching to a level from where there is no returning back, the very concept of bondage being polar opposite to salvation naturally got related to the notion of attachment resulting in the constant involvement in the process of coming and going, i.e. in the so called notorious concept of cycle of rebirth, without giving a second thought to the concept of salvation itself in terms of its exact nature.

Here it is interesting to note that it’s often not clear what it is exactly people crave for salvation or bondage. To my mind, this is one of the most difficult issues which could not be resolved easily, as a matter of fact; it appears that beyond a certain level either of these concepts will be intolerable. Then the question is what we desire for??????

As a kind of solution it seems to be a fairly logical contention to hold that we seek a kind of equilibrium i.e. to say equal proportion of detachment and attachment both.

The kind of concepts suggested in some schools of Indian philosophy, as salvations in terms of Moksha or Nirvana do not, in my opinion, appear to be as dynamic a process which could have suited highly dynamic human life.

FRIENDSHIP vs ACQUAINTANCE

One may wonder what caused this man to explore this issue, as a matter of fact I have always been a keen observer if not a sincere explorer of conditions which play key role in the making of human relationships at various levels. For more than a year or so, I am struggling to understand a term which defines a sort of relationship generally ranked slightly lower than friendship proper, but yet to realize its significance fully, or in other words more and more its import is revealed before me more I become aware of the futility of this concept.

Out of variety of human relationships, I find friendship most worth noting as it involves comparatively more freedom of choice and its highly mutual nature (in contrast to blood relationships, marital relationships, love relationships etc.). Certainly, this is not to suggest that friendship is a sort of monolithic relationship, rather it’s a kind of multidimensional scale ranging from best to worst friends and placing many somewhere in between. In a discussion, one psychology wala told me that generally friendship is defined as a relationship which has two constituent parts INTIMACY and COMMITMENT. Then, if we take these two above mentioned elements as defining features one may be tempted to characterize acquaintance as follows;

ACQUAINTANCE = INTIMACY – (minus) COMMITMENT

However, my ever doubting mind is yet to accept this (acquaintance) as a sort of term defining human relationships, especially, in the light of this fact that we have multi-dimensional friendship scale. Rather I consider it as a kind of euphemism where one refers to someone as acquaintance if one does not want to hurt him/her but at the same time cannot ignore him/her altogether.

PRAISE vs CRITICISM

This is to share my bewilderment in understanding human behavior with special reference to the question of peoples’ praise and criticism for others. In other words, here aim is to express my ways of understanding the grammar of above mentioned behavior, what actually one does when he/she praises or criticizes someone. It seems that this very act of praise or criticism is preceded by the following acts/processes.

LIKING /DISLIKING

CONFORMITY /NONCONFORMITY

It has often been reported that same act may cause two distinct responses (in this case praise or criticism) from the same person depending on whether someone likes or dislikes the person concerned. In turn, what makes someone like/dislike the other can best be viewed in terms of conformity/nonconformity. It appears to be a general tendency that we like similar persona that is to say that conform to us in their behavioral pattern and dislike others who behave differently. This can be shown graphically in the following linear order one followed by another.

CONFORMITY/NONCONFORMITY > LIKING/DISLIKING > PRAISE/CRITICISM

PANDIT vs PANDEY

In this page I am going to narrate the story of a change which may seem to be too obvious a priory but difficult to get it derive correctly instead. This is not only about how words evolve in course of time with regard to its form but focus is on how people conceptualize social relations differently through time and words, as the bearer of social import not only change form but also location in order to accommodate the changing world.

Now imagine in what way this very word Pandit ‘learned’ could be related to the obvious caste marking surname (Brahmins) Pandey. When we look at these two words the very first thing which comes in our mind is their utter similarity in terms of form. However the problem is how to discover the middle stages which pandit might have undergone before appearing in the form of pandey.

PROBABLE DERIVATION

Pandit > panditeya > pandey

Stage one:

In Sanskrit it is possible that the word Pandit ‘learned’ became panditeya ‘descendants of pandit’

Till this period this word was used as epithet to be attached to the left of the proper names (this word is still used as an epithet especially with the name of artists like pt. Bhim Sen Joshi etc.)

Stage two:

In the prakrit stage there was a tendency to eliminate the consonants placed between two vowels.

So, v-c-v structure of the ite of panditeya got simplified into pandey.

Now, interestingly, this change affecting the form of the word got accompanied by another change which changed the role of this word altogether. In the other words, the process ended up with two words out of one with the distinct roles assigned to each of them, pandit appears to the left and the right sides of proper names playing the role of both epithet and caste surname too, on the other hand its derivative pandey appearing to the right of proper names denotes caste surname only.

Verses Series