Mahåbhårata as Vedic literature

	In Chapter 86 of the K®ß∫a Book, ¸rîla Prabhupåda states, “We understand that with the breathing of the Supreme Personality of Godhead there issued forth the four Vedas, namely the ‰g Veda, the Såma Veda, the Yajur Veda and the Atharva Veda, and the histories like the Mahåbhårata and all the Purå∫as, which are also considered to be the history of the world. The Vedic histories like the Purå∫as and Mahåbhårata are called the fifth Veda.
	¸rîla Prabhupåda further claims that the Mahåbhårata was “made from related historical facts which explained the teaching of the four Vedas,” and that the epic is thus part and parcel of the Vedas, and carries the same scriptural authority. He quotes to this effect a statement from the Chåndogya Upanißad (7.1.4): 
By name there is the ‰g-veda, the Yajur-veda, the Såma-veda, and the Atharvå as the fourth. The histories and Purå∫as are the fifth Veda among the Vedas.

A similar statement is found in the ¸rîmad-Bhågavatam (1.4.20):
The four Vedas, known as ‰g, Yaju˙, Såma, and Atharva, were separated out [by Vyåsa], and the histories and Purå∫as are said to be the fifth Veda.

There is virtually unanimous agreement that the term itihåsa, “history” refers quintessentially to the Mahåbhårata, and the great epic itself concords that it is indeed the “fifth Veda” (MB 1.57.74): “Vyåsa taught the Vedas, of which Mahåbhårata is the fifth, to Sumantu, Jaimini, Paila, and also to his own son ¸uka.”
What does it mean to be the “fifth Veda”? To get closer to this notion, we will survey briefly all of the statements in the first two books of the Mahåbhårata which directly refer to the relationship between the epic and the Vedas. In the first book, the Ådi-parva, it is stated that the text of the Mahåbhårata is “adorned with the meanings, or purposes, of the Vedas,”  and that this great historical collection is “united with the four Vedas.” Thus as quoted above, the epic is said to be the fifth Veda.
The point is then taken a step farther: “The histories and Purå∫as enrich and reinforce the Veda, and thus the Veda fears one who does not know the epic. ‘Because of scant education, he will pass over me’ (i.e. my real meaning)..” In its first book, the Mahåbhårata twice refers to itself, in identical terms, as the Kå®ß∫a Veda, or the K®ß∫a Veda. Here the term kå®ß∫a, “of K®ß∫a,” refers to the divine sage and author of the epic, Vyåsadeva, who was called K®ß∫a because of his swarthy complexion. Not only is the Mahåbhårata in these two verses said to be a Veda, but a Veda intimately connected with Vyåsa, who is said throughout this and other scriptures to be the one who divided and organized the Vedas in their current form. Thus it is signficiant that the Mahåbhårata identifies itself as the special Vyåsa-veda of Veda-Vyåsa himself. 
Having established itself as part and parcel of the Vedas, and even as the special Veda of K®ß∫a Dvaipåyana Vyåsa, the epic then claims that indeed it is superior to the four Vedas:
Once the godly sages placed the four Vedas on one side of a scale, and on the other side they placed a single text, the Mahåbhårata. Both in greatness and weight the Bhårata  was superior. 

It is further claimed that the Mahåbhårata history is the best of Vedic texts, for its purpose is highest, as much as the soul is the best of things to be known, and life itself most important among things we hold dear. Indeed, “a twice-born bråhma∫a who knows the four Vedas with the Upanißads but who doesn’t know this narration (Mahåbhårata) certainly cannot be an truly learned.” Thus it is natural that during the intervals of a great sacrifice, while the twice-born sages narraged topics related to the Vedas, the greatest sage of all, Vyåsa, chose to constantly recite the great narration of the Mahåbhårata.
Vyåsa’s disciple, VaiΩampåyana, glorifies the Mahåbhårata with these words:
This ultimate purifier [Mahåbhårata] stands together with the Vedas. This ancient work, glorified by sages, is the ultimate among things which are to be heard (MB 1.56.15).

In his commentary on Vedånta-sütra 2.1.6 (d®Ωyate tu), ¸rîla Madhvåcårya cites two verses from the Bhavißya Purå∫a which nicely express the Gau∂îya Vaiß∫ava perception of Vedic literature as authoritative, self-evident truth:
The ‰g, Yajur, Såma, and Atharva Vedas, the Mahåbhårata, the Pañcaråtraka, and the original Råmåya∫a as well, are all declared to be “Veda.” Those who know also recognize in this context those Purå∫as which aim at Viß∫u. All these are self-evident, and there is nothing to interpret here.

The Sanskrit word for scripture, Ωåstra, indicates that which has the power to command us, to rule and govern us, to administer justice, to teach and inform. Thus, in the Bhagavad-gîta, Lord K®ß∫a states:
One who gives up the rule of scripture lives by acting on selfish desires. Such a person does not obtain perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination. Therefore, knowing that scripture is evidence in determining what you should do and should not do, you ought to perform work that is sanctioned by scriptural injunctions (Bg 16.23–24).

As mentioned earlier, the Vedic scriptures are self-evident. Thus in the Caitanya-caritåm®ta, we find this statement from ¸rî Caitanya Mahåprabhu: “The Veda is evident by itself. It is the crown-jewel of all evidence. By interpreting it, the self-evident quality is lost” (CC 1.7.132).
The use of self-evident Vedic knowledge nonetheless involves a series of checks and balances. For example, one’s conclusion must be reasonable and there must be a broad concordance with the various divisions of Vedic evidence. ¸rîla Prabhupåda captures both of these notions in discussing in a discussion of the three prasthånas  or points of departure for evidence: 
The Vedånta-sütra is known as nyåya-prasthåna, the Upanißads are known as Ωruti- prasthåna, and the Gîtå, Mahåbhårata and Purå∫as are known as sm®ti-prasthåna. All scientific knowledge of transcendence must be supported by Ωruti, sm®ti and a sound logical basis. (CC 1.5.41p).

Similarly, in the Bhagavad-gîtå, Lord K®ß∫a declares:
That knowledge of the field of activities and of the knower of the activities is described by various sages in various Vedic writings. It is especially presented in Vedånta-sütra with all reasoning as to cause and effect (Bg 13.5). 

Thus the Vedånta reasons from the evidence of the Upanißads to conclusions about the nature of Brahman, the Absolute Truth.
¸rîla Prabhupåda states that  “The purpose of the Mahåbhårata is to administer the purpose of the Vedas…” (¸B 1.44.25p). What are the purposes of the Vedas. One of the most important is to signal and predict the appearances of God in this world. Within the Vaiß∫ava tradition, especially among Gau∂îya Vaiß∫avas, the Mahåbhårata plays a crucial role in this regard.

As stated in the Bhavißya-purå∫a:
The ‰g Veda, Sama Veda, Atharva Veda, Mahåbhårata, Pañcaråtra and original Råmåya∫a are all considered by authorities to be Veda. The knowers also know that those Purå∫as dedicated to Lord Viß∫u to enjoy the same status. These literatures are self-evident, and there is nothing at all to speculate about them.

Bhag. 1.4.19: Above the four Vedas are the Purå∫as, the Mahåbhårata, the saµhitås, etc., which are known as the fifth Veda. ¸rî Vyåsadeva and his many disciples were all historical personalities and they were very kind and sympathetic toward the fallen souls of this age of Kali. As such, the Purå∫as and Mahåbhårata were made from related historial facts which explained the teaching of the four Vedas. There is no point in doubting the authority of the Purå∫as and Mahåbhårata as part and parcels of the Vedas. In the Chåndogya Upanißad (7.1.4) the Purå∫as and Mahåbhårata, generally known as histories, are mentioned a the fifth Veda. According to ¸rîla Jîva Gosvåmî, that is the way of ascertaining the respective values of the revealed scriptures.

Authority for incarnations

	¸rîla Prabhupåda states that, “The purpose of the Mahåbhårata is to administer the purpose of the Vedas…” (¸B 1.44.25p). What are the purposes of theVedas? One of the most important is to signal and predict the appearance of God in this world. Within the Vaiß∫ava tradition, especially among Gaudiya Vaiß∫avas, the Mahåbhårata plays a crucial role in this regard.
	The Caitanya-caritåm®ta is perhaps the most important and authoritative account of the life and teachings of ¸rî Caitanya Mahåprabhu. There in the third chapter of the Ådi-lîlå, the author K®ß∫a dåsa Kaviråja, argues that,

¸rîmad-Bhågavatam, Mahåbhårata, the Purå∫as and other Vedic literatures all give evidence to prove that Lord ¸rî Krsna Caitanya Mahaprabhu is the incarnation of Krsna (C.C. 1.3.84).

	Similarly, when one of Caitanya Mahåprabhu’s followers, Gopînåtha Åcårya was trying to convince his brother-in-law, Sårvabhauma Bha††åcårya, that Caitanya Mahåprabhu was K®ß∫a Himself, Sårvabhauma, who was a leading logician of his day in the Nava-nyåya school, replied, “¸rî Caitanya Mahåprabhu is certainly a great, uncommon devotee, but we cannot accept Him as an incarnation of Lord Viß∫u because, according to Ωåstra, there is no incarnation in this age of Kali. Another name for Lord Viß∫u is Triyuga because there is no incarnation of Lord Viß∫u in Kali-yuga. Indeed, this is the verdict of revealed scriptures.” It is significant that in reply to this argument, Gopînåtha Åcårya stated:

Srîmad-Bhågavatam and Mahåbhårata are the two most important Vedic scriptures, but you have paid no attention to their statements. In Srîmad-Bhågavatam and Mahåbhårata it is stated that the Lord appears directly, but you say that in this age there is no manifestation or incarnation of Lord Viß∫u (CC 2.6.97–98).

	 Not only is the Mahåbhårata here said to be authoritative within the Gau∂îya Vaiß∫ava tradition, but it is accepted, along with the ¸rîmad-bhågavatam as the most important and authoritative of scriptures, dui Ωåstrer pradhåna.
	Later in the Caitanya-caritåm®ta, Brahmånanda Bhåratî cites the following verse from the Viß∫u-sahasra-nåma-stotra of the Mahåbhårata as a reference to the divine appearence of ¸rî Caitanya Mahåprabhu:

His bodily hue is golden, and His whole body is like molten gold. Every part of His body is very beautifully constructed and smeared with sandalwood pulp. Accepting the renounced order, the Lord is always equipoised. He is firmly fixed in His mission of chanting the Hare Krsna mantra, and He is firmly situated in His dualistic conclusion and in His peace (CC 2.10.170).

	One may claim that ¸rî Caitanya Mahåprabhu certainly fits well the description in this verse, and yet the reference to Him is not fully explicit. ¸rîla Prabhupåda anticipates such an objection in his commentary on Bhagavad-gîtå, verse 4.8, “Lord Caitanya as the incarnation of K®ß∫a, the Personality of Godhead, is described secretly but not directly in the confidential parts of the revealed scriptures, such as the Upanißads, Mahåbhårata and Bhågavatam.”
	And a bona fide incarnation of God must conform to such descriptions.
	So an avatåra must conform to the descriptions in the Upanißads, ¸rîmad-Bhågavatam, Mahåbhårata, and other Vedic literatures. And on the authority of Vedic literature and the commentary of great, stalward gosvåmîs like Jîva Gosvåmî, who was the greatest scholar and philosopher in the world, we can accept Lord Caitanya as an incarnation of K®ß∫a.

	Finally, it appears that even in the period immediately following the original composition of the Mahåbhårata, there is great demand for it. For example, we find this statement describing how Vyåsadeva personally taught the Mahåbhårata to an eager world:
Being requested by Janamejaya, and by thousands of Bråhma∫as, [Vyåsa] taught his disciple VaiΩampåyana who was seated near him. 

Paramparå

	In the Bhagavad-gîtå, Lord K®ß∫a explains that the one should learn the spiritual science from those who have “seen the truth”:
	
	Understand that (process of sacrifice of God). by submission, all around inquiries and service. Those who have knowledge will teach you knowledge for they have seen the truth (Bg 4.34). 

	In the second chapter of the Gîtå, Arjuna formally accepts Lord K®ß∫a as his own spiritual master: “Tell me what is definitely best for me. I am your disciple, command me for I am surrendered to you.” 
	Lord K®ß∫a further explains in the Gîtå  the process called paramparå, by which authorized Vedic knowledge descends from master to disciple in an unbroken chain. Lord K®ß∫a insists that in ancient times, all the saintly kings and sages understand the spiritual science through that system of paramparå: “This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way” (Bg 4.2).
	In the ¸rîmad-Bhågavatam, there is a statement in which Vyåsa himself claims that he has presented the Mahåbhårata precisely to illustrate this process of descending knowledge: “I have shown the import of disciplic succession through the explanation of the Mahåbhårata…” (¸B 1.4.29).
	This “import of disciplic succession” is indeed shown quite clearly at the very beginning of the Mahåbhårata, for the great epic opens in the sacred forest of Naimißåra∫ya, as Süta, who like his father, Romaharßa∫a is a reciter of ancient histories, approaches an assembly of sages headed by ¸aunaka who are engaged in a twelve year religious sacrifice in the holy forest. The sages duly welcome Süta and after brief formalities he reveals that he personally attended the terrible snake-killing sacrifice of the exalted King Janamejaya, and there, during the intervals of the rite, he heard the Mahåbharata of ¸rî Vyåsa, recited by the author’s disciple VaiΩampåyana. The eager saints press him to recite the fascinating story of the Mahåbhårata, and we are underway. In other words, Süta immediately locates himself within the paramparå structure, which must be rooted in the direct speaking of God, or a recognized incarnation of God such as Vyåsa. It should be kept in mind that in order for the paramparå to be effective so that there is a genuine transmission of transcendental knowledge, the audience must also be qualified. (Chapter 4, page 1: the sages defer to ¸aunaka who would choose the proper topic. This shows paramparå.).
	Thus, in the second verse of the first chapter, the sages who will hear from Süta are themelves revealed to be learned in the Absolute Truth, or in the Vedic knowledge which reveals that truth (brahma-®ßaya˙). They are similarly said to be living in a spiritual community (åΩrama-våsina˙ 1.3); serious and spiritual thinkers (munîn, sadbhi˙ 1.4); dedicated to austerity (tapasvina˙ 1.5); spiritually self-realized, (brahma-bhütå hi me matå˙ 1.12); religiously dutiful (k®tåbhißekå˙, k®ta-japyå˙, hutågnaya˙ 1.13); and "twice-born men, situated in their real identity" (sva-sthå, dvijå˙ 1.13)
	It was such an impressive group of men who joyfully welcomed Süta, who then spoke to them the Mahåbhårata. Such a qualified audience facilitates the proper transmission of transcendental literatures. ¸rîla Prabhupåda states, “The difficulty is that such literatures, when discussed by professional men, appear to be mundane literature like histories or epics because there are so many historical facts and figures. It is said here, therefore, that such literatures should be discussed in the assembly of devotees” (¸B  2.3.14). 
	The speaker, Süta, is hardly similarly qualified. The first verse of the epic history describes Süta as a learned scholar of the ancient histories (paurå∫ika), of such fame that he is called ugra-Ωravå˙, “one of awesome reputation.”  When the sages request him to speak the Mahåbhårata, Süta begins by offering his obeisances to the Supreme Lord Viß∫u (ådyam purußam îΩånam, MB 1.1.20)., whom he identifies with Lord K®ß∫a (namas-k®tya h®ßîkeΩam caråcara-gurum harim, MB 1.1.22).. Having glorified the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and having already stated (MB 1.1.3-9) that he heard the Mahåbhårata, originally spoken by Vyåsa, from the author’s disciple VaiΩampåyana, Süta then declares: “I shall now narrate the entire epic as taught by Vyåsa, that great and broadminded sage honored by all”  (MB 1.1.23). 
	From the standpoint of Vedic culture, it is idle to envision Süta as a mere poet or bard, conjuring tall tales to amuse an ordinary audience. He is rather a prominent link in the chain of paramparå, or disciplic succession, the crucial channel through which timeless knowledge descends, as described by Lord K®ß∫a in the Bhagavad-gîtå:

I spoke this unperishing science of yoga to the sun-god Vivasvån, Vivasvån spoke it to Manu, and Manu told it to Ikßvåku. The saints and kings thus understood it as it was received through paramparå (Bg 4.1-2). 

	Thus it is made crystal clear at the very beginning of the Mahåbhårata that it was by the order of his guru, Vyåsa, that the sage VaiΩampåyana properly narrated the epic at a religious sacrifice:
	 We are dealing here not merely with creative poets and entertainment-loving audiences, but with the grave transmission of sacred knowledge. Thus Süta describes the Mahåbhårata as “very holy, variegated narrations” (su-pu∫yå vividhå˙ kathå˙, MB 1.1.9), originally spoken by Vyåsadeva (k®ß∫å-dvaipåyana-proktå˙)., and then recounted according to rules, by his disciple VaiΩampåyana (kathitåΩ cåpi vidhivad yå vaiΩampåyanena vai, emphasis mine). Similarly, Süta declares: “I shall speak the entire thesis of the great sage Vyåsa of unmeasured might” (maharße˙... pravakßyåmi mataµ k®tsnam vyåsasyåmita-tejasa˙, MB 1.1.23).
	The grave and sacred nature of the transmission is also shown in verses 20 to 22 of the first chapter, wherein Süta offers his obseisances to, and glorifies, the Supreme Lord Viß∫u, or K®ß∫a. The idea is that narration of sacred history cannot be successful without the blessings of the Supreme. Both the wordly skill of the narrator to remember and speak well the history, and the spiritual potency of his presentation to purify the audience, all depend on God’s blessings which descend through the transparent via media of the paramparå.
	There is clearly a spiritual strategy here to present colorful topics (vividhå˙ kathå˙) that lead to virtue and righteousness (pu∫ya-kathå˙ dharma-saµΩritå˙, MB 1.1.14). The typical scenario in such meetings of holy speakers and saintly audiences is a conscious collaboration between speaker and hearers to generate a spiritual discourse that will survive the immediate historical environment and emrge as an authentic scripture with the potency to purify and ultimately save the world. So the sages tell Süta: “we desire to hear this virtuous compendium which drives away the danger of sin” (saµhitåµ Ωrotum icchåmo dharmyåm påpa-bhayåpahåm, MB 1.1.19).
	Apart from Vyåsa, there are other sages mentioned in the Mahåbhårata who possess a kind of God-given right to declare special rules of morality and custom. I will give three examples of this from the first book, the Ådi-parva. In each case, the sage establishes a maryådå, a rule or law which defines the bounds or limits of morality and propriety.
	In chapter seventy-one, the demonic Asuras trick their venerable guru into drinking the pulverized remains of his student Kaca, which the demons have placed in ¸ukra’s liquor. The exalted priest, realizing what has happened, raises himself and establishes a new maryådå for bråhma∫as:

From this day one, any Bråhma∫a who out of delusion, and being dull-witted, shall drink liquor, shall become a killer of the brahminical culture, and will be bereft of his religious principles, and shall be condemned in this world and the next.” ¸ukra then states that he has uttered a sîmå, a limit or boundary on the religious duties of Bråhma∫as, and he has thus established a maryådå (MB 1.71.53–55).

	Similarly, when the sage Ma∫∂avya concludes that the lord of death has unfairly punished him, he declares, 

Today, I establish a maryådå in the world regarding the result of law: up to the fourteenth year, an act will not be criminal, but after that age those who so act will be held at fault (MB 1.101.26). 

	In the third and final example, På∫∂u is cursed and cannot personally conceive a child, he tries to convince his devoted wife Kuntî to conceive a son with another qualified man. To encourage her, he claims that in a remote past, women were allowed to freely conceive children with men other than their husbands. It was only by a later maryådå declared by the young sage ¸vetaketu that things changed. Furious to see that in the presence of his father, a bråhma∫a was taking away his mother for intercourse, ¸vetaketu uttered a series of new rules amounting to the normal Vedic custom of marityal chastity to which Kuntî powerfully adhered (MB 1.113.15–20). På∫∂u concludes his story by telling his wife, “Thus formerly, O timid one, Uddålaka’s son ¸vetaketu established a righteous maryådå by force” (MB 1.113-20).
	Such customs or rules, contained in the scriptures and approved by great Åcåryas, saintly leaders, become authoritative in their own right, although such detailed injunctions are not to be confused with sanåtana-dharma, eternal laws of God that are valid in all times and places, absolutely. In any case, all such rules and injunctions are carried down through time in the chain of paramparå. Both the scripture, and the qualified saintly teacher are required to keep the tradition fresh and alive. In his introduction to the ¸rîmad-Bhågavatam, ¸rîla Prabhupåda states:  

Many... great and renowned scholars and devotees of the Lord have prepared voluminous books and literatures on the life and precepts of the Lord. Such literatures are all based on the Ωåstras like the Vedas, Purå∫as, Upanißads, Råmåya∫a, Mahåbhårata and other histories and authentic literatures approved by the recognized Åcåryas” (¸B Intro. p 5). 

	Significantly, Prabhupåda here states that the scriptures and the great Åcåryas mutually confirm each other. The Åcåryas reveal in their lives and words the truth of the scriptures, and the scriptures reveal the identity of the bona fide representative of God.
	The Gau∂îya Vaiß∫avas trace their link to Vyåsa through Madhvåcårya who is said to have directly contacted Vyåsa. ¸rîla Prabhupåda states: “When he met Vyåsadeva, he received from him the ¸alagråma-silå known as Aß†a-mürti. After this, he summarized the Mahåbhårata” (CC 2.9.245).
	The paramparå, the divine channel through which knowledge of the Absolute Truth descends, is flourishing throughout the higher planets of the universe. ¸rîla Prabhupåda declares:

¸ukadeva Gosvåmî (Brahmaråta): The famous son and disciple of ¸rî Vyåsadeva, who taught him first the Mahåbhårata and then ¸rîmad-Bhågavatam. ¸ukadeva Gosvåmî recited 1,400,000 verses of the Mahåbhårata in the councils of the Gandharvas, Yakßas and Råkßasas” (¸B 1.9.8).

	The Mahåbhårata gives similar information:

Dvaipåyana [Vyåsa] first taught his son ¸uka, and then the lord gave this epic to other suitable disciples. Nårada taught it to the gods, Asita-devala to the forefathers, and ¸uka certainly taught it to the Gandharvas, Yakßas and Råkßasas” (MB 1.1.63–64).

	The method by which a sincere disciple pleases his guru and obtains knowledge from him is nicely illustrated in the third chapter of the Ådi-parva in the story of the teacher Ayoda-dhaumya and his three students, each of whom had to possess a unique sort of examination to gain the guru’s favor. We should pay special attention here to the epistemological notion that the guru has the power to reveal true Vedic understanding to a sincere disciple. For instance, in the guru-disciple relationship bewteen Ayoda-dhaumya and his faithful disciple Åru∫i of Påñcåla, it is said, “He was blessed by his teacher: ‘because you have abided by my order, therefore you shall achieve good fortune. And all the Vedas shall be revealed to you, and all the dharma-Ωåstras” (MB 1.3.30). The same guru later said to a second disciple, Upamanyu, “As the two AΩvins said, so shall you achieve good fortune. All the Vedas shall be revealed to you” (MB 1.3.77).
 	It is significant that this short history, or upåkhyåna is placed at the beginning of the epic, which boldly declares itself to be a Vedic literature. The clear message seems to be that a proper understanding of the Mahåbhårta itself is to be gleaned through the via medium of a genuine spiritual preceptor. Certainly this is the way the sages at NaimiΩåra∫ya, headed by ¸aunaka, took the matter, as did the great king Janamejaya.
	At times the same process of a guru-disciple relationship is deployed to gain material wisdom and prowess, as in the story of Kaca who became a most faithful disciple of ¸ukra in order to gain the power of bring dead warriors back to life (MB 1.71–72).

Vyåsa author

	There is virtually unanimous agreement among traditional Vedic teachers that the author of the Mahåbhårata is the divine sage Vyåsa. Thus the famous ¸aõkara, in the preface to his commentary on Bhagavad-gîtå, declares:
	 
	Salutations to thee, O Vyåsa.
	Thou art of mighty intellect,
	And thine eyes
	Are large as the petals
	Of the full-blown lotus.
	 It was thou
	Who brightened this lamp of wisdom,
	Filling it with the oil
	Of the Mahåbhårata.

	Similarly, for ¸rîla Prabhupåda, there was nothing mythical about the authorship of Vyåsa, nor about the historicity of the Mahåbhårata. Thus: “Mahåbhårata is the history of the ancient world, and Vyasadeva is the writer of this great epic” (SSR Ch 3). 

	¸rî Vyåsadeva and his many disciples were all historical personalities, and they were very kind and sympathetic toward the fallen souls of this age of Kali (¸B 1.4.19 ).

	“¸rîla Vyåsadeva is called Mahå-muni. He…compiled the Mahåbhårata, which is accepted as the fifth Veda” (CC 2.20.353p).
	There is a wide consensus within the Vedic literatures that Vyåsa is a divine incarnation who first divided the Veda into four more comprehensible divisions, and then edited the historical epics and Purå∫as. That Vyåsa is the original author of the Mahåbhårata is stated ubiquitously throughout the text. The first book of the Mahåbhårata states at least three times that it is he also who divided the original Veda. For instance,
	“Vyåsa, the son of Satyavatî, by austerity and celibate life, divided the eternal Veda and arranged this pious history (Mahåbhårata).” This coincides precisely with the version of the ¸rîmad-Bhågavatam (¸B 1.4.19–25) and numerous other Vedic literatures. Indeed the very name vyåsa means “the divider” or “the arranger.”
	What was Vyåsa’s motive? He saw that in this fallen age, people could hardly understand the original Vedas and so he presented the same basic spiritual path in the form of histories, with war, romance etc. ¸rîla Prabhupåda comments, “¸rîla Vyåsadeva, Mahå-muni, compiled the Vedic literature for the benefit of all human society. If one wants to be protected from the reactions of ignorance even in this age of Kali, one may consult the books left by ¸rîla Vyåsadeva, Upanißads, Vedånta-sütra (Brahma-sütra), Mahåbhårata, ¸rîmad-Bhågavatam Mahå-purå∫a (Vyåsadeva’s commentary on the Brahma-sütra) and the other seventeen Purå∫as. Only by the mercy of ¸rîla Vyåsadeva do we have so many volumes of transcendental knowledge to save us from the clutches of ignorance” (¸B 6.8.19p).
	The following description of the spiritual powers of Vyåsa is typical of the Mahåbhårata text: 
		“Pure, true to his vow, poetic and scholarly, a seer of the absolute, the finest of Vedic knowers, Vyåsa divided the one Veda into four” (MB 1.54.5). Similarly, he is frequently described as bhagavån ®ßi˙, “an exalted sage” or indeed a sage who is a lord, or an incarnation of the Lord. In fact, in the ¸rîmad-Bhågavatam (1.3.21) Vyåsa is formally listed as an empowered incarnation of the Supreme Lord.
	To say that Vyåsa is an incarnation of the Lord and that, with the powers one would expect in such a divine figure, he wrote the Bhårata is a metaphysical, a spiritual claim. Similarly to deny this claim is equally a metaphysical or religious claim. It is remarkable how many mundane scholars, in the name of objectivity, commit themselves to metaphysical, religious positions by denying the metaphysical, religious positions of Vedic religion. To deny or affirm a proposition is to claim expert knowledge within the area in which that proposition occurs. Thus for example in order to correct a spelling test, the teacher must know the correct spelling of the words to mark the students’ attempts right or wrong. To mark an answer “right” does not require more or less knowledge than to mark it “wrong.” Similarly, to deny a religious claims requires religious knowledge, in fact the same religious knowledge required to affirm the same claim. Therefore to deny the spiritual claim that Vyåsa is the author of the Vedas is to commit oneself to a counter-spiritual position. To do this in the name of material objectivity is silliness at best. 
	It also follows, as ¸rîla Prabhupåda points out, that from the spiritual point of view just as the great Vyåsa compiled the Mahåbhårata through his personal purity, so an aspiring scholar or knower of the epic must follow in the line of Vyåsa. 

A gosvåmî, or the bona fide representative of ¸rî Vyåsadeva, must be free from all kinds of vices… before he can dare sit on the vyåsåsana” (¸B 1.1.6).

History – itihåsa

In its first book, the Mahåbhårata describes itself and its contents nineteen times as itihåsa or history. Because the epic describes events, powers, and beings beyond the range of contemporary empirical understanding, modern scholars tend to dismiss this claim and they do not hestitate to reclassify the work as a myth or an epic fiction.
The Sanskrit word itihåsa is a composite of three elements:  iti -- thus; ha --  verily; åsa -- it was. So itihåsa literally means, “Thus verily it was,” and indicates a historical narration. 
The Mahåbhårata defines itself not only as an itihåsa or history, but as the very finest of all histories. At times, it views itself as a compendium of histories, complete with historical interpretations. The Mahåbhårata also assumes that its own historigraphical genre falls squarely within the broad corpus of Vedic literature. Thus, “as soon as Vyåsa was born, he studied the Vedas… which included the histories.” It is also said that “having a most important purpose, this history is the best of sacred literatures.”
Vedic historical literature seems to stand in a special relationship to another class of literature called Purå∫as. The Sanskrit word purå∫a means “ancient, that which belongs to olden times,” and the eighteen principal Purå∫as often recount ancient histories similar to those described in the Mahåbhårata. The juxtaposition of these two kinds of Vedic literature can be directly seen in three instances within the Ådi-parva. We are told that “one should enrich and reinforce one’s study of the Veda with the Itihåsas and Purå∫as.” Similarly, in consecutive verses, the Mahåbhårata is called first a purå∫a and then an itihåsa. And finally, in describing the education of the three Kuru princes, Dh®taråß†ra, På∫∂u and Vidura, they are said to have become masters of many scriptures, including “the itihåsas and Purå∫as.” Significantly, it is to be understood from this statement that the Mahåbhårata is not the first historical work, since before its compilation, the Kuru princes already had facility to study histories. Similarly, we may note that Vyåsa himself, the author of the Mahåbhårata, is said to have studied histories in his youth. 
The Itihåsas and Purå∫as are further linked in the B®had-åra∫yaka Upanißad, and in the Chåndogya Upanißad wherein they are said to be the “fifth Veda”.
The Mahåbhårata presents itself as a real historical account, and not as myth or epic fiction. Thus when Nårada tells the five På∫∂ava brothers that he is going to tell them an ancient history of two demonic brothers, he emphasizes that he will narrate the history yathå-v®ttam, “just as it occured.” Similarly, the history of the the slaying of Pulomå and the birth of Cyavana is described as “This history which thus occured in the past.”   
There is even an interesting statement in the Sabhå Parva in which it is said that the personified histories, itihåsas, are present in the great hall of Brahmå and there attend upon the cosmic creator.

Histories of different planets and eons
Any writer of history must exercise selectivity in his or her work, since no one can record the totality of events that take place even within a single hour, and far less the events that occur within decades, centuries, millenia, etc. One tries to select what is significant and illustrative and to reject the opposite. Our sense of the historically important rests on our sense of what is important in general within the world. Who are we? What do we need to know? What is valuable for the world, for people, for myself? Whether or not a historian explicitly confronts these fundamental issues, they inform his or her work. 
For example, although a person who sees the snow, or the tropics, for the first time may try to record with pen or camera the slightest details of the experience. Similarly, the modern historian, with his short, linear tale of the birth, growth, flourishing, and possible demise of humankind, grasps onto the minutest historical details. The notion of a unique evolving cosmos fixes crucial value on all that has led up to this current instant which is the very frontier of reality. Nothwithstanding repeating historical patterns, in a fundamental sense all that happens happens for the first and last time. We say that history repeats itself, but in the shadow of the Western empirical creation myth, and its clear sense of the perishing body as the self, each historical age, event, and person exists only once, and therefore must be captured and preserved in the pages of history. 
All of the above collides head-on with the vast, cyclical, theistic cosmology of the Mahåbhårata and allied Vedic literatures. For example, in the Bhagavad-gîtå we find that a single day of the creator Brahmå corresponds to 4,300,000,000 earthly years, and the same duration is the creator’s night. Thirty of such days and nights forms a month of Brahmå, twelve such months a year, and 100 such years a lifetime. Thus the lifetime of Brahmå, and of the universe that he creates, is about 311 trillion years. This figure, however, defines a relatively brief period of time, since Lord K®ß∫a also states in the Gîtå that He repeatedly manifests and absorbs into Himself such cosmic creations:
All beings, O Kaunteya, enter My potency at the end of the age, and I again create them at the beginning of a new age. Utilizing my own potency, I create again and again this entire host of beings who are helplessly controlled by My potency (Bg 9.7–8). 

  Thus the creation and destruction of universes goes on incessantly [bhütvå bhütvå pralîyate, Bg. 8.19]. Thus when ¸rîla Prabhupåda states, “Vedic histories — the Purå∫as and Mahåbhårata — relate human histories that extend millions and millions of years into the past” (¸B 4.29.42-44p ) he is speaking in truly modest terms. Not only does Vedic history claim to deal with such dizzying time-spans, but also with vast numbers of planets beyond our earth. The Mahåbhårata puts it this way:
“Thus it is -- without beginning or end, withdrawing and creating all beings, the beginningless, endless wheel goes on rolling” (MB 1.1.38). Given the spatio-temporal dimensions of the Vedic cosmos, the issue of historiographical selectivity is radically altered for the Vedic historian. ¸rîla Prabhupåda points out in a lecture: 
“The Mahåbhårata and the Purå∫as are histories, although they are not chronological. If the history of such a vast period of time was recorded chronologically, how many pages would it have to be? Therefore, only the most important incidents are selected and described in the Mahåbhårata” (Teachings of Queen Kuntî, ch. 7).
Similarly, 
Men with a poor fund of knowledge only accept the history of the world from the time of Buddha, or since 600 B.C., and prior to this period all histories mentioned in the scriptures are calculated by them to be only imaginary stories. This is not a fact. All the stories mentioned in the Purå∫as and Mahåbhårata etc. are actual histories, not only of this planet but also of millions of other planets within the universe. Sometimes the history of planets beyond this world appear to such men to be unbelievable. But they do not know that different planets are not equal in all respects and that therefore some of the historical facts derived from other planets do not correspond with the experience of this planet. (¸B 1.1.41p).

One may object that true science demands that so-called facts be available for wide public inspection. How can spiritual claims which can be verified only by an elite of realized souls be taken as the data-base for a science? Perhaps in the same way that an elite of trained experts decides what is real in a material science, a process nicely illustrated in an article in The New York Times reporting on a great scientific discovery by Albert Einstein: 
London, Nov. 9. [1919]— Efforts made to put in words intelligible to the non-scientific public the Einstein theory of light proved by the eclipse expedition so far have not been very successful. … Sir Joseph Thomson (sic), President of the Royal Society, declares it is not possible to put Einstein’s theory into really intelligible words…  Thompson states that… it is useless to endeavor to detail (Einstein’s theories) for the man in the street. 

 It is important to grasp the intended sense of Prabhupåda’s statement that the Vedic histories “are not chronological.” Indeed Western scholars have long accused India of lacking a true historical instinct. Prabhupåda often mentions that the Vedic histories are “not chronological” but he means by this that they do not begin from a single given point in past time and then proceed in strict chronological order to the present, telling all that happened along the way. Indeed if we take seriously the claim that the creation and destruction of universes occurs in cycles, and that the Vedic histories aim to give us the essence of a story that covers trillions of trillions of years, and trillions of trillions of planets, the very attempt to do so would be utterly absurd. 
We have discussed how a vastly expanded spatio-temporaral context radically alters historigraphical selectivity. But apart from these numerical and cosmological issues, there is also the qualitative dimension of the historian’s choice. Here lies the issue of what is important and why, what fact is valuable and hence worth the historian’s effort to record and preserve it. To grasp the Vedic notion of that which is worthy of serious historical writing, we must leave the realm of cosmology and enter that of Vedic ontology. Again we turn profitably to the words of Lord K®ß∫a in the Bhagavad-gîtå. 
In the interest of brevity, we may state that the Gîtå gives us this picture: each and every living being is an eternal soul that has always existed and will continue to exist for evermore as an irreducible unit of personal, individual consciousness. What is more, each soul is forever a part of, and subordinate to, the Supreme Soul, who is God, K®ß∫a. Because we souls, who are the superior, conscious energy of K®ß∫a, are trying to exploit the resources of material nature (which is also the Lord’s energy, but an inferior one because it is unconscious and non-living), we are entangled in a sad cosmos of birth, death, old age, and disease. The bars of our prison are psychological, they are our own attachment and aversion toward the dualities of material pleasure and pain. The Lord calls upon us, in the Gîtå, to give up our deluded sense of an existence and identity apart from Him, and to surrender to His perfect and benevolent guidance and protection. Purifying our eternal consciousness in the loving service of the Lord (bhakti-yoga), we will return to our real home in the Lord’s abode. Historical studies, and all else that a creature may do in the universe, should be offered as a devotional service to the Lord. Thus historical writings that lead to K®ß∫a consciousness are consonant with the actual purpose of our existence. Other attempts at wisdom, which deny or ignore the loving service of God, are doomed to terminate in the certain uncertainty of relativism.
Granted the scope of Vedic cosmology and ontology, rather than simply stick a tag of “mythology” or “epic fiction” on the Mahåbhårata, let us reason for once the other way around. Let us assume for the moment that the statements of K®ß∫a in the Bhagavad-gîtå are actually true, both in its cosmology and ontology, and for that matter in its epistemological claims, such as that one who surrenders to K®ß∫a can actually see all these facts clearly and thus have the very best epistemic reasons to assert such truths. Let us further imagine that we are Vedic sages whose duty it is to write down the essential lessons of history, the best knowledge of, and for, human life. We are thus to compress into a single work (vast though it may be) the historical highlights of a tradition that spans many hundreds of billions of years just since the last creation of the universe (and in fact information is available from past creations, making our time frame virtually infinite). The tradition has it that a universe endures about 311 trillion years of which about 155 trillion years have passed. Lord K®ß∫a incarnates once in a day of Brahmå, so He has come about 18,000 times, and there have been, say, a few hundred thousand other incarnations of God, just within our local universe, which is but one of many billions of universes. With the change of Manvantaras, Indras change, along with Manus, sages, etc. 
When the Vedic sages then cast their eye upon Western histories and their feverish struggle to record and preserve every detail in the lives of ordinary men and women who cannot even award divine liberation, and have little connection with the highest truth, histories that cover less than 3000 years, how pointless it all seems.
Thus, since the cycles of cosmic creation and dissolution go on perpetually, Vedic history provides us with a typical scenario for the life of a universe. Particular historical incidents, selected for their didactic value, are drawn from a virtually infinite syllabus. Prabhupåda puts it this way: 
Such historical facts, being instructive for ordinary men, were assorted without chronological reference. Besides that, they happen on different planets, nay, in different universes… We are simply concerned with the instructive lessons of such incidents, even though they are not in order by our limited range of understanding” (¸B1.9.28p).

But ultimately, history itself must serve the ultimate spiritual aims of humanity. In the ¸rîmad-Bhågavatam, ¸rîla Prabhupåda states (¸B 3.5.10p): 
The real purpose of such literatures is not so much to present topics of historical references, but to revive the people’s sense of God consciousness. For example, Mahåbhårata is the history of the Battle of Kurukßetra, and common people read it because it is full of topics regarding the social, political and economic problems of human society. But factually the most important part of Mahåbhårata is Bhagavad-gîtå, which is automatically taught to readers along with the historical narrations of the Battle of Kurukßetra.

¸B 3.5.12: 
The sage Vyåsa, your friend, desired to speak of the qualities of the Lord and so he spoke the Mahåbhårata, in which by continuous narration of ordinary affairs, the mind of people is certainly captured in the narration of the Lord.

Regarding the importance of the Bhagavad-gîtå in the Mahåbhårata, ¸aõkaråcårya states: 

May the spotless lotus of the Mahåbhårata
That grows on the waters
Of the words of Vyåsa
And of which the Bhagavad-gîtå
Is the irresistibly sweet fragrance
And its tales of heroes
The full-blown petals
Fully opened by the talk of Lord Hari,
Who destroys the sins
Of Kali-yuga,
And on which daily light
The nectar-seeking souls,
As so many bees
Swarming joyously
May this lotus of the Mahåbhårata
Bestow on us the highest good.

Similarly, in the purport to the ¸rîmad-Bhågavatam 1.5.15 Prabhupåda states:
In histories like the Mahåbhårata, of course, there are topics on transcendental subjects along with material topics. The Bhagavad-gîtå is there in the Mahåbhårata. The whole idea of the Mahåbhårata culminates in the ultimate instructions of the Bhagavad-gîtå, that one should relinquish all other engagements and should engage oneself solely and fully in surrendering unto the lotus feet of Lord ¸rî K®ß∫a. But men with materialistic tendencies are more attracted to the politics, economics and philanthropic activities mentioned in the Mahåbhårata than to the principal topic, namely the Bhagavad-gîtå.

Viß∫u

	As the Mahåbhårata begins, the well-known sage Süta comes to the sacred forest of Naimißåra∫ya where the saintly assembly requests him to narrate the Mahåbhårata. Süta begins by offering his respectful obeisances to “the primeval person” (ådyaµ purußam), “the Lord” (îΩånam), “He who is called and praised in many ways” (puru-hütaµ puru-ß†utam). Süta himself demonstrates this last feature of God by glorifying Him in this initial hymn with three celebrated names: Viß∫u, H®ßîkeΩa, and Hari. 
	Who is the God whom Süta addresses as Viß∫u, H®ßîkeΩa and Hari? He is first, as mentioned above, the original person, the controller, and one who is praised and prayed to in various ways, by many names. He is also the moral and spiritual Truth (®tam), the unique and imperishable verity indicated by the syllable Oµ (ekåkßaram), the Absolute (Brahman), the manifest and the unmanifest (vyaktåvyaktam), and the everlasting (sanåtanam); both being and non-being (asac ca sac caiva ca), that which constitutes the whole (yad viΩvam), and that which is beyond both being and non-being (sad asata˙ param). He is the creator of the high and the low (paråvarå∫åµ sraß†åraµ), primeval (purå∫am), transcendental (param), and undecaying (avyayam). He is the auspicious and that which makes other things auspicious (maõgalyaµ maõgalam), Viß∫u, Who is desireable, sinless, and pure (viß∫uµ vare∫yam anagaµ Ωucim), H®ßîkeΩa, the Guru of moving and unmoving things, the Lord Hari (h®ßîkeΩaµ caråcara-guruµ harim). (1.1.20-22)
	The ancient ‰g-veda, widely considered by scholars to be the oldest Indo-European scripture, addresses several of its hymns to Lord Viß∫u. It is fitting, therefore, that within its own vast text, the Mahåbhårata first honors God with the name of Viß∫u. Indeed, those who worship God as K®ß∫a, Råma, Nåråya∫a etc. are traditionally known as Vaiß∫avas, worshippers of Viß∫u, since all such devotees agree that they worship various forms of a single Supreme Lord.
	After the initial praise offered to Lord Viß∫u in the beginning of our text, Lord Viß∫u next appears in chapter 15, wherein the Lord instructs the gods to churn the mighty ocean in order to produce am®ta, the elixir of immortality, which they so anxiously seek. This is the first instance in the Mahåbhårata of lîlå, a pastime of the Lord in which He freely participates in the affairs of this world, but with His own transcendental agenda.
	In Chapter fifteen of the Ådi-parva, the gods ascend mighty Mount Meru and discuss how they might obtain am®ta. God, Nåråya∫a then tells Brahmå, the cosmic engineer and chief of the gods, what must be done:

Therein, as all the gods were pondering and discussing from all points of view, Nåråya∫a, God said this to Brahmå: let the ocean (which is like a great) water-pot, be churned by the gods and the hosts of the ungodly. When the great ocean is churned, am®ta will come forth from it. Churn the ocean, O gods, for after attaining all medicinal herbs, and indeed all the precious stones, you will then find am®ta (MB 1.15.11–13).

	The gods then attempt to lift up Mount Mandara since they plan to use the mountain as a churning rod to stir up the ocean. But failing to do so, they again turn to the Lord, now identified as Viß∫u, and to Brahmå:

At that time, all the hosts of gods were unable to lift the mountain. Approaching the seated Viß∫u, and Brahmå, they said this: “You two should devise here the best strategy that will afford us the greatest good. Let an effort be made to lift up Mount Mandara, for our benefit.” “So be it!” said Viß∫u, together with Brahmå, O Bhårgava. Thereupon Lord Ananta, encouraged by Brahmå, and also instructed by Nåråya∫a, and possessing the power to execute that task, rose up. Ananta, possessed of great strength, now used his strength and lifted up the king of mountains with its forests and forest inhabitants, O bråhma∫a (MB 1.16.4-7).

 	This passage clarifies several important theological issues: 
	1. It is clear from this and other passages to be mentioned below that Viß∫u and Nåråya∫a are the very same personality of the Godhead.
	2. When all the gods, and cosmic demons, were unable to produce nectar, they approached the Supreme Lord, Nåråya∫a, Viß∫u, who then told them what to do. Again, when they were unable to lift up Mount Mandara, Viß∫u provided the solution.
	3. The solution was Lord Ananta, (“the unlimited one”) Who is also understood to be a plenary incarnation of Lord Viß∫u. The identity of Ananta, also called ¸eßa, is given in Chapter sixteen of the Ådi-parva, as follows:

Ananta, the Lord, God was in the same place as Nåråya∫a. Lifting up the head of the Någa (Våsuki who served as the churning rope), He threw it down again and again (MB 1.16.14).

	Thus two incarnations of the Lord cooperated to perform the task of churning the ocean. This is not all. Ananta was able to lift up the Mandara Hill, but in order to churn the ocean, the mighty mountain had to rest on a suitable platform, and so Aküpåra, the gigantic king of the tortoises who is Himself generally considered to be an incarnation of the Lord, provided his own back at the request of the gods and demons:

The gods and demons said to the tortoise king, Aküpåra: “You sir should kindly become the foundation of the mountain.” When the tortoise agreed, saying “So be it!”, Mandara was placed on His back… (MB 1.16.10-11).
	
	Thus several manifestations of the Supreme worked together to enact the pastime of churning nectar from the ocean. But the central form of the Godhead in this incident remains Nåråya∫a or Viß∫u. Even after churning the ocean and producing various potent liquids, the gods could not specifically generate nectar without the additional intervention of Lord Nåråya∫a. The gods first approach Lord Brahmå, who then appeals to the Lord for help. Earlier (MB 1.16.4–6) the gods had approached Viß∫u and Brahmå and requested them both to help. But now it is clear that even Brahmå depends on Lord Nåråya∫a, or Viß∫u, who is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. 

Then the gods said to the seated Brahmå, giver of boons: “O Brahmå, we are extremely tired, and so are the Daityas and the best of serpents. But that nectar will not come out without Nåråya∫a, God. This churning of the ocean began a long time ago.”  Then Brahmå spoke these words to Nåråya∫a, God: “ordain strength for them, O Viß∫u, for you are the ultimate shelter here.”
Viß∫u said:
I shall give strenth to all those who have together undertaken this task. Let everyone stir up the ocean, may Mount Mandara revolve! (MB 1.16.28-31).
	
	It has been noted that the names Nåråya∫a and Viß∫u clearly indicate the same divine person in this context. Thus in text 30, is is said “Then Brahmå spoke these words to Nåråya∫a, God…” (tato nåråya∫aµ devaµ brahmå vacanam abravît), but when Brahmå begins to speak, he addresses the Lord as Viß∫u, declaring: “O Viß∫u, you are the ultimate shelter here…” (viß∫o bhavån atra paråya∫am). The word atra, “here” or “in this situation” is significant for all the most powerful beings in the universe are assembled, including the creator Brahmå. Yet in that situation, Viß∫u is the ultimate shelter for all.
	In text 31, we find the words viß∫ur uvåca, “Viß∫u said…”. To grasp the significance of these two simple words, we must be aware that in the Mahåbhårata, as well as in works such as the Råmåya∫a, and the Purå∫as in general, there are two types of quotation, which we shall call here “internal” and “external” quotation. Internal quotation occurs when a speaker, within a verse, mentions that another person or person said something, and then goes on to state what was said by that other speaker or speakers. On the other hand, what we call external quotation occurs when above the verse we find the name of the person who is about to speak, along with the word uvåca (singular, “said”), ücatu˙ (dual, “said”), or ucu˙ (plural “said”). Thus in the verse 1.16.31, we find the statement: “Viß∫u said: I shall give strength to all those who have undertaken this work.”
	I call this quotation external, since the name of the speaker is given outside the verse format. Within the text of this book, the above verse is rendered as follows:
	Viß∫u said: “I shall give strength to all those who have together undertaken this task…” etc.
	This distinction between external and internal quotation is relevant to our present discussion for the following reason: we observe that when the Mahåbhårata quotes, through external quotation, personalities, and even groups of persons, the text almost invariably uses a single, standard name for that person or group, even when that person or group has many other names within the text. For example, Arjuna, the great devotee of Lord K®ß∫a is known by many names in the Mahåbhårata. He is Pårtha, son of his mother P®thå. Or he is Kaunteya, since his mother is also known as Kunti. He is På∫∂ava, son of King På∫∂u; Bîbhatsu, the frightening warrior, etc. Yet whenever his speech is given in external quotation, inevitably we find the words arjuna uvåca, “Arjuna said.” The same rule does not hold for internal quotation in which many names of a personality are possible.
	Thus the Mahåbhårata uses a single, standard name in external quotation, for almost all of the speakers within the text, including such prominent personalities as: Yudhiß†hira, Arjuna, Bhîma,Vidura, Kuntî, Draupadî, ¸akuni, Kar∫a, Duryodhana, Dh®taråß†ra, VaiΩampåyana, Janamejaya, Vyåsa, Drupada,  Nårada, Süta, and ¸aunaka. Similarly common group names which are standard and unchanging in external quotation include: ®ßaya˙, “the sages;” devåh, “the gods;” pitara˙, “the forefathers;” mantri∫a˙, “the ministers (to the king);” ®tvija˙, “the ritual priests;” tåpaså˙, “the ascetics;” etc. 
	It is therefore remarkable that in external quotation, when the speaker is the Supreme Lord Himself, we find three different names of God in the text: Våsudeva, K®ß∫a (along with the variant ¸rî K®ß∫a), and Viß∫u.
	Indeed the only other person for whom we find more than one name in external quotation is Indra. In the first two parvas of the Mahåbhårata, there are four instances of indra uvåca, “Indra said,” and a single case of Ωakra uvåca, “¸akra said,” ¸akra being a common name of Indra. There is a single variant, and not a different name, for Arjuna's brother Bhîma, for whom we find twelve instances of Bhîma uvåca, “Bhîma said,” and three cases of the variant Bhîmasena uvåca, “Bhîmasena said.” Finally, the text three times cites the goddess Ganges by her own name, Gaõgå uvåca (gaõgovåca), “Gaõgå said,” and later, when she appears incognito as an unknown lady, the text, consistent with her role, merely states, stry uvåca, “the woman said.”  Thus apart from K®ß∫a, it is only in the case of Indra, sometimes cited as ¸akra, that we find the Mahåbhårata using more than one name for a character in external quotation. Three names are given for K®ß∫a, with the additional variation of ¸rî K®ß∫a. 
	In conclusion, it is significant that in the churning of the ocean, the text uses the name Viß∫u (MB 1.16.31) to cite the Lord’s direct speech in an external quotation. Thus in this divine history, we may take the name Viß∫u as a primary name of the Lord. It is also noteworthy that after text 1.16.31 introduces Viß∫u's statement with the words Viß∫ur uvåca, “Viß∫u said,” in the very next verse, Süta declares, “Thus hearing the statement of Nåråya∫a, those powerful ones together once more severly shook the water of the great ocean” (MB 1.16.32). These two verses show quite clearly the interchangeable use of the names Viß∫u and Nåråya∫a in this section of the Mahåbhårata. 
	While describing the magnificence of the ocean, chapter nineteen of the Ådi-parva mentions several key features of Viß∫u that allow us to unmistakably identify the Viß∫u of the Mahåbhårata with the Viß∫u whom Vaiß∫avas continue to worship today. It is said there: 

Beyond measure is the splendor of Viß∫u, from whose navel stems the (cosmic) lotus. At the time when the cosmic age begins, He resorts to His transcendental mystic slumber, and the ocean is His resting place (MB 1.19.13).

	The Gau∂îya Vaiß∫avas refer to this form of the Lord as the Garbhodaka-Ωåyî Viß∫u, the form of the Lord who lies down in the Garbha ocean and then generates, from His navel, a lotus flower upon which the creator Brahmå takes birth.
	There is further evidence that the names Viß∫u and Nåråya∫a refer to the same Personality of the Godhead, and indeed are often used to indicate the same form or mood of the Godhead. When the great bird Garu∂a first meets the Lord, it is said:

Then (Garu∂a) the son of Vinatå came across Viß∫u in the sky. Nåråya∫a was satisfied with him because of his ungreedy act (MB 1.29.12).

Viß∫u: “one of the gods”
	At times, Viß∫u is conceived as one of the gods who rule the universe, especially in relation to the Lord's incarnation as Våmana in which He took birth as a son of Aditi, mother of eleven other famous deities. Yet the text gives special attention to Viß∫u, even when listing Him as one of the gods:

Rulers of the worlds, the twelve Ådityas took birth from Aditi. O king, I shall describe them to you by name, O Bhårata: Dhåtå, Mitra, Aryamå, ¸akra (Indra), Varu∫a, and also AµΩa, Bhago, Vivasvån, and Püßå, and so Savitå is the tenth. Similarly the eleventh is Tvaß†å and Viß∫u is said to be the twelfth. Although the born as the most junior of all, He is superior to all the Ådityas in His qualities (MB 1.59.14–16).
	There is a similar statement which simultaneously lists Viß∫u as the youngest of the Åditya gods, and recognizes His special status:

O ruler of men, the sons of Aditi, headed by ¸akra (Indra), are actually twelve. Of them, the youngest is Viß∫u in Whom the worlds are established (MB 1.60.35).

	We again see the special position of Viß∫u among the sons of Aditi in the following statement, in which a voice from heaven tells Queen Kuntî that her son Arjuna who has just taken birth, will be like Viß∫u:

Just as Viß∫u increased the pleasure of Aditi, so Arjuna, equal to Viß∫u, will increase your pleasure. [1.114.30]

	The text clearly and repeatedly reveals to us that Viß∫u is the Supreme Lord. Yet the Lord agrees to act within the universe as one of the gods who manage the cosmic affairs. Thus when Kuntî gives birth to Arjuna, whose father is mighty indra, all the leaders of the universe join in the celebration, and among these, of course, are the twelve Ådityas, including Viß∫u:

Dhåtå, and Aryamå, and Mitra, Varu∫a, AµΩa, and also Bhaga, Indra, Vivasvån, and Püßå, and Tvaß†å, and also Savitå, Parjanya as well, and Viß∫u — the Ådityas like sparks of a fire, situated in space, magnified the glory of På∫∂u’s son (B1.114.56]

	Perhaps because Viß∫u enjoys a dual status as the Supreme Lord and as an apparent member of the community of universal rulers, there is also a tendency in the Mahabhårata to compare great personalities to a variety of gods including Viß∫u. For instance, when Yayåti's royal descendents see their forefather falling from the celestial realm, they exclaim:

Seeing you stationed on the path of the gods, your power comparable to that of ¸akra, Arka (the Sun), and Viß∫u, we have all arisen now to receive you, for we wish to know the truth of your fall (MB 1.83.9).

	Similarly, when King Yayåti’s maidservant ¸armiß†hå seeks to persuade the monarch that no one but the king would dare to touch her, since she is part of his personal household, she declares:

Who would dare to touch a woman in the family of Soma, Indra, or Viß∫u, of Yama or Varu∫a, or of you, O Nåhußa [Yayåti]? (MB 1.77.12).

Viß∫u and Indra (and the gods)
	As mentioned earlier, the Mahåbhårata sometimes mentions Lord Viß∫u as one of the gods, specifically as one of the Ådityas, the sons of Aditi; but occasionally Lord Viß∫u especially appears in the company of Indra, chief of the administrative gods. It stands to reason that as the creator and God of this world, Lord Viß∫u deals particularly with that being empowered to manage His creation, as much as the king of a state maintains special contact with a regional representative. 
	The ancient ‰g Veda often depicts Lord Viß∫u as having a special, cooperative relationship with Indra, and this same relationship is plainly visible in the Mahåbhårata. For example, there is the following description the sons of Yayåti with his original wife, Devayånî:

Yayåti, the king, begot two sons in Devayånî, Yadu and also Tuvasu, who were like another Indra and Viß∫u (MB 1.78.9).

Similarly,

Mounting the same chariot in which Indra and Viß∫u went forth in the battle for Tårakå, K®ß∫a then departed (MB2.22.16). 

	When Kar∫a confronts Arjuna, disguised as a bråhma∫a, when both are vying for the hand of Draupadî, Kar∫a is deeply impressed by the skill of his unknown rival and asks:

Are you Råma, the personified Military Veda, O best of vipras, or are you Indra himself or the infallible Viß∫u himself? (MB 1.181.16).
	The Råma mentioned here is probably Lord ParaΩu-råma, who is normally considered to be an incarnation of Viß∫u. Thus Kar∫a inquires if Arjuna is one of two forms of the Godhead, or Indra, best of the demigods.
	Finally, there is one instance in which the aggrieved Kadrü, wife of KaΩyapa, desperately appealing to Indra to save her sons, addresses him as Viß∫u:

You are the great being, the wonder is you, the king you are, best of gods. You are Viß∫u, you are the thousand-eyed, you are the god, you are the shelter (MB 1.21.12).

Mahåbhårata as Vedic literature

	In Chapter 86 of the K®ß∫a Book, ¸rîla Prabhupåda states, “We understand that with the breathing of the Supreme Personality of Godhead there issued forth the four Vedas, namely the ‰g Veda, the Såma Veda, the Yajur Veda and the Atharva Veda, and the histories like the Mahåbhårata and all the Purå∫as, which are also considered to be the history of the world. The Vedic histories like the Purå∫as and Mahåbhårata are called the fifth Veda.
	¸rîla Prabhupåda further claims that the Mahåbhårata was “made from related historical facts which explained the teaching of the four Vedas,” and that the epic is thus part and parcel of the Vedas, and carries the same scriptural authority. He quotes to this effect a statement from the Chåndogya Upanißad (7.1.4): 
By name there is the ‰g-veda, the Yajur-veda, the Såma-veda, and the Atharvå as the fourth. The histories and Purå∫as are the fifth Veda among the Vedas.

A similar statement is found in the ¸rîmad-Bhågavatam (1.4.20):
The four Vedas, known as ‰g, Yaju˙, Såma, and Atharva, were separated out [by Vyåsa], and the histories and Purå∫as are said to be the fifth Veda.

There is virtually unanimous agreement that the term itihåsa, “history” refers quintessentially to the Mahåbhårata, and the great epic itself concords that it is indeed the “fifth Veda” (MB 1.57.74): “Vyåsa taught the Vedas, of which Mahåbhårata is the fifth, to Sumantu, Jaimini, Paila, and also to his own son ¸uka.”
What does it mean to be the “fifth Veda”? To get closer to this notion, we will survey briefly all of the statements in the first two books of the Mahåbhårata which directly refer to the relationship between the epic and the Vedas. In the first book, the Ådi-parva, it is stated that the text of the Mahåbhårata is “adorned with the meanings, or purposes, of the Vedas,”  and that this great historical collection is “united with the four Vedas.” Thus as quoted above, the epic is said to be the fifth Veda.
The point is then taken a step farther: “The histories and Purå∫as enrich and reinforce the Veda, and thus the Veda fears one who does not know the epic. ‘Because of scant education, he will pass over me’ (i.e. my real meaning)..” In its first book, the Mahåbhårata twice refers to itself, in identical terms, as the Kå®ß∫a Veda, or the K®ß∫a Veda. Here the term kå®ß∫a, “of K®ß∫a,” refers to the divine sage and author of the epic, Vyåsadeva, who was called K®ß∫a because of his swarthy complexion. Not only is the Mahåbhårata in these two verses said to be a Veda, but a Veda intimately connected with Vyåsa, who is said throughout this and other scriptures to be the one who divided and organized the Vedas in their current form. Thus it is signficiant that the Mahåbhårata identifies itself as the special Vyåsa-veda of Veda-Vyåsa himself. 
Having established itself as part and parcel of the Vedas, and even as the special Veda of K®ß∫a Dvaipåyana Vyåsa, the epic then claims that indeed it is superior to the four Vedas:
Once the godly sages placed the four Vedas on one side of a scale, and on the other side they placed a single text, the Mahåbhårata. Both in greatness and weight the Bhårata  was superior. 

It is further claimed that the Mahåbhårata history is the best of Vedic texts, for its purpose is highest, as much as the soul is the best of things to be known, and life itself most important among things we hold dear. Indeed, “a twice-born bråhma∫a who knows the four Vedas with the Upanißads but who doesn’t know this narration (Mahåbhårata) certainly cannot be an truly learned.” Thus it is natural that during the intervals of a great sacrifice, while the twice-born sages narraged topics related to the Vedas, the greatest sage of all, Vyåsa, chose to constantly recite the great narration of the Mahåbhårata.
Vyåsa’s disciple, VaiΩampåyana, glorifies the Mahåbhårata with these words:
This ultimate purifier [Mahåbhårata] stands together with the Vedas. This ancient work, glorified by sages, is the ultimate among things which are to be heard (MB 1.56.15).

In his commentary on Vedånta-sütra 2.1.6 (d®Ωyate tu), ¸rîla Madhvåcårya cites two verses from the Bhavißya Purå∫a which nicely express the Gau∂îya Vaiß∫ava perception of Vedic literature as authoritative, self-evident truth:
The ‰g, Yajur, Såma, and Atharva Vedas, the Mahåbhårata, the Pañcaråtraka, and the original Råmåya∫a as well, are all declared to be “Veda.” Those who know also recognize in this context those Purå∫as which aim at Viß∫u. All these are self-evident, and there is nothing to interpret here.

The Sanskrit word for scripture, Ωåstra, indicates that which has the power to command us, to rule and govern us, to administer justice, to teach and inform. Thus, in the Bhagavad-gîta, Lord K®ß∫a states:
One who gives up the rule of scripture lives by acting on selfish desires. Such a person does not obtain perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination. Therefore, knowing that scripture is evidence in determining what you should do and should not do, you ought to perform work that is sanctioned by scriptural injunctions (Bg 16.23–24).

As mentioned earlier, the Vedic scriptures are self-evident. Thus in the Caitanya-caritåm®ta, we find this statement from ¸rî Caitanya Mahåprabhu: “The Veda is evident by itself. It is the crown-jewel of all evidence. By interpreting it, the self-evident quality is lost” (CC 1.7.132).
The use of self-evident Vedic knowledge nonetheless involves a series of checks and balances. For example, one’s conclusion must be reasonable and there must be a broad concordance with the various divisions of Vedic evidence. ¸rîla Prabhupåda captures both of these notions in discussing in a discussion of the three prasthånas  or points of departure for evidence: 
The Vedånta-sütra is known as nyåya-prasthåna, the Upanißads are known as Ωruti- prasthåna, and the Gîtå, Mahåbhårata and Purå∫as are known as sm®ti-prasthåna. All scientific knowledge of transcendence must be supported by Ωruti, sm®ti and a sound logical basis. (CC 1.5.41p).

Similarly, in the Bhagavad-gîtå, Lord K®ß∫a declares:
That knowledge of the field of activities and of the knower of the activities is described by various sages in various Vedic writings. It is especially presented in Vedånta-sütra with all reasoning as to cause and effect (Bg 13.5). 

Thus the Vedånta reasons from the evidence of the Upanißads to conclusions about the nature of Brahman, the Absolute Truth.
¸rîla Prabhupåda states that  “The purpose of the Mahåbhårata is to administer the purpose of the Vedas…” (¸B 1.44.25p). What are the purposes of the Vedas. One of the most important is to signal and predict the appearances of God in this world. Within the Vaiß∫ava tradition, especially among Gau∂îya Vaiß∫avas, the Mahåbhårata plays a crucial role in this regard.

As stated in the Bhavißya-purå∫a:
The ‰g Veda, Sama Veda, Atharva Veda, Mahåbhårata, Pañcaråtra and original Råmåya∫a are all considered by authorities to be Veda. The knowers also know that those Purå∫as dedicated to Lord Viß∫u to enjoy the same status. These literatures are self-evident, and there is nothing at all to speculate about them.

Bhag. 1.4.19: Above the four Vedas are the Purå∫as, the Mahåbhårata, the saµhitås, etc., which are known as the fifth Veda. ¸rî Vyåsadeva and his many disciples were all historical personalities and they were very kind and sympathetic toward the fallen souls of this age of Kali. As such, the Purå∫as and Mahåbhårata were made from related historial facts which explained the teaching of the four Vedas. There is no point in doubting the authority of the Purå∫as and Mahåbhårata as part and parcels of the Vedas. In the Chåndogya Upanißad (7.1.4) the Purå∫as and Mahåbhårata, generally known as histories, are mentioned a the fifth Veda. According to ¸rîla Jîva Gosvåmî, that is the way of ascertaining the respective values of the revealed scriptures.

Authority for incarnations

	¸rîla Prabhupåda states that, “The purpose of the Mahåbhårata is to administer the purpose of the Vedas…” (¸B 1.44.25p). What are the purposes of theVedas? One of the most important is to signal and predict the appearance of God in this world. Within the Vaiß∫ava tradition, especially among Gaudiya Vaiß∫avas, the Mahåbhårata plays a crucial role in this regard.
	The Caitanya-caritåm®ta is perhaps the most important and authoritative account of the life and teachings of ¸rî Caitanya Mahåprabhu. There in the third chapter of the Ådi-lîlå, the author K®ß∫a dåsa Kaviråja, argues that,

¸rîmad-Bhågavatam, Mahåbhårata, the Purå∫as and other Vedic literatures all give evidence to prove that Lord ¸rî Krsna Caitanya Mahaprabhu is the incarnation of Krsna (C.C. 1.3.84).

	Similarly, when one of Caitanya Mahåprabhu’s followers, Gopînåtha Åcårya was trying to convince his brother-in-law, Sårvabhauma Bha††åcårya, that Caitanya Mahåprabhu was K®ß∫a Himself, Sårvabhauma, who was a leading logician of his day in the Nava-nyåya school, replied, “¸rî Caitanya Mahåprabhu is certainly a great, uncommon devotee, but we cannot accept Him as an incarnation of Lord Viß∫u because, according to Ωåstra, there is no incarnation in this age of Kali. Another name for Lord Viß∫u is Triyuga because there is no incarnation of Lord Viß∫u in Kali-yuga. Indeed, this is the verdict of revealed scriptures.” It is significant that in reply to this argument, Gopînåtha Åcårya stated:

Srîmad-Bhågavatam and Mahåbhårata are the two most important Vedic scriptures, but you have paid no attention to their statements. In Srîmad-Bhågavatam and Mahåbhårata it is stated that the Lord appears directly, but you say that in this age there is no manifestation or incarnation of Lord Viß∫u (CC 2.6.97–98).

	 Not only is the Mahåbhårata here said to be authoritative within the Gau∂îya Vaiß∫ava tradition, but it is accepted, along with the ¸rîmad-bhågavatam as the most important and authoritative of scriptures, dui Ωåstrer pradhåna.
	Later in the Caitanya-caritåm®ta, Brahmånanda Bhåratî cites the following verse from the Viß∫u-sahasra-nåma-stotra of the Mahåbhårata as a reference to the divine appearence of ¸rî Caitanya Mahåprabhu:

His bodily hue is golden, and His whole body is like molten gold. Every part of His body is very beautifully constructed and smeared with sandalwood pulp. Accepting the renounced order, the Lord is always equipoised. He is firmly fixed in His mission of chanting the Hare Krsna mantra, and He is firmly situated in His dualistic conclusion and in His peace (CC 2.10.170).

	One may claim that ¸rî Caitanya Mahåprabhu certainly fits well the description in this verse, and yet the reference to Him is not fully explicit. ¸rîla Prabhupåda anticipates such an objection in his commentary on Bhagavad-gîtå, verse 4.8, “Lord Caitanya as the incarnation of K®ß∫a, the Personality of Godhead, is described secretly but not directly in the confidential parts of the revealed scriptures, such as the Upanißads, Mahåbhårata and Bhågavatam.”
	And a bona fide incarnation of God must conform to such descriptions.
	So an avatåra must conform to the descriptions in the Upanißads, ¸rîmad-Bhågavatam, Mahåbhårata, and other Vedic literatures. And on the authority of Vedic literature and the commentary of great, stalward gosvåmîs like Jîva Gosvåmî, who was the greatest scholar and philosopher in the world, we can accept Lord Caitanya as an incarnation of K®ß∫a.

	Finally, it appears that even in the period immediately following the original composition of the Mahåbhårata, there is great demand for it. For example, we find this statement describing how Vyåsadeva personally taught the Mahåbhårata to an eager world:
Being requested by Janamejaya, and by thousands of Bråhma∫as, [Vyåsa] taught his disciple VaiΩampåyana who was seated near him. 

Paramparå

	In the Bhagavad-gîtå, Lord K®ß∫a explains that the one should learn the spiritual science from those who have “seen the truth”:
	
	Understand that (process of sacrifice of God). by submission, all around inquiries and service. Those who have knowledge will teach you knowledge for they have seen the truth (Bg 4.34). 

	In the second chapter of the Gîtå, Arjuna formally accepts Lord K®ß∫a as his own spiritual master: “Tell me what is definitely best for me. I am your disciple, command me for I am surrendered to you.” 
	Lord K®ß∫a further explains in the Gîtå  the process called paramparå, by which authorized Vedic knowledge descends from master to disciple in an unbroken chain. Lord K®ß∫a insists that in ancient times, all the saintly kings and sages understand the spiritual science through that system of paramparå: “This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way” (Bg 4.2).
	In the ¸rîmad-Bhågavatam, there is a statement in which Vyåsa himself claims that he has presented the Mahåbhårata precisely to illustrate this process of descending knowledge: “I have shown the import of disciplic succession through the explanation of the Mahåbhårata…” (¸B 1.4.29).
	This “import of disciplic succession” is indeed shown quite clearly at the very beginning of the Mahåbhårata, for the great epic opens in the sacred forest of Naimißåra∫ya, as Süta, who like his father, Romaharßa∫a is a reciter of ancient histories, approaches an assembly of sages headed by ¸aunaka who are engaged in a twelve year religious sacrifice in the holy forest. The sages duly welcome Süta and after brief formalities he reveals that he personally attended the terrible snake-killing sacrifice of the exalted King Janamejaya, and there, during the intervals of the rite, he heard the Mahåbharata of ¸rî Vyåsa, recited by the author’s disciple VaiΩampåyana. The eager saints press him to recite the fascinating story of the Mahåbhårata, and we are underway. In other words, Süta immediately locates himself within the paramparå structure, which must be rooted in the direct speaking of God, or a recognized incarnation of God such as Vyåsa. It should be kept in mind that in order for the paramparå to be effective so that there is a genuine transmission of transcendental knowledge, the audience must also be qualified. (Chapter 4, page 1: the sages defer to ¸aunaka who would choose the proper topic. This shows paramparå.).
	Thus, in the second verse of the first chapter, the sages who will hear from Süta are themelves revealed to be learned in the Absolute Truth, or in the Vedic knowledge which reveals that truth (brahma-®ßaya˙). They are similarly said to be living in a spiritual community (åΩrama-våsina˙ 1.3); serious and spiritual thinkers (munîn, sadbhi˙ 1.4); dedicated to austerity (tapasvina˙ 1.5); spiritually self-realized, (brahma-bhütå hi me matå˙ 1.12); religiously dutiful (k®tåbhißekå˙, k®ta-japyå˙, hutågnaya˙ 1.13); and "twice-born men, situated in their real identity" (sva-sthå, dvijå˙ 1.13)
	It was such an impressive group of men who joyfully welcomed Süta, who then spoke to them the Mahåbhårata. Such a qualified audience facilitates the proper transmission of transcendental literatures. ¸rîla Prabhupåda states, “The difficulty is that such literatures, when discussed by professional men, appear to be mundane literature like histories or epics because there are so many historical facts and figures. It is said here, therefore, that such literatures should be discussed in the assembly of devotees” (¸B  2.3.14). 
	The speaker, Süta, is hardly similarly qualified. The first verse of the epic history describes Süta as a learned scholar of the ancient histories (paurå∫ika), of such fame that he is called ugra-Ωravå˙, “one of awesome reputation.”  When the sages request him to speak the Mahåbhårata, Süta begins by offering his obeisances to the Supreme Lord Viß∫u (ådyam purußam îΩånam, MB 1.1.20)., whom he identifies with Lord K®ß∫a (namas-k®tya h®ßîkeΩam caråcara-gurum harim, MB 1.1.22).. Having glorified the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and having already stated (MB 1.1.3-9) that he heard the Mahåbhårata, originally spoken by Vyåsa, from the author’s disciple VaiΩampåyana, Süta then declares: “I shall now narrate the entire epic as taught by Vyåsa, that great and broadminded sage honored by all”  (MB 1.1.23). 
	From the standpoint of Vedic culture, it is idle to envision Süta as a mere poet or bard, conjuring tall tales to amuse an ordinary audience. He is rather a prominent link in the chain of paramparå, or disciplic succession, the crucial channel through which timeless knowledge descends, as described by Lord K®ß∫a in the Bhagavad-gîtå:

I spoke this unperishing science of yoga to the sun-god Vivasvån, Vivasvån spoke it to Manu, and Manu told it to Ikßvåku. The saints and kings thus understood it as it was received through paramparå (Bg 4.1-2). 

	Thus it is made crystal clear at the very beginning of the Mahåbhårata that it was by the order of his guru, Vyåsa, that the sage VaiΩampåyana properly narrated the epic at a religious sacrifice:
	 We are dealing here not merely with creative poets and entertainment-loving audiences, but with the grave transmission of sacred knowledge. Thus Süta describes the Mahåbhårata as “very holy, variegated narrations” (su-pu∫yå vividhå˙ kathå˙, MB 1.1.9), originally spoken by Vyåsadeva (k®ß∫å-dvaipåyana-proktå˙)., and then recounted according to rules, by his disciple VaiΩampåyana (kathitåΩ cåpi vidhivad yå vaiΩampåyanena vai, emphasis mine). Similarly, Süta declares: “I shall speak the entire thesis of the great sage Vyåsa of unmeasured might” (maharße˙... pravakßyåmi mataµ k®tsnam vyåsasyåmita-tejasa˙, MB 1.1.23).
	The grave and sacred nature of the transmission is also shown in verses 20 to 22 of the first chapter, wherein Süta offers his obseisances to, and glorifies, the Supreme Lord Viß∫u, or K®ß∫a. The idea is that narration of sacred history cannot be successful without the blessings of the Supreme. Both the wordly skill of the narrator to remember and speak well the history, and the spiritual potency of his presentation to purify the audience, all depend on God’s blessings which descend through the transparent via media of the paramparå.
	There is clearly a spiritual strategy here to present colorful topics (vividhå˙ kathå˙) that lead to virtue and righteousness (pu∫ya-kathå˙ dharma-saµΩritå˙, MB 1.1.14). The typical scenario in such meetings of holy speakers and saintly audiences is a conscious collaboration between speaker and hearers to generate a spiritual discourse that will survive the immediate historical environment and emrge as an authentic scripture with the potency to purify and ultimately save the world. So the sages tell Süta: “we desire to hear this virtuous compendium which drives away the danger of sin” (saµhitåµ Ωrotum icchåmo dharmyåm påpa-bhayåpahåm, MB 1.1.19).
	Apart from Vyåsa, there are other sages mentioned in the Mahåbhårata who possess a kind of God-given right to declare special rules of morality and custom. I will give three examples of this from the first book, the Ådi-parva. In each case, the sage establishes a maryådå, a rule or law which defines the bounds or limits of morality and propriety.
	In chapter seventy-one, the demonic Asuras trick their venerable guru into drinking the pulverized remains of his student Kaca, which the demons have placed in ¸ukra’s liquor. The exalted priest, realizing what has happened, raises himself and establishes a new maryådå for bråhma∫as:

From this day one, any Bråhma∫a who out of delusion, and being dull-witted, shall drink liquor, shall become a killer of the brahminical culture, and will be bereft of his religious principles, and shall be condemned in this world and the next.” ¸ukra then states that he has uttered a sîmå, a limit or boundary on the religious duties of Bråhma∫as, and he has thus established a maryådå (MB 1.71.53–55).

	Similarly, when the sage Ma∫∂avya concludes that the lord of death has unfairly punished him, he declares, 

Today, I establish a maryådå in the world regarding the result of law: up to the fourteenth year, an act will not be criminal, but after that age those who so act will be held at fault (MB 1.101.26). 

	In the third and final example, På∫∂u is cursed and cannot personally conceive a child, he tries to convince his devoted wife Kuntî to conceive a son with another qualified man. To encourage her, he claims that in a remote past, women were allowed to freely conceive children with men other than their husbands. It was only by a later maryådå declared by the young sage ¸vetaketu that things changed. Furious to see that in the presence of his father, a bråhma∫a was taking away his mother for intercourse, ¸vetaketu uttered a series of new rules amounting to the normal Vedic custom of marityal chastity to which Kuntî powerfully adhered (MB 1.113.15–20). På∫∂u concludes his story by telling his wife, “Thus formerly, O timid one, Uddålaka’s son ¸vetaketu established a righteous maryådå by force” (MB 1.113-20).
	Such customs or rules, contained in the scriptures and approved by great Åcåryas, saintly leaders, become authoritative in their own right, although such detailed injunctions are not to be confused with sanåtana-dharma, eternal laws of God that are valid in all times and places, absolutely. In any case, all such rules and injunctions are carried down through time in the chain of paramparå. Both the scripture, and the qualified saintly teacher are required to keep the tradition fresh and alive. In his introduction to the ¸rîmad-Bhågavatam, ¸rîla Prabhupåda states:  

Many... great and renowned scholars and devotees of the Lord have prepared voluminous books and literatures on the life and precepts of the Lord. Such literatures are all based on the Ωåstras like the Vedas, Purå∫as, Upanißads, Råmåya∫a, Mahåbhårata and other histories and authentic literatures approved by the recognized Åcåryas” (¸B Intro. p 5). 

	Significantly, Prabhupåda here states that the scriptures and the great Åcåryas mutually confirm each other. The Åcåryas reveal in their lives and words the truth of the scriptures, and the scriptures reveal the identity of the bona fide representative of God.
	The Gau∂îya Vaiß∫avas trace their link to Vyåsa through Madhvåcårya who is said to have directly contacted Vyåsa. ¸rîla Prabhupåda states: “When he met Vyåsadeva, he received from him the ¸alagråma-silå known as Aß†a-mürti. After this, he summarized the Mahåbhårata” (CC 2.9.245).
	The paramparå, the divine channel through which knowledge of the Absolute Truth descends, is flourishing throughout the higher planets of the universe. ¸rîla Prabhupåda declares:

¸ukadeva Gosvåmî (Brahmaråta): The famous son and disciple of ¸rî Vyåsadeva, who taught him first the Mahåbhårata and then ¸rîmad-Bhågavatam. ¸ukadeva Gosvåmî recited 1,400,000 verses of the Mahåbhårata in the councils of the Gandharvas, Yakßas and Råkßasas” (¸B 1.9.8).

	The Mahåbhårata gives similar information:

Dvaipåyana [Vyåsa] first taught his son ¸uka, and then the lord gave this epic to other suitable disciples. Nårada taught it to the gods, Asita-devala to the forefathers, and ¸uka certainly taught it to the Gandharvas, Yakßas and Råkßasas” (MB 1.1.63–64).

	The method by which a sincere disciple pleases his guru and obtains knowledge from him is nicely illustrated in the third chapter of the Ådi-parva in the story of the teacher Ayoda-dhaumya and his three students, each of whom had to possess a unique sort of examination to gain the guru’s favor. We should pay special attention here to the epistemological notion that the guru has the power to reveal true Vedic understanding to a sincere disciple. For instance, in the guru-disciple relationship bewteen Ayoda-dhaumya and his faithful disciple Åru∫i of Påñcåla, it is said, “He was blessed by his teacher: ‘because you have abided by my order, therefore you shall achieve good fortune. And all the Vedas shall be revealed to you, and all the dharma-Ωåstras” (MB 1.3.30). The same guru later said to a second disciple, Upamanyu, “As the two AΩvins said, so shall you achieve good fortune. All the Vedas shall be revealed to you” (MB 1.3.77).
 	It is significant that this short history, or upåkhyåna is placed at the beginning of the epic, which boldly declares itself to be a Vedic literature. The clear message seems to be that a proper understanding of the Mahåbhårta itself is to be gleaned through the via medium of a genuine spiritual preceptor. Certainly this is the way the sages at NaimiΩåra∫ya, headed by ¸aunaka, took the matter, as did the great king Janamejaya.
	At times the same process of a guru-disciple relationship is deployed to gain material wisdom and prowess, as in the story of Kaca who became a most faithful disciple of ¸ukra in order to gain the power of bring dead warriors back to life (MB 1.71–72).

Vyåsa author

	There is virtually unanimous agreement among traditional Vedic teachers that the author of the Mahåbhårata is the divine sage Vyåsa. Thus the famous ¸aõkara, in the preface to his commentary on Bhagavad-gîtå, declares:
	 
	Salutations to thee, O Vyåsa.
	Thou art of mighty intellect,
	And thine eyes
	Are large as the petals
	Of the full-blown lotus.
	 It was thou
	Who brightened this lamp of wisdom,
	Filling it with the oil
	Of the Mahåbhårata.

	Similarly, for ¸rîla Prabhupåda, there was nothing mythical about the authorship of Vyåsa, nor about the historicity of the Mahåbhårata. Thus: “Mahåbhårata is the history of the ancient world, and Vyasadeva is the writer of this great epic” (SSR Ch 3). 

	¸rî Vyåsadeva and his many disciples were all historical personalities, and they were very kind and sympathetic toward the fallen souls of this age of Kali (¸B 1.4.19 ).

	“¸rîla Vyåsadeva is called Mahå-muni. He…compiled the Mahåbhårata, which is accepted as the fifth Veda” (CC 2.20.353p).
	There is a wide consensus within the Vedic literatures that Vyåsa is a divine incarnation who first divided the Veda into four more comprehensible divisions, and then edited the historical epics and Purå∫as. That Vyåsa is the original author of the Mahåbhårata is stated ubiquitously throughout the text. The first book of the Mahåbhårata states at least three times that it is he also who divided the original Veda. For instance,
	“Vyåsa, the son of Satyavatî, by austerity and celibate life, divided the eternal Veda and arranged this pious history (Mahåbhårata).” This coincides precisely with the version of the ¸rîmad-Bhågavatam (¸B 1.4.19–25) and numerous other Vedic literatures. Indeed the very name vyåsa means “the divider” or “the arranger.”
	What was Vyåsa’s motive? He saw that in this fallen age, people could hardly understand the original Vedas and so he presented the same basic spiritual path in the form of histories, with war, romance etc. ¸rîla Prabhupåda comments, “¸rîla Vyåsadeva, Mahå-muni, compiled the Vedic literature for the benefit of all human society. If one wants to be protected from the reactions of ignorance even in this age of Kali, one may consult the books left by ¸rîla Vyåsadeva, Upanißads, Vedånta-sütra (Brahma-sütra), Mahåbhårata, ¸rîmad-Bhågavatam Mahå-purå∫a (Vyåsadeva’s commentary on the Brahma-sütra) and the other seventeen Purå∫as. Only by the mercy of ¸rîla Vyåsadeva do we have so many volumes of transcendental knowledge to save us from the clutches of ignorance” (¸B 6.8.19p).
	The following description of the spiritual powers of Vyåsa is typical of the Mahåbhårata text: 
		“Pure, true to his vow, poetic and scholarly, a seer of the absolute, the finest of Vedic knowers, Vyåsa divided the one Veda into four” (MB 1.54.5). Similarly, he is frequently described as bhagavån ®ßi˙, “an exalted sage” or indeed a sage who is a lord, or an incarnation of the Lord. In fact, in the ¸rîmad-Bhågavatam (1.3.21) Vyåsa is formally listed as an empowered incarnation of the Supreme Lord.
	To say that Vyåsa is an incarnation of the Lord and that, with the powers one would expect in such a divine figure, he wrote the Bhårata is a metaphysical, a spiritual claim. Similarly to deny this claim is equally a metaphysical or religious claim. It is remarkable how many mundane scholars, in the name of objectivity, commit themselves to metaphysical, religious positions by denying the metaphysical, religious positions of Vedic religion. To deny or affirm a proposition is to claim expert knowledge within the area in which that proposition occurs. Thus for example in order to correct a spelling test, the teacher must know the correct spelling of the words to mark the students’ attempts right or wrong. To mark an answer “right” does not require more or less knowledge than to mark it “wrong.” Similarly, to deny a religious claims requires religious knowledge, in fact the same religious knowledge required to affirm the same claim. Therefore to deny the spiritual claim that Vyåsa is the author of the Vedas is to commit oneself to a counter-spiritual position. To do this in the name of material objectivity is silliness at best. 
	It also follows, as ¸rîla Prabhupåda points out, that from the spiritual point of view just as the great Vyåsa compiled the Mahåbhårata through his personal purity, so an aspiring scholar or knower of the epic must follow in the line of Vyåsa. 

A gosvåmî, or the bona fide representative of ¸rî Vyåsadeva, must be free from all kinds of vices… before he can dare sit on the vyåsåsana” (¸B 1.1.6).

History – itihåsa

In its first book, the Mahåbhårata describes itself and its contents nineteen times as itihåsa or history. Because the epic describes events, powers, and beings beyond the range of contemporary empirical understanding, modern scholars tend to dismiss this claim and they do not hestitate to reclassify the work as a myth or an epic fiction.
The Sanskrit word itihåsa is a composite of three elements:  iti -- thus; ha --  verily; åsa -- it was. So itihåsa literally means, “Thus verily it was,” and indicates a historical narration. 
The Mahåbhårata defines itself not only as an itihåsa or history, but as the very finest of all histories. At times, it views itself as a compendium of histories, complete with historical interpretations. The Mahåbhårata also assumes that its own historigraphical genre falls squarely within the broad corpus of Vedic literature. Thus, “as soon as Vyåsa was born, he studied the Vedas… which included the histories.” It is also said that “having a most important purpose, this history is the best of sacred literatures.”
Vedic historical literature seems to stand in a special relationship to another class of literature called Purå∫as. The Sanskrit word purå∫a means “ancient, that which belongs to olden times,” and the eighteen principal Purå∫as often recount ancient histories similar to those described in the Mahåbhårata. The juxtaposition of these two kinds of Vedic literature can be directly seen in three instances within the Ådi-parva. We are told that “one should enrich and reinforce one’s study of the Veda with the Itihåsas and Purå∫as.” Similarly, in consecutive verses, the Mahåbhårata is called first a purå∫a and then an itihåsa. And finally, in describing the education of the three Kuru princes, Dh®taråß†ra, På∫∂u and Vidura, they are said to have become masters of many scriptures, including “the itihåsas and Purå∫as.” Significantly, it is to be understood from this statement that the Mahåbhårata is not the first historical work, since before its compilation, the Kuru princes already had facility to study histories. Similarly, we may note that Vyåsa himself, the author of the Mahåbhårata, is said to have studied histories in his youth. 
The Itihåsas and Purå∫as are further linked in the B®had-åra∫yaka Upanißad, and in the Chåndogya Upanißad wherein they are said to be the “fifth Veda”.
The Mahåbhårata presents itself as a real historical account, and not as myth or epic fiction. Thus when Nårada tells the five På∫∂ava brothers that he is going to tell them an ancient history of two demonic brothers, he emphasizes that he will narrate the history yathå-v®ttam, “just as it occured.” Similarly, the history of the the slaying of Pulomå and the birth of Cyavana is described as “This history which thus occured in the past.”   
There is even an interesting statement in the Sabhå Parva in which it is said that the personified histories, itihåsas, are present in the great hall of Brahmå and there attend upon the cosmic creator.

Histories of different planets and eons
Any writer of history must exercise selectivity in his or her work, since no one can record the totality of events that take place even within a single hour, and far less the events that occur within decades, centuries, millenia, etc. One tries to select what is significant and illustrative and to reject the opposite. Our sense of the historically important rests on our sense of what is important in general within the world. Who are we? What do we need to know? What is valuable for the world, for people, for myself? Whether or not a historian explicitly confronts these fundamental issues, they inform his or her work. 
For example, although a person who sees the snow, or the tropics, for the first time may try to record with pen or camera the slightest details of the experience. Similarly, the modern historian, with his short, linear tale of the birth, growth, flourishing, and possible demise of humankind, grasps onto the minutest historical details. The notion of a unique evolving cosmos fixes crucial value on all that has led up to this current instant which is the very frontier of reality. Nothwithstanding repeating historical patterns, in a fundamental sense all that happens happens for the first and last time. We say that history repeats itself, but in the shadow of the Western empirical creation myth, and its clear sense of the perishing body as the self, each historical age, event, and person exists only once, and therefore must be captured and preserved in the pages of history. 
All of the above collides head-on with the vast, cyclical, theistic cosmology of the Mahåbhårata and allied Vedic literatures. For example, in the Bhagavad-gîtå we find that a single day of the creator Brahmå corresponds to 4,300,000,000 earthly years, and the same duration is the creator’s night. Thirty of such days and nights forms a month of Brahmå, twelve such months a year, and 100 such years a lifetime. Thus the lifetime of Brahmå, and of the universe that he creates, is about 311 trillion years. This figure, however, defines a relatively brief period of time, since Lord K®ß∫a also states in the Gîtå that He repeatedly manifests and absorbs into Himself such cosmic creations:
All beings, O Kaunteya, enter My potency at the end of the age, and I again create them at the beginning of a new age. Utilizing my own potency, I create again and again this entire host of beings who are helplessly controlled by My potency (Bg 9.7–8). 

  Thus the creation and destruction of universes goes on incessantly [bhütvå bhütvå pralîyate, Bg. 8.19]. Thus when ¸rîla Prabhupåda states, “Vedic histories — the Purå∫as and Mahåbhårata — relate human histories that extend millions and millions of years into the past” (¸B 4.29.42-44p ) he is speaking in truly modest terms. Not only does Vedic history claim to deal with such dizzying time-spans, but also with vast numbers of planets beyond our earth. The Mahåbhårata puts it this way:
“Thus it is -- without beginning or end, withdrawing and creating all beings, the beginningless, endless wheel goes on rolling” (MB 1.1.38). Given the spatio-temporal dimensions of the Vedic cosmos, the issue of historiographical selectivity is radically altered for the Vedic historian. ¸rîla Prabhupåda points out in a lecture: 
“The Mahåbhårata and the Purå∫as are histories, although they are not chronological. If the history of such a vast period of time was recorded chronologically, how many pages would it have to be? Therefore, only the most important incidents are selected and described in the Mahåbhårata” (Teachings of Queen Kuntî, ch. 7).
Similarly, 
Men with a poor fund of knowledge only accept the history of the world from the time of Buddha, or since 600 B.C., and prior to this period all histories mentioned in the scriptures are calculated by them to be only imaginary stories. This is not a fact. All the stories mentioned in the Purå∫as and Mahåbhårata etc. are actual histories, not only of this planet but also of millions of other planets within the universe. Sometimes the history of planets beyond this world appear to such men to be unbelievable. But they do not know that different planets are not equal in all respects and that therefore some of the historical facts derived from other planets do not correspond with the experience of this planet. (¸B 1.1.41p).

One may object that true science demands that so-called facts be available for wide public inspection. How can spiritual claims which can be verified only by an elite of realized souls be taken as the data-base for a science? Perhaps in the same way that an elite of trained experts decides what is real in a material science, a process nicely illustrated in an article in The New York Times reporting on a great scientific discovery by Albert Einstein: 
London, Nov. 9. [1919]— Efforts made to put in words intelligible to the non-scientific public the Einstein theory of light proved by the eclipse expedition so far have not been very successful. … Sir Joseph Thomson (sic), President of the Royal Society, declares it is not possible to put Einstein’s theory into really intelligible words…  Thompson states that… it is useless to endeavor to detail (Einstein’s theories) for the man in the street. 

 It is important to grasp the intended sense of Prabhupåda’s statement that the Vedic histories “are not chronological.” Indeed Western scholars have long accused India of lacking a true historical instinct. Prabhupåda often mentions that the Vedic histories are “not chronological” but he means by this that they do not begin from a single given point in past time and then proceed in strict chronological order to the present, telling all that happened along the way. Indeed if we take seriously the claim that the creation and destruction of universes occurs in cycles, and that the Vedic histories aim to give us the essence of a story that covers trillions of trillions of years, and trillions of trillions of planets, the very attempt to do so would be utterly absurd. 
We have discussed how a vastly expanded spatio-temporaral context radically alters historigraphical selectivity. But apart from these numerical and cosmological issues, there is also the qualitative dimension of the historian’s choice. Here lies the issue of what is important and why, what fact is valuable and hence worth the historian’s effort to record and preserve it. To grasp the Vedic notion of that which is worthy of serious historical writing, we must leave the realm of cosmology and enter that of Vedic ontology. Again we turn profitably to the words of Lord K®ß∫a in the Bhagavad-gîtå. 
In the interest of brevity, we may state that the Gîtå gives us this picture: each and every living being is an eternal soul that has always existed and will continue to exist for evermore as an irreducible unit of personal, individual consciousness. What is more, each soul is forever a part of, and subordinate to, the Supreme Soul, who is God, K®ß∫a. Because we souls, who are the superior, conscious energy of K®ß∫a, are trying to exploit the resources of material nature (which is also the Lord’s energy, but an inferior one because it is unconscious and non-living), we are entangled in a sad cosmos of birth, death, old age, and disease. The bars of our prison are psychological, they are our own attachment and aversion toward the dualities of material pleasure and pain. The Lord calls upon us, in the Gîtå, to give up our deluded sense of an existence and identity apart from Him, and to surrender to His perfect and benevolent guidance and protection. Purifying our eternal consciousness in the loving service of the Lord (bhakti-yoga), we will return to our real home in the Lord’s abode. Historical studies, and all else that a creature may do in the universe, should be offered as a devotional service to the Lord. Thus historical writings that lead to K®ß∫a consciousness are consonant with the actual purpose of our existence. Other attempts at wisdom, which deny or ignore the loving service of God, are doomed to terminate in the certain uncertainty of relativism.
Granted the scope of Vedic cosmology and ontology, rather than simply stick a tag of “mythology” or “epic fiction” on the Mahåbhårata, let us reason for once the other way around. Let us assume for the moment that the statements of K®ß∫a in the Bhagavad-gîtå are actually true, both in its cosmology and ontology, and for that matter in its epistemological claims, such as that one who surrenders to K®ß∫a can actually see all these facts clearly and thus have the very best epistemic reasons to assert such truths. Let us further imagine that we are Vedic sages whose duty it is to write down the essential lessons of history, the best knowledge of, and for, human life. We are thus to compress into a single work (vast though it may be) the historical highlights of a tradition that spans many hundreds of billions of years just since the last creation of the universe (and in fact information is available from past creations, making our time frame virtually infinite). The tradition has it that a universe endures about 311 trillion years of which about 155 trillion years have passed. Lord K®ß∫a incarnates once in a day of Brahmå, so He has come about 18,000 times, and there have been, say, a few hundred thousand other incarnations of God, just within our local universe, which is but one of many billions of universes. With the change of Manvantaras, Indras change, along with Manus, sages, etc. 
When the Vedic sages then cast their eye upon Western histories and their feverish struggle to record and preserve every detail in the lives of ordinary men and women who cannot even award divine liberation, and have little connection with the highest truth, histories that cover less than 3000 years, how pointless it all seems.
Thus, since the cycles of cosmic creation and dissolution go on perpetually, Vedic history provides us with a typical scenario for the life of a universe. Particular historical incidents, selected for their didactic value, are drawn from a virtually infinite syllabus. Prabhupåda puts it this way: 
Such historical facts, being instructive for ordinary men, were assorted without chronological reference. Besides that, they happen on different planets, nay, in different universes… We are simply concerned with the instructive lessons of such incidents, even though they are not in order by our limited range of understanding” (¸B1.9.28p).

But ultimately, history itself must serve the ultimate spiritual aims of humanity. In the ¸rîmad-Bhågavatam, ¸rîla Prabhupåda states (¸B 3.5.10p): 
The real purpose of such literatures is not so much to present topics of historical references, but to revive the people’s sense of God consciousness. For example, Mahåbhårata is the history of the Battle of Kurukßetra, and common people read it because it is full of topics regarding the social, political and economic problems of human society. But factually the most important part of Mahåbhårata is Bhagavad-gîtå, which is automatically taught to readers along with the historical narrations of the Battle of Kurukßetra.

¸B 3.5.12: 
The sage Vyåsa, your friend, desired to speak of the qualities of the Lord and so he spoke the Mahåbhårata, in which by continuous narration of ordinary affairs, the mind of people is certainly captured in the narration of the Lord.

Regarding the importance of the Bhagavad-gîtå in the Mahåbhårata, ¸aõkaråcårya states: 

May the spotless lotus of the Mahåbhårata
That grows on the waters
Of the words of Vyåsa
And of which the Bhagavad-gîtå
Is the irresistibly sweet fragrance
And its tales of heroes
The full-blown petals
Fully opened by the talk of Lord Hari,
Who destroys the sins
Of Kali-yuga,
And on which daily light
The nectar-seeking souls,
As so many bees
Swarming joyously
May this lotus of the Mahåbhårata
Bestow on us the highest good.

Similarly, in the purport to the ¸rîmad-Bhågavatam 1.5.15 Prabhupåda states:
In histories like the Mahåbhårata, of course, there are topics on transcendental subjects along with material topics. The Bhagavad-gîtå is there in the Mahåbhårata. The whole idea of the Mahåbhårata culminates in the ultimate instructions of the Bhagavad-gîtå, that one should relinquish all other engagements and should engage oneself solely and fully in surrendering unto the lotus feet of Lord ¸rî K®ß∫a. But men with materialistic tendencies are more attracted to the politics, economics and philanthropic activities mentioned in the Mahåbhårata than to the principal topic, namely the Bhagavad-gîtå.

K®ß∫a
Ådi Parva

	We have elaboratedly shown that from its very beginning, the Mahåbhårata reognizes Lord Viß∫u, also known as Lord Nåråya∫a, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In chapter 29 if the Ådi Parva we learn that K®ß∫a is that same Supreme Lord. In the story of Garu∂a, the great bird carrier of Viß∫u, we find this passage:

Garu∂a, son of Vinatå, then met with Viß∫u up in the sky. Nåråya∫a was satisfied with his magnanimous act. The unperishing Lord said to him, “I am a giver of boon, O sky goer.” (When Garu∂a was thus prompted by the Lord) that space traveler then shows: “May I stand above you.” And again he spoke the following words to Nåråya∫a, “May I be unaging, and undying, even without the nectar of immortality.” Having accepted these two boons, Garu∂a said to Viß∫u: “Even unto You I shall give a boon. Although You are the Lord, please choose.” K®ß∫a chose him, the mighty Garu∂a, as His carrier and the Lord also made him (the emblem on the Lord’s high-flying) banner. (And so the Lord said to him) you shall stand above Me.”

	It is significant that in the same incident, the very same personality is described here as Viß∫u, Nåråya∫a, and K®ß∫a. Ultimately, in the main story of the Mahåbhårata, it is Lord ¸rî K®ß∫a who is the beloved hero of the På∫∂ava brothers and the Supreme Lord Himself. Thus we shall briefly review the role of Lord K®ß∫a within the first two books of the Mahåbhårata. 
	The first chapter of the Mahåbhårata reveals that K®ß∫a and Arjuna are Nara-Nåråya∫a, the Supreme Lord and His pure devotee. Thus in his lament for the tragedy of the Kurukßetra war, the old King Dh®taråß†ra says:

When I heard from Nårada, who stated that K®ß∫a and Arjuna are actually Nara and Nåråya∫a, and when Nårada said, “I always see them in Brahma-loka, the highest planet of the universe, then, O Sañjaya, I no longer hoped for victory.”

	It is significant that an exhalted servant of the Lord, Nårada Muni, revealed the spiritual identity of K®ß∫a and Arjuna. This is the normal process by which spiritual knowledge is transmitted, according to the Mahåbhårata. 
	It is understood in the Mahåbhårata that Lord K®ß∫a is behind the heroic deeds of the På∫∂avas. Indeed in the Bhagavad-gîtå, Lord K®ß∫a said to Arjuna, “Just become the instrument, Arjuna, for that which I am going to do” (cf. Bg 11.33–34). An example of this understanding, that the På∫∂avas are the instruments of the will of God, is found in the second chapter of the Mahåbhårata within a description of the contents of the entire work. As we shall see, in the second book, the Sabhå Parva, Lord K®ß∫a, Bhîma, and Arjuna journey together to the kingdom of the evil Jaråsandha and there Bhîma slays him. With the death of Jaråsandha, thousands of pious kings whom the evil monarch kept imprisoned and prepared to slaughter, then gained their freedom. An yet in summarizing this incident, the Mahåbhårata states that, “In Giriråja (the capital of Jaråsandha) K®ß∫a freed the imprisoned kings.”
	Certainly, within the same general description, the Mahåbhårata tells us that it was by taking shelter of Lord K®ß∫a’s strength that the five På∫∂avas, and the great archer Satyakî, were the sole survivors of the battle of Kurukßetra:

In that (battle) those five sons of P®thå were saved by taking shelter of K®ß∫a’s strength, also Såtyaki, the great archer. All the rest went to perdition.

	Chapter 55 of the Ådi Parva gives further evidence that there is no difference between Lord K®ß∫a and Viß∫u, Nåråya∫a. It is well known that ¸rî, the Goddess of Fortune, also known as Laksmî, is the wife of Lord Nåråya∫a, Viß∫u. And yet we find this statement in the Mahåbhårata:

The joyful Subhadrå was joined with Arjuna, son of Pa∫∂u, just as ¸acî was joined with the great Indra or as ¸rî, the Goddess of Fortune is united with K®ß∫a.

	Lord K®ß∫a is omniscient and therefore within the story of the Mahåbhårata, He can understand what no one else can comprehend. For example, when the five På∫∂ava brothers journey incognito to the the svayam-vara ceremony of Darupadî, wherein the beautiful princess would choose a husband, only Lord K®ß∫a, among all the leaders of the world can recognize the På∫∂avas (MB 1.180.17–21).
	Chapter 189 of the Ådi Parva states that when there was great calamity on the earth and the demigods approached Lord Nåråya∫a for help, the Lord then did the following:

And so that Lord plucked out two hairs, one was white and the other was black. And those two hairs entered two women of the Yadu clan, Rohinî and Devakî. Of the two hairs, one became Baladeva and the second arose as K®ß∫a KeΩava.

	The ¸rî Caitanya-caritåm®ta (2.22.117–18) comments on this description. We shall now give that statement from the ¸rî Caitanya-caritåm®ta along with ¸rîla Prabhupåda’s commentary.

Translation:
Illusory stories opposed to the conclusions of K®ß∫a consciousness concern the destruction of the Yadu dynasty, K®ß∫a’s disappearance, the story that K®ß∫a and Balaråma arise from a black hair and a white hair of KßîrodakaΩåyi Viß∫u, and the story about the kidnapping of the queens. ¸rî Caitanya Mahaprabhu explained to Sanåtana Gosvåmî the proper conclusions of these stories.
Purport:
	Due to envy, many asuras describe K®ß∫a to be like a black crow or an incarnation of a hair. ¸rî Caitanya Mahåprabhu told Sanatana Gosvåmî how to counteract all these asuric explanations of K®ß∫a. The word Kåka means crow, and keΩa means hair. The asuras describe K®ß∫a as incarnation of a crow, an incarnation of a Ωudra (a blackish tribe) and an incarnation of a hair, not knowing that the word keΩa means ka-îΩa and that ka means Lord Brahmå and îΩa means Lord. Thus K®ß∫a is the Lord of Lord Brahmå.
	Some of Lord K®ß∫a’s pastimes are mentioned in the Mahåbhårata as maußala-lîlå. These include the stories of the destruction of the Yadu dynasty, K®ß∫a’s disappearance, His being pierced by a hunter’s arrow, the story of K®ß∫a’s being an incarnation of a piece of hair (keΩa-avatåra) as well as mahißî-hara∫a, the kidnapping of K®ß∫a’s queens. Actually these are not factual but are related for the bewilderment of the asuras who want to prove that K®ß∫a is an ordinary human being. They are false in the sense that these pastimes are not eternal, nor are they transcendental or spiritual. There are many people who are by nature averse to the supremacy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Viß∫u. Such people are called asuras. They have mistaken ideas about K®ß∫a. As stated in Bhagavad-gîtå, the asuras are given a chance to forget K®ß∫a more and more, birth after birth. Thus they make their appearance in a family of asuras and continue this process, being kept in bewilderment about K®ß∫a. Asuras in the dress of sannyåsîs even explain Bhagavad-gîtå and Ûrîmad Bhågavatam in different ways according to their own imaginations. Thus they continue to remain asuras birth after birth.
	As far as the keΩa-avatåra (incarnation of hair) is concerned, it is mentioned in Ûrîmad-Bhågavatam (2.7.26).The Viß∫u Purå∫a also states: ujjahåråtmana˙ keΩau sita-k®ß∫au mahå-bala…
	Thus in Ûrîmad-Bhågavatam, Viß∫u Purå∫a and Mahåbhårata there are references to K®ß∫a and Balaråma being incarnations of a black hair and a white hair. It is stated that Lord Viß∫u snatched two hairs — one white and one black — from His head. These two hairs entered the wombs of Rohi∫î and Devakî, members of the Yadu dynasty. Balaråma was born from Rohi∫î, and K®ß∫a was born of Devakî. Thus Balaråma appeared from the first hair, and K®ß∫a appeared from the second hair. It was also foretold that all the asuras, who are enemies of the demigods, would be cut down by Lord Viß∫u by His white and black plenary expansions and that the Supreme Personality of Godhead would appear and perform wonderful activities. In this connection, one should see Laghu-bhågavatåm®ta, the chapter called K®ß∫åm®ta, verses 156-164. Ûrîla Rüpa Gosvåmî has refuted this argument about the hair incarnation, and his refutation is supported by ¸rî Baladeva Visyåbhüßa∫a’s commentaries. This matter is further discussed in the K®ß∫a-sandarbha (29) and in the commentary known as Sarva-saµvådinî, by ¸rîla Jîva Gosvåmî.

	The Ådi Parva ends with the spectacular burning of the Khå∫∂ava forest. The fire god Agni, in the form of a brilliant Bråhma∫a, approaches K®ß∫a and Arjuna and asks them to allow him to consume the Khå∫∂ava forest. The god Indra had repeatedly thwarted Agni’s attempt to consume the valuable herbs in the forest, which Agni desperately needed for his health, and of course for the benefit of the world. Lord K®ß∫a and Arjuna agree and in the ensuing conflagration many creatures of various species perish.
	A doubt may arise as to why Lord K®ß∫a and Arjuna, even in the service of the god Agni, played an essential role in such a violent event. The Mahåbhårata gives us a hint in chapter 58 of the Ådi Parva. There we discover that prior to Lord K®ß∫a’s descent to this world, the gods of the higher worlds defeated the wicked asuras, driving them from their positions in the higher planets. At that time the asuras sought to reestablish their power on the earth and they began to take birth in various species. Thus descending into all sorts of human, animal, and bird species, they wicked asuras began to persecute the innocent inhabitants of the earth. Thus it is plausible that many of those asuras were dwelling in the Khå∫∂ava forest, and thus Lord K®ß∫a, fulfilling His vow spoken in the Bhagavad-gîtå to rid the world of evil elements,  arranged to remove them from the earth. Thus at the end of this incident we find a statement in the Mahåbhårata, near the end of the Ådi Parva:

And the lord (the fire god Agni) of fierce rays, together with the two K®ß∫as (Lord K®ß∫a and Arjuna) burnt the blazing Khå∫∂ava forest, thus freeing the world from danger.

	Perhaps the most significant fact of the Khå∫∂ava episode, and the reason for which Vyåsadeva placed it at the end of the first book, is the following. In the act of defending Agni as the fire god consumed the forest, Lord K®ß∫a, assisted by His devotee Arjuna, defeated all of the most powerful beings of the universe. Thus in the dramatic climax to his fist book, the Mahåbhårata establishes that K®ß∫a is the Supreme Lord, the Almighty. All of the gods in the universe and indeed all of the most powerful demons gathered at the Khå∫∂ava forest determined to stop Lord K®ß∫a and Arjuna, but all these most powerful entities failed and Lord K®ß∫a was clearly revealed as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Mahåbhårata stated this fact in the very beginninng, early in the first chapter, and now at the end of the first book Lord K®ß∫a and Arjuna clearly establish their supremacy.

Sabhå Parva

	The second book of the Mahåbhårata, the Sabhå Parva, also clearly establishes the supremacy of K®ß∫a, not only in His power, but in His all-attractiveness, which brings out intense love of His devotees. 
	Chapters 18 through 22 narrate the killing of Jaråsandha. As usual, King Yudhiß†hira and the På∫∂avas are completely dependent on the will of Lord K®ß∫a and are always eager to please their worshipable master. As mentioned earlier, although Bhîma physically killed Jaråsandha, it is understood that Lord K®ß∫a, acting through His devotee, brought about the demise of that evil monarch. 
	Chapters 37 through 42 tell the famous story in which Lord K®ß∫a slays ¸iΩupåla in the midst of the Råjasüya sacrifice. Significantly the venerable Bhîßma declared that of all the great personalities present, indeed the leading personalities of the earth, it was Lord K®ß∫a who was in fact the supreme personality and most worthy of the first portion. Wicked ¸iΩupåla, burning with envy, violently protested the glorification of K®ß∫a and in very conceivable way sought to criticize the Lord. The Lord’s devotees defended His honor, explaining the sublime meaning of the Lord’s activities. Thus through this well known incident, the Mahåbhårata teaches the glories to K®ß∫a and answers many of the doubts that arise in the minds of mortals when they hear the pastimes of the Lord. 
	The Mahåbhårata second book ends with the equally famous gambling match, in which the Kurus, led by wicked ¸akuni, cheat the innocent På∫∂avas in a game of dice and steal the kingdom. Perhaps the most famous episode within this narration is the attempt to strip and humiliate the godly Draupadî. That extraordinary woman appeals to Lord K®ß∫a, who defends her honor and decides to enforce her curse, that all of the offending men shall die.
	Thus ends the second book of the Mahåbhårata, which, like the first, clearly establishes the glory and the supremacy of Lord ¸rî K®ß∫a, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Dharma as Law

	Although some scholars invariably translate the Sanskrit word dharma with the English word “law”, in fact dharma, even in its sense of a binding rule, goes beyond the Western notion of law. For example, we can easily speak of an unjust law, but we can hardly speak of unjust dharma. That is because dharma is the sacred law, invested with divine authority, for dharma is based on the Vedas, sacred scriptures revealed by the Supreme Lord to highly qualified sages. 
	Thus in the second book of the Mahåbhårata, the great sage Nårada, while giving a political science lecture to King Yudhiß†hira, states that dharma is trayî-müla. The word trayî refers to the three principle Vedas, the ‰g-, Yajur-, and Såma-veda; and the word müla means the “root, foundation or basis”. According to Sanskrit grammar, the expression dharme trayî-müle can be understood in two ways: a) that the three Vedas are the root of dharma; or b) that dharma is the root of the Vedas. We shall discuss the first option as more likely here, though the second has profound theological implications.
	Nårada’s precise statement to Yudhiß†hira shows that dharma is perennially authoritative, and hence must be executed:

[Nårada said:] Abiding in that dharma whose root is the three Vedas, the dharma practiced by your predecessors, do you continue to execute those same duties? 

	And because the Mahåbhårata is “equal to the four Vedas”, it is naturally “conducive to dharma” (dharmya). Thus at the beginning of the epic the sages gathered in the sacred forest of Naimißåra∫ya, in requesting the main speaker, Süta, to narrate the Mahåbhårata, declare that:  

We wish to hear the scripture compiled by Vyåsa, whose deeds are wonderful, becausewhich is equal to the four Vedas, and which, having the quality of dharma, drives away the fear of sin.
 
	The Vedas and dharma go hand in hand. Thus the saintly King Yayåti instructs his son-in-laws that a dutiful householder must perform fire sacrifice, the quintessential Vedic duty, in accord with dharma:

[Yayåti said:] The householder should offer sacrifice upon achieveing wealth that has come by dharma. [1.86.3]
	
	There are many episodes in the Mahåbhårata that illustrate this special relation between dharma and the Veda. For instance, when all of the kßatriya men on earth were slain, their wives were forced to beget children with noble bråhma∫as in order to perpetuate the ruling class. The attitude of the ladies, described in the following verse, illustrates nicely the Veda-dharma connection:

“The Vedas resolve that a son belongs to the man who took the [mother’s] hand.” Thus fixing dharma in their minds, the those ladies [of the royal class] approached the bråhma∫as. [1.98.5]

	Our original nature is to obey the will of God, so we realize our true nature by following dharma. We find a clear statement of this in the second chapter of the Mahåbhårata:
	
[It is the AnuΩåsana section of the Mahåbhårata] in which the Kuru king Yudhiß†hira attained his original nature upon hearing the conclusion of dharma (dharma-viniΩcayam) from Bhîßma, son of Gaõgå. [1.2.201]
 	
	What accounts for this special power of dharma, such that mere recognition of it restores a conditioned soul to his or her divine nature. The ¸rîmad-bhågavatam puts it simply: dharmaµ tu såkßåt bhagavat-pranîtam.  “Dharma is that which is brought forth by the Lord Himself.” [SBh 6.3.19] Thus dharma is ultimately the law of God, hence unlike human law, dharma cannot be unjust. And yet, having proclaimed this truth, the same verse of the Bhågavatam goes on to say:

Neither the sages nor the gods, nor the chief of perfected beings, nor the [celestial] demons and human beings, what to speak then of the Vidyådharas, Cåra∫as etc. understand that dharma which is brought forth by the Lord Himself. [SBh 6.3.19]
	
	The Bhågavatam further points out that only twelve great souls, including Brahmå, Nårada and ¸iva, understand dharma clearly. Thus it is not always easy for mere mortals to arrive at dharma-viniΩcaya, a firm decision about dharma. Yama, the lord of death, and a type of universal chief justice, is said, in the Mahåbhårata to be “a knower of dharma-viniΩcaya” [yamo yathå dharma-viniΩcaya-jña˙ MB 1.50.15], for his duty is to reward and punish conditioned souls on the basis of their compliance and noncompliance with dharma. But mortals must often struggle to comprehend dharma-viniΩcaya, (or simply dharma-niΩcaya), a correct, decisive, and settled conclusion about the sacred law which alone can properly guide mortals to happiness and fulfillment.  Thus when King Drupada cannot understand how it can be dharma for his daughter to marry all five På∫∂ava brothers, Drupada’s son Dh®ß†adyumna, who share his father’s sentiments, declares: 

Because of dharma’s subtlety, there is no way that we can understand its movements. Is it adharma or dharma? It cannot be determined. [1.188.11]

	Still one must try to understand the right course of action and the litigants or disputants in the Mahåbhårata thus argue for their moral, legal, or spiritual positions by claiming them to be in accord with dharma. Opposing viewpoints are rejected as adharma, that which is not dharma, or that which opposes and violates dharma. 
	In the first two books of the Mahåbhårata, the Ådi-parva and the Sabhå-parva, discussion of dharma, and adharma, in this sense of ajudicating legal, ethical, and spiritual controversies, focuses on two passionate human acts: violence and sex. These impulses especially need to be restrained, regulated, and guided by higher, spiritual principles. Hence there is a special concern violence and sexual relations, whenever they are necessary or unavoidable, be applied in accord with sacred law, dharma. We shall first explore the ways in which the personalities in the Mahåbhårata both oppose and justify violence in terms of dharma. 

Dharma against violence
	An interesting and exemplary discussion of dharma takes place in the eleventh chapter of the Ådi-parva. A young sage, Ruru, is about to marry a beautiful sage’s daughter, when she is suddenly slain by the venemous bite of a serpent. Ruru is devastated, but manages, with the help of the gods, to bring his bride back to life. Nevertheless having suffered terribly, he bears a terrible grudge toward all snakes whom, from then on, he kills instantly on sight. One day in the forest he comes upon a type of lizard, resembling a snake, and he prepares at once to kill it, when the reptile suddenly speaks out in a rational voice and questions the ethical propriety of Ruru’s violent intent. The reptile was formerly a young sage himself, but was cursed by a powerful ascetic friend to take birth as a lizard. Returning again to his real form as a spiritual practitioner, the erstwhile lizard presents the following argument to Ruru:
	1. Non-injury to all living beings is the highest dharma, and thus a bråhma∫a (supposedly the highest practitioner of dharma) should never injure any living being. Indeed from his very birth a bråhmana is of gentle disposition.
	2. It has been determined by authorities that for a bråhma∫a, non-injury (ahiµså) to others, speaking the truth, and practicing forgiveness are more important than merely memorizing or ritualistically following the Vedas.
	3. A king or warrior’s dharma is, however, to carry the rod of punishment, and to protect the citizens with fierce power. However such qualities are not desireable in Ruru who is a bråhma∫a. In fact there is a historical incident in which a king, Janamejaya, properly showed his warrior strength by endeavoring to kill all the snakes in the world, but significantly a bråhma∫a saved the snakes with his ascetic power and courage. [1.11.12-17]
	Conclusion: Ruru should practice the highest dharma, non-injury to all living beings, and by so doing, he should be true to his special dharma as a bråhma∫a. He cannot imitate the dharma of the ruling class to which he does not belong. 	
	There are other instances in which the principle of dharma is invoked against agression and abuse. In Chapter 72 of the Ådi-parva, Devayånî, the daughter of the great sage ¸ukra, curses her father’s illustrious young student Kaca for refusing to marry her. Kaca claims that he has far too much reverence for his guru’s daughter to think of her as a conjugal mate. When Devayåni curses him that he will never be able to personally use the mystical knowledge he acquired from ¸ukra, Kaca replies that Devayåni has cursed him even though he, Kaca, in refusing her marriage proposal was speaking the dharma of sages. Furthermore, he claims, Devayåni herself has acted not by the principles of dharma, but out of selfishness.
	In chapter 146 of the Ådi-parva, a bråhma∫a’s wife who is hosting the five På∫∂ava brothers and their mother Kuntî, cites a principle of dharma to the effect that women are not to be killed, and that even man-eating Råkßasas know the principles of dharma. The context is a family discussion in which father, mother, and daughter all offer to sacrifice themselves for the family’s sake to a Råkßasa who is destined to devour one member of the clan. The bråhma∫a’s wife states: 

Knowers of dharma say that in the ascertainment of dharma (dharma-niΩcaya) women are not to be killed. Authorities also say that Råkßasas are knowers of dharma. Therefore he (the Råkßasa Baka) would surely not slay me. [1.146.29]

Dharma for violence
	There is an interesting case in chapter 109 of the Ådi-parva in which the great King På∫∂u accidentally shoots a sage who had assumed a deer’s form for the purpose of mating. On the basis of dharma, the dying sage both condemns the king’s violence and unleashes an equally violent curse upon the monarch. Thus the sage admonishes the king:

O Bhårata, you were overcome by lust and greed. How could your mind be deviated, you who took birth in the principle dynasty of those for whom dharma is ever their very soul? [1.109.11]

	In reply, På∫∂u argues that despite the tragic consequences, his act of hunting is indeed the dharma of warrior kings:

The killing of deer, without concealment and tricks, is sanctioned. That alone is the dharma of kings. But knowing that, why indeed do you condemn it? [1.109.13]

	It is well known that occasional hunting was permitted to kßatriyas, warrior kings. But På∫∂u further argues that his unfortunate act is to be accepted as dharma since the great sage Agastya also hunted a deer that was required for sacrifice. Thus På∫∂u characterizes his act as pramå∫a-d®ß†a-dharma, “seen as dharma by the evidence (of Agastya’s act). [1.109.13]

	However the deer-sage Kiµdama finally prevails in this mortal debate over dharma, on the grounds that it was not På∫∂u’s mere hunting of a deer that is blameworthy, but the fact of his having slain a deer engaged in procreation of a child. It is also noteworthy that for Kiµdama, it is not enough to show on technical grounds that På∫∂u has committed a crime, adharma.  Kiµdama claims his own innocence, and condemns the king’s act on simple moral grounds. Thus he states:

This is a very great act of cruelty, condemned by all the world. It leads to neither heaven nor honor, O Bhårata, for it is adharmiß†ha, most irreligious! You who are as brilliant as a god, you who especially know the pleasures of women, and the truths of scriptures regarding meaning of dharma, you were unworthy of such an act that leads not to heaven. O most glorious of earthly rulers, you are meant to subdue those men who act cruelly and commit sins, those who are bereft of the three conditions of progress. What have you done, most glorious man, striking me down, who am but a sinless sage living on roots and fruits, and wearing the dress of a deer, O king! [1.109.21-24]
	
	Kiµdama then curses the king to die in the same way as the sage. That is, whenever På∫∂u should lovingly embrace his wife, desiring union with her, at that moment, and in that very mood, the king would die.
	There is one additional example in which violence is justified with reference to dharma. As mentioned previously, when the På∫∂avas were guests in the home of a bråhma∫a family in the city of Ekacakrå, it so happened that the host family was forced by a Råkßasa demon to offer one member of the family to be eaten alive by the demon. Kuntî intervened, insisting that her powerful son, Bhîma, whom the bråhma∫a family knew only as a mendicant student, would go to the Råkßasa as a so-called meal, and the slay the demon. Yudhiß†hira is appalled to hear that his younger brother is being sent to the ravenous demon, but Kuntî justifies her decision in terms of dharma:

This decision about dharma (dharmasya…viniΩcitam) is not coming from greed nor ignorance nor from illusion. On the basis of intelligence I have made my decision. [1.150.19]

Dharma invoked in support of marriage
	The principle of dharma is frequently invoked to justify or reject a proposed union between man and woman. There are numerous examples in the first two books of the Mahåbhårata.
When a clan of sages, the Yåyåvaras, find themselves periously close to extinction for lack of family descendents, they make a desperate appeal to the last surviving male of their line, Jarat-kåru, whom they urge to seek out a wife who can give him, and them, a son. This alone is dharma, they assure him:

The forefathers said: O dear one, be the best of us and strive with endeavor to extend our family, for your own sake and for our sake, for this alone is dharma! [1.13.20]

	When King Du˙ßanta woos the divinely beautiful ¸akuntalå, he takes a moment to lecture the goddess that eight kinds of marriage, including the one he is proposing to her, are dharmata˙, “according to dharma.” ¸akuntalå then replies that she will accept his proposal, “if indeed such an arrangement is the path of dharma.” In this famous, romantic narrative, the king and his wife are separated for several years and when ¸akuntalå finally returns to the king, he pretends at first not to recognize her for motives disclosed later.  When the Du˙ßanta finally accepts his wife and son, he does so, of course, on the basis of dharma:

“A knower of dharma, the king honored his wife according to dharma.” [1.69.39]
 
	There is another, somewhat similar occurence of dharma as evidence for the union of male and female. When Satyavatî, the widow of King ¸antanu, seeks to persuade her widowed daughter-in-law, Ambikå, to beget a son with Ambikå’s brother-in-law, Vyåsa, the aging queen “leads her along” (anunîyainåm) according to dharma, since her daughter-in-law is a “practicioner of dharma.” [1.99.49]
	A much more elaborate debate about dharma takes place when King Yudhiß†hira announces that he and his four brothers will all marry Draupadî. The girl’s father, King Drupada, is appalled at this proposal and protests to Yudhiß†hira:
 
O son of Kuntî, as a decent and law-abiding man (dhårmika), you should not commit adharma, which the world and the Vedas forbid. Why have you got such an attitude? [1.187.27]

	Yudhiß†hira’s reply to his future father-in-law is significant: 

Yudhiß†hira said, “Mahåråja, dharma is subtle and we do not understand its movements. We faithfully follow the path tread by our predecessors. My voice does not speak untruth, nor does my mind dwell in adharma…”  [1.187.28-29]

	When the debate reaches an impasse, the greatest of sages, Vyåsa, compiler of the Vedas, arrives on the scene and all parties spontaneously defer to his judgment on the matter, which Drupada places before the venerable holy man as follows:

How could one woman belong to many men? Wouldn’t that be dharma-saõkara (a confusion or defiling of dharma)? May the lord explain all of this to us, as it is. [1.188.5]

	Vyåsa responds by requesting all those present to give their view of “this dharma which is (apparently) deceitful and which the world and the Vedas oppose.” Drupada immediately replies that “I consider this to be adharma.” Our concern for now is not the relative merits of the arguments nor even the logic behind Vyåsa’s ultimate conclusion that Yudhiß†hira’s act is indeed dharma. Rather we wish to emphasize here the simple fact that the entire discussion revolves around dharma, as a tangible, substantial, central issue. An act is either dharma or adharma. Much, indeed everything, is at stake in the correct ascertainment of dharma, for as Lord Indra declares to King Uparicara in the Ådi-parva: “Protect that [dharma], for when dharma is sustained, it sustains the entire universe.” 
	In another history, when the princess ¸armiß†hå urges King Yayåti to give her a son. She addresses him as dharmåtmå, a “virtuous or dutiful soul” who should not hesitate to follow the dharma which dictates that a king should give a child to an eligible maiden. But Yayåti does hesitate, for he recalls his duty to abide by the order of his powerful father-in-law, ¸ukra who explicitly forbade  him to take Ûarmiß†hå to his bed. 	Ultimately Ûarmiß†hå successfully persuades the king by pleading that she can maintain her own dharma of chastity only if the king satisfies her legitimate desire for a child:

O King, deliver me from adharma and bring me back to dharma. Having a child from you, I shall perform the highest dharma in the world. [1.77.21]

	Similarly, when Arjuna was abducted through a river by the Någa beauty Ulüpi, and taken to her subterranean world where she begged him to give her a child, Arjuna too protested that he had given his word to his brothers and wife, Draupadî, that he would reamain celibate during a year of exile. Ulüpi, like ¸armiß†hå, sought to convince her desired mate by arguing in terms of dharma:

That [vow of celibacy] in question was made by all of you for the sake of dharma in regard to Draupadî, namely that you two [Arjuna and Draupadî] should live apart from each other. In this case [of your union with me] dharma is not contaminated. One must deliver those who are suffering, O lovely-eyed one. By effecting my deliverance, your dharma will not be violated. [1.206.26-27]

Dharma against union
	Finally, there are a few instances in which dharma is invoked to forbid or condemn a union between man and woman. Foremost, of course, is the protest of Drupada and his son Dh®ß†adyumna against Draupadî’s marriage to the five På∫∂ava’s. 
	The conflict between dharma and lusty desire is clearly etched in a statement attributed to the great På∫∂u. Cursed to die should he ever attempt to unite with a woman, På∫∂u forswears sexual intercourse, declaring that he will follow the path of his actual father, the ascetic Vyåsa, and not that of his legal father, Victravîrya, whose overindulgence in romantic affairs cost him his life, a fate that now threatens the son. Pa∫∂u ruefully recalls the death of Vicitravîrya: 

We have heard that my father, while just a young man, came to the end of life because he was simply dedicated to desire, though he was born to a man ever dedicated to dharma. [1.110.3]

	There is also the case of Yayåti, mentioned above, who accepted ¸armiß†hå as a second wife even though his powerful father-in-law ¸ukra had specifically forbid him to do so. Upon learning of his son-in-law’s deed, performed in the name of dharma, ¸ukra cursed Yayåti with these words:

O Mahåråja, though a knower of dharma, you committed adharma because it was enjoyable. Therefore invincible old age shall soon attack you. [1.78.30]

Draupadî
	By far the most elaborate and dramatic dicussion of dharma takes place toward the end of the Sabhå-parva, when Yudhiß†hira gambles away his chaste wife Draupadî. Unable to tolerate the prosperity and fortune of the På∫∂avas, Duryodhana and ¸akuni arranged to rob the five brothers of their kingdom through a crooked gambling match. Having lost everything, Yudhiß†hira finally gambled away Draupadî, whom Duryodhana immediately summoned to the Kuru assembly. It is clear from the text that a respectable woman would never enter the men’s gambling assembly. Indeed so indecent is it to summon Draupadî, that the innocent messenger sent to fetch her declares:

“These assembly members, O king’s daughter, are calling. I think that the total destruction of the Kurus is at hand.” [2.60.12] 

	Draupadî is dressed in a single blood-stained garment, for she is in her menstrual period, a further reason for the men to renounce such an unholy summons. The lamenting messenger does not bring her and finally Duryodhana’s wicked brother Du˙Ωåsana drags her into the assembly hall. Nothing could be more cruel and impious, yet in the assembly of great men, Draupadî is left to defend her own honor. The ensuing debate in the assembly hall centers on dharma, and we will discuss below the various arguments given on both sides. As mentioned earlier, dharma is usually invoked and debated to settle disputes involving intense human passions, notably the sex impulse and violence. In the very famous story of Draupadî in the Kuru assembly hall, these two issues of sex and violence converge, since Duryodhana is lusting after Draupadî, whom he feels he has won, and he is willing to sieze her with violence if necessary. Indeed she is dragged into the assembly, and there treated in such a violent way that she curses the Kurus to die, and Lord K®ß∫a enforces the curse in the great battle of Kurukßetra. Thus this incident not only gives a unique picture of the religious/legal reasoning of the Kuru age, it also sets the scene for the earth-shaking climax of the entire Mahåbhårata. 
	The discussion of dharma begins as soon as the messenger informs Draupadî of the wicked summons. Draupadî replies:
	
Providence has said that in this world only dharma is supreme, and being preserved, it shall bring us peace. [2.60.13]
		
	Thus she immediately makes her decision: she will not give up her dignity and chastity by obeying the Kuru order. Though they be the powerful rulers of the earth, she fearlessly defies them, placing her faith in the power of dharma. When Draupadî thus ignores the summons, the exasperated Duryodhana finally orders his brother wicked Du˙Ωåna, against all moral and religious norms, to forcibly drag his innocent sister-in-law into a forbidden assembly. Incredibly Du˙Ωåsana claims that in the deceitful gambling match, the Kurus have won Draupadî “by dharma”, i.e. in accord with the principles of noble, religious life.

Come! Come Påñcåli (Draupadî)! You have been won. Look upon Duryodhana without shame, K®ß∫å! Accept the Kurus, you whose eyes are spread like lotus petals. You have been obtained through dharma so go out to the assembly! [2.60.20]

	As Du˙Ωåsana cruelly drags her to the assembly, Draupadî says: 

	The king [Yudhiß†hira] is the son of [the god] Dharma and he is situated in dharma. Dharma is subtle and those who are expert can perceive it. But even by the order of my husband, I will not agree to pollute myself by giving up my principles, not even to an infinitesimal degree!  [2.60.31]

	It is significant that Draupadî here sounds a persistent theme, that “dharma is subtle” and therefore difficult at times to perceive. In other words, there are situatons in which moral, ethical, and spiritual principles appear to be in conflict and only the most expert can discern the true path of dharma in such a situation. The same words, that “dharma is subtle” were spoken by Draupadî’s husband, Yudhiß†hira when the king sought to persuade Draupadî’s father that it was indeed dharma for the five På∫∂avas to marry his daughter. Draupadî states here that even though her husband is the son of dharma, and situated in dharma, even on the order of her husband, whom she reveres, she will not even slightly give up her godly qualities and submit to the Kurus. Indeed she fully condemns the proceedings in the assembly hall, which she knows to be the destruction of dharma:

Let there be a curse! Truly the dharma of the Bhåratas is lost, so too the good behavior of those who know chivalry, when here in the assembly all the Kurus watch as the boundary of their own dharma is violated. [2.60.33] 

	The question arises as to why great souls like Bhîßma, present in the assembly, did not defend Draupadî against the evil Kurus. First it should be noted that Draupadî, when called to the assembly, had immediately raised an issue of dharma, when she said to the messenger:

You go now to the gambler, and when you reach the assembly hall, O son of a Süta, inquire (of Yudhiß†hira), ‘Whom did you lose first, yourself or me, O Bhårata?’ When you learn this, you come back and then lead me away, O Süta’s son. [2.60.7]

	Draupadî’s argument was simple and powerful. Normally, a husband held authority over his wife. But since the husband had already gambled away himself, and thus had no authority over himself, he clearly had no authority over his wife. Men like Yudhiß†hira and Bhîßma, while shocked and outraged at the treatment of Draupadî, were still not sure whether a husband, even having gambled himself into servitude, actually forfeited all authority over his wife. It must be kept in mind that Bhîßma was anything but a hypocrite, since he had given up all personal pleasure to preserve dharma. As a young man, in order to fulfill his father’s wish for a bride, and to satisfy the harsh conditions of the bride’s father, Bhîßma vowed to never enjoy a wife, children, or kingdom. Later, when his father had passed away, and his step-brother died prematurely, leaving behind a headless kingdom and two beautiful young widows, Bhîßma’s stepmother Satyavatî begged him to accept both the kingdom and the hand of his sisters-in-law, to save his dynasty, and world peace for that matter. But Bhîßma would not even consider her request, since he had given his sacred word that he would accept neither a kingdom nor wife. As one who had given up all personal pleasure for the sake of dharma, and being unable to reach a conclusion on Draupadî’s question about dharma, Bhîßma was unable to act. Let us examine his statement:

Bhîßma said, “O exalted lady (Draupadî) because of the subtlety of dharma, I am unable to properly answer this question of yours, considering that one who does not possess oneself cannot wager another’s property, and yet considering also that a woman is under the control of the husband. [2.60.40] 

	Bhîßma is perplexed over subtleties of dharma, but the second På∫∂ava brother, Bhîma, sees clearly that an intolerable offense has been committed against a godly lady, Draupadî, and his response is unmitigated rage. At one point he threatens to burn the arms of his elder brother Yudhiß†hira, who has wagered Draupadî. At this point, Arjuna intervenes and declares:

Never before, Bhîmasena, have you spoken such words. Indeed others who are cruel have ruined your respect for dharma. [2.61.7]

	Thus Arjuna’s concern for dharma extends here beyond the case of Draupadî when Bhîma seems ready to give up all consideration for an elder brother, Yudhiß†hira, who, despite his shortcomings, is a saintly person. Apart from that, from the very beginning of the Mahåbhårata, it is clear that the På∫∂avas have a divine mission on earth, to assist the Supreme Lord K®ß∫a is His task of destroying the wicked and saving the pious. The Mahåbhårata repeatedly explains that in fact Arjuna and K®ß∫a are none other than Nara, and Nåråya∫a, the divine appearence of the pure devotee, Nara, with the Lord Himself, Nåråya∫a. The mission of the På∫∂avas was to recapture their lost kingdom so that they could establish the rule of dharma on earth. Their ability to carry out this mission certainly depended on their unity among themselves, thus any threat to that unity would immediately put at risk the entire purpose of their appearence on the earth, and the restoration of dharma. Arjuna would requite the Kurus dearly for their insult to Draupadî. But at the same time, the Lord’s mission must not be sacrificed.
	Among the sons of Dh®taråß†ra, only Vikar∫a took the side of Draupadî, and his statements also reveal much about dharma:

O best of men, they say that there are four disasters for earthly rulers: hunting, drinking, gambling, and excessive attachment to domestic affairs. A man attached to these certainly gives up dharma and thus passes his life. The world does not esteem the activity performed by one so engaged. [2.61.20-21]

	Duryodhana’s close ally Kar∫a takes it upon himself to reply:

These [På∫∂avas] have not said anything, even when there were encouraged to do so by Draupadî. I think that they think that the daughter of Drupada was won according to dharma… O younger brother of Duryodhana [Vikar∫a] you do not know dharma in truth, since you say that Draupadî is not won when she is won. You are very slow-witted… Or if you think that she was brought to the assembly dressed in a single cloth and that this is not according to dharma, then in that case, hear my statement of reply. O Kuru child, the gods have ordained one husband for a woman. But this woman has submitted to more than one. The conclusion is that she is a harlot. My opinion is that bringing her to the assembly is not a surprising thing, whether she is wearing one cloth or no cloth at all. According to dharma, the son of Subala has won all this wealth: whatever riches they had, their woman, and the På∫∂avas themselves. [2.61.28,30,32,34-37]

	Many manuscripts of the Mahåbhårata describe that when the wicked Kurus finally decide to strip Draupadî naked in the public assembly, she simply took shelter of the Lord, who is Himself the highest personification of dharma.

Draupadî, the daughter of Yajñasena, cried out for deliverance to K®ß∫a, Viß∫u, and Hari, and to Nara, the Lord’s pure devotee. Then that great soul K®ß∫a, who was invisible, but who is dharma, covered her with a mass of variegated cloth. [544*, after 2.61.40]
	  
	When all the assembly members have witnessed the divine protection afforded Draupadî, the wisest of the Kurus, Vidura, whom even Dh®tråß†ra reveres, exhorts the assembly to answer the original question on dharma presented by Draupadî. That is, how could Yudhiß†hira claim rights to her and gamble her away when Yudhiß†hira had already lost himself and thus possessed nothing. Vidura’s statement is important and we shall quote the essential verses of his statement that directly mention dharma.

Then Vidrua, the knower of all dharma, raising his two arms and restraining the assembly members, spoke these words:
Vidura said: Having already asked thus her question, Draupadî is crying out as if she had no one to protect her. And yet, members of the assembly, you do not reply to the question! Dharma is being injured here. 
When a suffering man, burning like a fire bearing oblations to the gods, takes shelter of an assembly, the assembly members will surely pacify him with truth and dharma. Now then, when that suffering man places a question on dharma to the assembly members, must transcend the control of lust and anger and reply to the question. O rulers of men, Vikar∫a, according to his realizaton, stated a question. Now all of you reply to that question according to your best judgement!  A seer of dharma who has joined the assembly but will not reply to the question, consumes one half of the fruit accrued by speaking untruth. Again, a seer of dharma who has joined the assembly, yet speaks falsely, acquires the entire fruit of speaking untruth. That is the conclusion. [2.61.51-57

	Vidura then narrated a ancient story in which Prahlåda’s son, Virocana, fell into in a mortal quarrel with the sage Sudhanvå over a girl that both young men sought to marry, each claiming to be the best suitor. The two disputants placed the matter before Prahlåda, but Sudhanvå, fearing that Prahlåda would favor his own son, threatened dire consequences should the father unfairly name his son, or simply refuse to speak. Prahlåda then turned to the sage KaΩyapa who gave him instructions on honesty and dharma. Their conversation went as follows:

Prahlåda said [to KaΩyapa]: Surely you understand the dharma of both god and demon, and of the bråhma∫a, for great is your wisdom. Please hear this difficult point of dharma. What are the future worlds for one who will not reply to a question, and also for one who indicates falsely? Please explain this to me who am asking.
KaΩyapa said:
One who knows (the answer), but out of lust, anger or fear does not reply to a question, unleashes upon himself a thousand ropes of Varu∫a. When each full year has passed, one rope is taken off. Therefore one who knows the truth must speak the truth at once. When dharma is struck by adharma and takes shelter in an assembly but the assembly members there do not cut out the thorn, those assembly members are struck by irreligion. The leader of the assembly takes one half of the reaction, one quarter goes to the perpetrators of the irreligious deed, and one quarter also goes to those who sit in the assembly and do not blame a blameable act. In an assembly where a blameworthy act is blamed, the leader becomes sinless, those who sit in the assembly are freed (of reaction), and the sin goes to the perpetrator of the irreligious act. But, Prahlåda, those who would speak falsely to one who is asking about dharma destroy all the merit of their sacrifices, and they vanquish as well seven generations of their forefathers and descendents. [2.61.65-72]

	Deeply impressed by these words, Prahlåda forthrightly declares that the sage Sudhanvå, and not his own son, is the best suitor for the girl’s hand. Sudhanvå is delighted with Prahlåda’s honesty.

Sudhanvå said: Putting aside your affection for your son, you have stood firm in dharma. I forgive your son. May he live for one hundred years! [2.61.79]

	It is clear enough why Vidura has chosen to narrate this story. The members of the assembly have either spoken falsely in claiming that the false gambling match was dharma, or have simply kept silent. Some acted out of fear of the Kurus’ wrath, whereas Dh®taråß†ra acted out of lust to acquire the kingdom for his sons. The wicked sons of Dh®taråß†ra were acting out of envious anger toward the På∫∂avas. In the statement of KaΩyapa, all of these materialistic motives, lust, fear, and anger are condemned. Vidura then concluded his instruction.

Vidura said: “Thus now that you have heard the highest dharma, all you members of the assembly, consider what is best in regard to Draupadî’s question. [2.61.80]
	
	But the kings of the earth sat silent. Kar∫a and Du˙Ωåna then proceeded to cruelly drag Draupadî in the assembly. At this point, Draupadî began to speak, revealing that this total disregard of dharma in fact signalled the end of the Kuru age. Draupadî said:

What indeed is more wretched than this, that I, a chaste, virtuous lady, have plunged into the midst of the assembly today? Where indeed is the dharma of the kings of the earth? We hear from authorities that in the past men have never before brought religious women to an assembly. The eternal dharma which the Kauraveyas had in the past is now lost. How indeed as the wife of the På∫∂avas, the chaste sister of Dh®ß†adyumna Pårßata, the friend of Våsudeva, could I come to the assembly of kings?  I am the wife of Dharma-råja, the king of dharma, and I was born of a similar caste . Declare whether I am a maidservant or not, and I shall do it, O Kauravas. [2.62.8-11] 

	In reply, Bhîßma confirms that the failure of the kings, especially the Kurus, to protect dharma, signals the end of the Kuru dynasty. Bhîßma further muses on the nature of a materialistic world in which might makes right:

Bhîßma said: “O gracious lady, I have already stated that dharma take a spiritual course which even the great and twice-born souls of this world are unable to approach. But as a powerful man sees dharma, so others will it in matters that lie on the borderline of dharma. And because of the subtlety, the inpenetrable depth, and the gravity of this matter, I am unable to analyze your question with certainty. But as all the Kurus are sworn to lust and greed it is certain that the end of this dynasty will not be long. 
O gracious lady, those born in good families, though afflicted with severe calamity, do not slip from the path of dharma, even as you are standing here before us as a faithful, young wife. Påñcåli, such conduct on your part is befitting, that even having come to such hardship, you keep your gaze ever fixed on dharma. These elderly people headed by Dro∫a who know dharma remain bent over as if the life had left their empty bodies. My opinion is that Yudhiß†hira constitutes the evidence in this question. He himself ought to declare whether you have been won or not won.” [2.62.14-21]
	
	Duryodhana then insists that any one of the På∫∂avas should declare that Yudhiß†hira was a liar when he claimed to be able to wager Draupadî. “Let them make the king of dharma a liar!” he challenges, “Then you will be freed, Draupadî, from a state of servitude.”
	Duryodhana knows well that the På∫∂avas cannot publicly betray their elder brother who is the leader of their family, and indeed of their sacred mission. Yudhiß†hira himself, like Bhîßma, is unable to definitely say that he falsely gambled Draupadî since he is not sure that a wife’s duty to her husband is dissolved when the husband loses his own freedom. Thus Duryodhana taunts Draupadî with the words: 

The great soul, king of dharma (Yudhiß†hira) stands firm in dharma. Let him personally explain this, he who is like unto Indra, whether he had power over you or not. And from his statement, quickly accept one man. [2.62.26]

	Yudhiß†hira, predictably, is unable to reply, for within his mind he cannot honestly decide the question. That such a technical approach to dharma has the power to inhibit spontaneous acts of virtue was apparent to the author of the Mahåbhårata. Thus, when Bhîma is unable to vent his terrible rage against the Kurus because his elders cannot resolve the technical issues of dharma, he cries out:

I am bound by the ropes of dharma, and thus I have not taken on this problem. I am checked by respect for seniors, and because Arjuna restrains me. But if I were released by Dharma-råja, then with the the flat of my hands and with swords, I would tear up the wicked sons of Dh®taråß†ra just as a lion tears up tiny beasts. [2.62.36-37]

	Indeed Bhîma’s, and our, frustration here finds an obvious analogy in the frustration modern citizens feel when known criminals are released over legal technicalities. The depth of Bhîma’s frustration is clear in his reaction to Kar∫a’s insulting words:

Hearing these very words, Bhîmasena was overwhelmed with wrath, and he breathed heavily, visibly in anguish. A loyal follower of the king (Yudhiß†hira), and thus bound by the ropes of dharma, it seemed as if he were burning Kar∫a, with eyes discolored by rage.  [2.63.6]

	While Bhîma rages, the sagacious Vidura returns once more to the basic principle of law:

O kurus, learn this dharma at once, for if this principle is misconstrued, the assembly will be thorougly contaminated. If the gambler [Yudhiß†hira] had first wagered his property, before he was won, then he would have had the authority to do so. Surely this wealth was won as if in a dream. I consider it thus, that it belonged to a man who had no authority when he staked it. O Kurus, do not deviate from this dharma by listening to Duryodhana’s statement. [2.63.18-19]

	It is significant that Vidura twice refers to “this dharma”, for dharma can be as individual as a particular law. Further, failure to comply with dharma pollutes the offender. Whereas in civil law, a criminal act simply entails government reprisal, failure to execute dharma entails a corruption of the soul. This is quite analagous to one of the most basic arguments of the Greek philosopher Socrates, that one who fails to practice virtue harms his own soul.
	At this point, Duryodhana, for the last time, makes his usual appeal: that he will release Draupadî from servitude if any one of the På∫∂avas will confirm Vidura’s claim, that Yudhiß†hira did not have the right to gamble Draupadî, and therefore dharma does not require that the result of Yudhiß†hira’s decision be honored. It is Arjuna who speaks out at this point:

Arjuna said: Kuntî’s son, the great soul Dharma-råja, was lord and king when he staked us as a bet. But whose lord was he once he had lost himself. Understand that, Kurus, all of you! [2.63.21]

	When Arjuna thus speaks, terrible omens, presaging the end of the Kuru dynasty, appear at once in the home of Dh®taråß†ra. It is the elderly members of the dynasty, such as Vidura, Bhîßma, and Dro∫a, and indeed Dh®taråß†ra’s wife Gåndhårî, who instantly see the import of the awful signs. Thus the gods themselves, or God, ultimately settled the dispute over dharma by manifesting a divine sign. It is significant that this divine confirmation was not revealed until one of the På∫∂ava’s, Arjuna, met Duryodhana’s challenge and publicly declared that Yudhiß†hira, in fact, did not rightly gamble Draupadî, since he had already lost himself. 
	When the calamitous omens erupt, Dh®taråß†ra understands that the evil policy of his sons portends doom for his family. He first rebukes his foolish son Duryodhana, for having treated a woman so badly, especially a woman who is a dharma-patnî, a dharma- or religious wife. [2.62.25] He then turns to Draupadî and offers her a boon, praising her for being the best of the Kuru ladies, a chaste woman who places dharma above all else. Draupadî selects as her boon freedom for her husband, who is “a follower of all dharma.” Dh®taråß†ra offers a second boon, which she uses to set free the other four På∫∂avas. Again praising Draupadî as a practitioner of dharma, the blind old king ask her to choose yet a third boon, but at this point she refuses, again for dharma’s sake, for to take more than two boons would itself violate the principles of dharma. Draupadî states:

My lord, greed leads to the loss of dharma. O best of kings, being unworthy, I am unable to take a third boon. They say that a vaiΩya [merchant or farmer] receives one boon. A woman of the warriors, however receives two boons. There are three for a king, O leader of kings, and for a bråhma∫a, a hundred boons. [2.63.34-35]	

	Next attempting to salavage his relationship with the eldest På∫∂ava, Yudhiß†hira, Dh®taråß†ra praises him also in relation to dharma: 

Dear one, O Yudhiß†hira, you know the subtle course of dharmas. O greatly realized one, you are submissive, and a worshipper of the elderly. [2.65.4]

	Similarly, in eulogizing all of the På∫∂avas, Dh®taråß†ra specifically attributes dharma to Yudhiß†hira [2.65.14]. And when he grants the På∫∂avas leave to depart for their restituted kingdom. At the end, Dh®taråß†ra salutes Yudhiß†hira with the words, “May your mind be fixed in dharma!”

sva-dharma-sthiti as dharma
	The Mahåbhårata in general, and specifically the Bhagavad-gîtå affirm that each human being should execute his or her own religious and occupational duties, their dharma, without encroaching on another’s duty. Since this view is widely confused today with the repressive caste system of recent Indian history, it is important to note that the Bhagavad-gîtå clearly teaches (4.13) that the assignment of duties, or dharma, is on the basis of a person’s ‘quality’ (gu∫a) and ‘work’ (karma). The example can be given of an army, or indeed of a sports team. Once each soldier or player has been fairly assigned their duty, the success of the group depends on each individual faithfully executing their own duty and not usurping the role of another. We shall examine the doctrine of sticking to one’s own dharma as it is stated in the first two parvas of the Mahåbhårata, and then we shall see how the Bhagavad-gîtå logically explains such a social philosophy.
	At the beginning of Chapter 57, of the Ådi-parva, we learn that a certain King Vasu once put aside the weapons and duties of government and instead took to austerities in an apparent attempt to gain power and attain the position of the cosmic king, Indra. Lord Indra himself then came to King Vasu and told him not to confuse or mix the king’s own legitimate duties as a ruler with the rule function of Indra, for a ruler maintains dharma by seeing that everyone performs his personal duty:

This dharma [of governing] should not be commingled on the earth, O lord of the earth, on the earth. Protect dharma, for when dharma is sustained, it sustains the entire universe.
	
	Similarly, while urging his son Duryodhana not to envy the På∫∂avas and covet their legitimate position, Dh®taråß†ra declares:

“Ardently seeking to make another’s property one’s own is a useless way to act. He who is fully satisfied with his own, who stays in his own dharma, happily prospers. 

	It should be kept in mind that the propriety of a particular act depends on one’s specific dharma. For example, in the story of Ûakuntalå, the young king Du˙ßanta convinces the lovely maiden Ûakuntalå to accept him by the rule of gåndharva marriage, that is, a spontaneous union without parental approval, on the grounds that such a marriage out of love is acceptable for members of the ruling [kßatriya] class, and Ûakuntalå, though raised by a bråhma∫a sage, Ka∫va, is truly the daughter of the warrior ViΩvåmitra. Ûakuntalå agrees, but is later embarrassed when her beloved stepfather Ka∫va returns home. Ka∫va, however, tells her: 

What you of royal descent have done today, uniting with a man without considering me, does not violate dharma. It is said that for a member of the ruling class (kßatriyasya) the gåndharva marriage is best. Such a union of a willing woman with a willing man in a secluded place, without counsel, is authorized. 

	Thus the dharma-quality of an act can be a personal, delicate matter, resting on the specific duties of the individual.
	There is an interesting description of the saintly king Ûantanu in which he is praised as one who “while functioning in his own dharma, is the best of those who know all dharma” (or “is the best of all who know dharma”).  Certainly a righteous king had to engage all people in their respective dharma, and yet he himself would strictly follow his own dharma. Thus, King Janamejaya said to the sage Uttaõka: “By the fully protecting these citizens, I fully protect my own kßatriya dharma.”
	Among other things, the full protection of the citizens meant to engage them properly in their respective duties. As will be seen shortly in our discussion of the Gîtå’s view of this matter, to be engaged properly in one’s real duties is essential to the smooth running of society, and the spiritual progress of the citizens. Thus it is said of the great king Parikßit:

Establishing the members of the four var∫as in their respective dharma, the king, a knower of dharma, and like the very embodiment of dharma, fully protected the citizens through dharma.		     	

sva-dharma in the Bhagavad-gîtå
	The Bhagavad-gîtå powerfully argues that each person should strictly perform his or her own sacred duty. Lord K®ß∫a first gives a short version of this argument in the third chapter, and then a longer version in the eighteenth chapter. The short presentation consists of two explicit premises, an implicit premise which will be made explicit in chapter eighteen, and a conclusion:

premise one: Even a person with knowledge acts according to his own nature, for all beings follow their nature. What will repression accomplish? [Bg. 3.33]
premise two: Attachment and aversion are situated in the objects of each of the senses. One should not come under the control of these two for they lead one off the path. [Bg. 3.34]
implicit premise: Since one’s dharma is born of one’s nature, only the impulses of attachment and aversion would lead one to perform another dharma, and by following such impulses, one will be thrown off the spiritual path leading to eternal life.
Conclusion: One’s own dharma, performed imperfectly, is better than another’s dharma well performed. It is better to suffer loss in one’s own dharma, for (to perform) another’s dharma leads to danger. [3.35]

	A longer version of this argument is found in the last chapter of the Bhagavad-gîtå in  nine consecutive verses (18.40-48) and a final clarification is found in two subsequent verses (18.59-60). I shall translate these verses below in a literal way that serves to bring out the main points of K®ß∫a’s logic:
	
premise one: Either on earth or among the gods in heaven, nothing that exists can be free of the three qualities (goodness, passion, and ignorance) born of material nature. [18.40]
premise two: The duties of bråhma∫as, kßatriyas, vaiΩyas and Ωüdras are divided by these qualities which distinguish one’s individual nature. [18.41] Thus a bråhma∫a’s work, born of his nature, is characterized by peacefulness, discipline, austerity, cleanliness, forgiveness, straightforwardness, knowledge, insight, and faith in God [attributes born of the mode of goodness]. [18.42] A kßatriya’s work, born of his nature, is characterized by heroism, fiery energy, resolve, expertise, courage not to flee in battle, charity, and the nature of a leader. [18.43] A vaiΩya’s work, born of his nature, is characterized by agriculture, cow protection, and trade. A Ωüdra’s work, born of his nature, consists of service to others. [18.44]
premise three: Man achieves the highest perfection when engaged in his own work, whatever it may be. [18.45] Hear how one gets perfection by doing one’s own work: a human being achieves perfection when by his own work, he worships the Lord, who sends forth all creatures and who pervades all the world. [18.46]
Conclusion:  One’s own dharma (duty), though flawed, is better than another’s duty, even if well performed. One does not accrue sin when performing work which is fixed by one’s own nature. [18.47] One should not renounce one’s innate work, though it is faulty, for all undertakings have faults, just as fire is covered by smoke. [18.48]

	 Later in Chapter Eighteen, Lord K®ß∫a reiterates the point made earlier [3.33] that all beings must follow their nature, thus, He now adds, to renounce one’s duty means that one will simply end up doing the same kind of work one has renounced, but in an unregulated context, impelled by material nature, rather than in obedience to sacred authority:

Taking shelter of false ego, you think: ‘I shall not fight!” This determination of yours is false, and material nature will impel you [to fight all the same]. [18.59] O son of Kuntî, bound by your own work which is born of your own nature, you will inevitably do precisely that which, out of illusion, you do not wish to do. [18.60] 

types of dharma
personified dharma
	We shall briefly survey the semantic range of the term ‘dharma’ within the first two parvas of the Mahåbhårata, beyond the meanings and uses already described. We have mentioned that dharma as the quality of dutiful virtue may be personified, usually in a great king. Thus King Parikßit is said to be “…like the embodiment of dharma,” [dharmo vigrahavån iva 1.45.7] Similarly Yama, the lord of death and judgment, is also known as Dharma, and by the curse of a powerful sage, Dharma himself was forced to take birth on the earth as the wise Vidura, uncle of the På∫∂avas. Thus it is said, “…Dharma, in the form of Vidura,” [dharmo vidura-rüpe∫a 1.10.28]. And when King På∫∂u, unable to father his own children, but able to call a demigod for the task, requested his wife Kuntî to call this same demigod Dharma, reasoning that no one in the world could say that the son of Dharma was begotten against the principles of dharma. Yudhiß†hira, the son so begotten, came to be known as Dharma-råja, the ‘king of dharma’.
 	
dharma as essential characteristic	
	Dharma may also indicate the essential characteristic of a force or person. For instance, with the word kåla, “time”, dharma indicates time’s essential feature as an inexorable law which brings all material manifestations to their end. Thus it said of King Yayåti:

Then that tiger of a king, having installed (his son) Püru in the kingdom, later on, after a long time, met with the dharma of time. [1.70.46]

	Dharma (with its stem form as dharman) is used in a similar way, as in this description of the death of a sage’s daughter:

Impelled by the dharma of time, the [serpent] sank his poison-smeared fangs deeply into the body of that completely distracted girl. [1.8.16] 

	This form of the word dharma also indicates an essential quality in this description of of Bhîma, spoken by Lord K®ß∫a:

And that man who immediately returned when the kings lost their tempers and who so easily tore down a tree, he is none other than Bhîmasena, playing the part of a human being, for no one else in this world with the dharma of a mortal is able to do this. [1.180.19]
 
	We also find the term ‘dharmin’, “one who possesses a ‘dharma’ or characteristic”, such as in the incident where the angry king Yayåti curses his son Turvasu to rule a kingdom in which the citizens are “sinful, with the dharma of animals,” [paΩu-dharmißu påpeßu 1.79.13].
 	
dharma as one of many virtues
	Dharma is also found as one of many virtues, in this context usually referring to a willing compliance with the sacred duties and laws for civilized human beings. Indeed the religious lawbooks of Vedic culture are called the “dharma scriptures” or dharma-Ωåstra∫i.
	There are many examples in which dharma is given as one of a host of excellent qualities in a good preson. Thus when King Aß†aka asks King Yayåti why King Ûibi is outpacing all the other pious kings in his journey to heaven, Yayåti replies:

Charity, austerity, truthfulness, as well as dharma, humility, beauty, forgiveness, and tolerance — all these qualities, O gentle king, are to be found in the incomparable King ¸ibi, whose mind never knew a malicious thought. [1.88.19] 

	We find another nice example of dharma as a general lawfulness in the following statement which describes how the citizens of the Kuru lands flourished spiritually upon the birth of three Kuru princes: 

Inclined toward charity, rites, and dharma, devoted to sacrifice and vows, fully bound to each other in affection, the citizens flourished at that time. [1.102.6]

	When it is seen as as pious lawfulness, and thus as one of several virtues, dharma may even be relegated to a secondary status. Thus while trying to convince their sternly ascetic descendent Jarat-kåru to beget a son for the good of the family the Yåyåvara sages state:

Dear one, that destination which is attained by those who have sons is surely not achieved in this world by the fruits of dharma, nor by the assiduous accumulation of austerities. [1.13.21]
 
	There are a variety of dharmas available and necessary to meet the material and spiritual needs of human beings and these are grouped into broad categories, as indicated in the following description of the Ûånti-parva of the Mahåbhårata:

Then comes the Ûånti-parva in which there is a recounting of the dharma of kings; the parva is also said to explain dharma in crisis, and thereafter the dharma of liberation. [1.2.64]
	
	This “simple sense” of dharma as the pious performance of one’s worldly duties is nicely captured in the following exchange in which the maiden Satyavatî responds to the enquiry of the great emperor Ûantanu, who has fallen in love with her:

As soon as he saw her, he (Ûantanu) asked that dark-eyed maiden: “Under whose care are you, and who are you, and what, O shy one, what do you seek to do?”
She said: “I am the fisher’s daughter and for dharma’s sake, I drive this raft, by the order of my father who is the fisher king and a great soul.” [1.94.43-44]

	Dharma permeates the culture of the Mahåbhårata. In virtually every significant situation and act of human life, there is serious consideration of the divine law. A few more examples serve to amplify our view of the broad sweep of godly authority as expressed by dharma.
	When the saintly king Parikßit insulted the sage Ûamîka, the sage’s impetuous son Û®õgî cursed the king to die. Hearing of this fatal and irreversible curse, the heartbroken father lamented that “this is not the dharma of ascetics.” [naißa dharmas tapasvinåm 1.37.20]
	It is said of the illustrious Bharata, son of Du˙ßanta, that “he practiced the dharma of the virtuous and achieved unsurpassed glory” [cacåra ca satåµ dharmaµ pråpa cånuttamaµ yaΩa˙ 1.69.46]
	Devayånî, the lovely young daughter of Ûukra, insists that the great king Yayåti marry her, even though she is of a higher, bråhma∫a cast. Her reason is that she took Yayåti’s hand when he pulled her out of a well, and thus, she insists, they should be united in marriage by the rule of på∫i-dharma, the dharma of [taking] the hand. [1.76.20]
	Devayånî eventually marries Yayåti, but when she discovers that her maid-servant and rival Ûarmiß†ha, daughter of the demon king, has also united with Yayåti, secretly, Devayånî confronts Ûarmiß†ha:

You abide only by the dharma of demons! Have you no fear? [1.78.18]

	In a sense, what is being disputed here is the position of dharma-patnî, or “dharma-wife”, a standard term and cultural notion within the Mahåbhårata, and even in present day India. A dharma-patnî is a wife who marries according to dharma, and continues to execute her sacred duties as a wife and mother in accord with dharma. In the first two books of the Mahåbhårata, twenty women are specifically called dharma-patnî: Bh®gu’s wife, Pulomå [1.5.12]; KaΩyapa’s two wives, Kadrü and Vinatå [1.14.7]; KaΩyapa’s thirteen wives, all daughters of Dakßa, whose names are Kîrti, Lakßmî, Dh®ti, Medhå Puß†i, Ûraddhå, Kriyå, Buddhi, Lajjå, and Mati [1.60.13-14]; Ûantanu’s wife, Satyavatî [1.48.94]; På∫∂u’s wives, Kuntî and Mådrî [1.110.26]; and the wife of the five På∫∂ava’s, Draupadî [1.200.2].
	Indeed it is well known that many important Vedic ritualist sacrifices, intended for householders, could only be performed if the dharma-patnî, the dharma-wife, was personally present. Thus when the bråhma∫a’s wife at Eka-cakrå selflessly proposed to give her life for the sake of her family, she stated:

O noble man, I indeed am to be given up, for you will find another woman. Then your dharma will again be established. [1.146.33]

	This notion that a religious householder must have a dharma-wife in order to properly perform dharma, is clearly proclaimed by the lovely Ûakuntalå when she confronts her reluctant husband in his royal court:

…A wife is the root of dharma, prosperity, and pleasure, a wife is a friend to one who is dying…[wives] are fathers [to a husband  engaged] in the duties of dharma, and they are mothers to a husband in pain. [1.68.40, 42]

	So pervasive is the sense of dharma as divine power and grace pervading the world, that a holy place, Kurukßetra, is described early in the text as dharmiß†ha, “most imbued with the quality of dharma”, “most conducive to dharma” etc.[1.2.10]
	Students of the Bhagavad-gîtå will of course recall that the very first words of that sacred text describe this land of Kurukßetra as dharma-kßetra, “the field of dharma.”

dharma Ωåstra
	There is a class of sacred lawbooks, “dharma-scriptures” known as dharma-Ωåstra, or in the plural, dharma-Ωåstrå∫i, and the Mahåbhårata refers to them on several occasions. For instance, when the bråhma∫a student Uddålaka passed the test of his guru, Dhaumya Ayodå, the teacher blessed the student as follows:

Because you abided by my word, therefore you shall achieve good fortune. And all the Vedas will reveal themselves to you, and all the dharma-Ωåstras. [1.3.30]

	A verse from the same Ådi-parva glorifies the Mahåbhårata as follows:

Vyåsa, of boundless intelligence, has spoken this pious Ωåstra for practical affairs, this supreme dharma-Ωåstra, this Ωåstra for spiritual liberation. [1.56.21]

	There is also the following statement about Vicitravîrya, son of Ûantanu, who inherited the Kuru throne while still a young boy:

The king was expert in dharma-Ωåstra, and by the rule of dharma, he honored [his senior brother] Bhîßma, son of Ûantanu, and in turn Bhîßma looked after him. [1.95.14]

dharma åpatsu
	The Mahåbhårata recognizes that in times of misfortune or calamity, it is more difficult to maintain one’s regular way of life, to practice one’s normal dharma. The text responds to this situation in two ways: a) by praising those who are able to maintain their dharma even in the midst of åpad, “misfortune” or “calamity”; and b) by teaching a special class of åpad-dharma, that is religious principles which may be substituted at a time of crisis or unusual distress. An interesting passage from the Ådi-parva illustrates both approaches. Hi∂imbå falls so madly in love with Bhîma, that she renounces her life as a man-eating Råkßasî, and pleads with the eldest På∫∂ava Yudhiß†ira to grant her Bhîma in marriage. She justifies both her rejection of her demonic race, and her zealous campaign for Bhîma with these words:
	
In the deliverance from calamity [åpad], one should certainly sustain one’s life by whatever means. One who follows this dharma should honor and execute all [that will save one.] One who sustains dharma in times of calamity [åpatsu] is the greatest knower of dharma. It is said that for one who practices dharma, the ruination of dharma is the only real calamity [åpad]. It is said that virtue sustains life, virtue gives life. By whatever one pratices dharma, in that there is no reproach.
	Yudhiß†hira said: It is just as you have said, Hi∂imbå. There is no doubt about it. You should stand firm in dharma even as you have spoken. [1.143.13-16]

	Perhaps the best and most famous example of a great soul standing firm on the principles of dharma despite extraordinary calamity is that of Draupadî, whose flawless chastity despite the overwhelming pressure of the Kuru lords in their assembly, is here praised by Bhîßma:
	
O gracious lady, those born in good families, though afflicted with severe calamity, do not slip from the path of dharma, just as you are standing here before us as a faithful, young wife. Påñcåli, such conduct on your part is befitting, that even when you have come to such troubles, your gaze is fixed on dharma alone. [2.62.18-19]

	Similarly, in a conversation with Dh®taråß†ra, Vidura praises Yudhiß†hira for standing firm in virtue even after Dh®taråß†ra’s sons have stolen Yudhiß†hira’s kingdom by deceit:

Vidura said: When your sons, simply by deceit, stole his kingdom and riches, the wise Yudhiß†hira’s intelligence did not deviate from dharma, for he is the king of dharma. [2.7.19] 

	There are also two instances in which very respectable persons fail in their attempt to apply the principle of åpad-dharma, in both cases because the person whom they are trying to convince feels that despite the difficult conditions, it is the normal principle of dharma to which they must adhere. In the first example, the Queen-Mother Satyavatî, griefstricken by the premature death of her childless son, King Victriyvîrya, pathetically urges Bhîßma to save the dynasty by begetting sons in Vicitravîrya’s two young widows. Bhîßma reminds her, however, that he has taken a sacred vow never to marry or beget children, and this for the sake of his father Ûantanu’s marriage with his stepmother Satyavatî. In the following dialogue, Satyavatî again urges Bhîßma to break his vow on the plea of åpad-dharma, and Bhîßma again refuses, suggesting instead an alternative åpad-dharma by which the Kurus can obtain an heir to the throne.

[Satyavatî said:] “I know quite well that what you have spoken for my sake is the truth. But consider åpad-dharma and carry the load of your ancestors. Act in such a way, O punisher of foes, that your family line and dharma will not suffer defeat; and so that your loving friends may rejoice!”
Bhîßma then spoke again to that piteous woman who lamented thus, yearning for a [Kuru] son, and who [in her grief] had spoken words that deviated from dharma. 
[Bhîßma said:] “O Queen! Consider the principles of dharma, and do not destroy them all! Falling from truthfulness is not praised among a kßatriya’s principles of dharma. I shall declare to you, O Queen, that eternal dharma of kßatriyas by which the dynasty of Ûantanu may be unbroken on this earth. Having heard it, and considering the ways of the world, execute this principle along with wise priests expert in åpad-dharma and matters of personal interest in times of crisis. [1.97.21-26]

	Bhîßma then explains to his mother that in times of crisis, a qualified bråhma∫a may beget a princely son in a woman of the ruling class. Satyavatî then reveals that before her marriage with Ûantanu, she had given birth to the greatest of bråhma∫as, the divine sage Vyåsa, whom she has the power to summon. Bhîßma accepted that the circumstances demanded the application of åpad-dharma, but he chose a specific åpad-dharma which did not violate his own cherished dharma of truthfulness.
	Another proposal of åpad-dharma is transmuted involves the great king På∫∂u and his illustrious wife Kuntî. As a young princess, Kuntî delighted in serving sages and saints that visited her father’s palace. Having wonderfully attended the temperamental ascetic Durvåså, the unpredicatable renunciant affectionately sought to reward the child’s service. Forseeing that her future husband would be unable to directly beget children, and thus a need would arise for åpad-dharma, he gave her a mantra through which she could summons any god and beget with him a son:

Considering the [necessity of] åpad-dharma in the course of time, the sage awarded her a mantra fully endowed with mystic power and said to her: “Whatever god you summon with this mantra, by the mercy of that very god, there will be a son for you.” [1.104.6-7]
	
	Many years later,  På∫∂u killed a bråhma∫a in a tragic accident and was cursed to die the moment he attempted to beget a child. Thus Kuntî used her childhood boon three times for På∫∂u and begot three famous sons. This was precisely the åpad-dharma arranged by Durvåså, since by ordinary dharma a chaste wife like Kuntî could never beget sons with other males, even if they were demigods. Indeed Kuntî herself strongly resisted this arrangement until she saw the depth of her husband’s need to have a son. And yet when På∫∂u attempted to apply the principle of åpad-dharma a fourth time to secure a fourth son, Kuntî informed him that this principle had exhausted its utility and could no longer be applied:

Once more, out of greed for sons, På∫∂u of great fame urged that woman of lovely limbs [to call a god], but now Kuntî said to him: “They certainly say that even in calamities (åpatsu) there is no fourth time. Henceforth [a lady who begets a fourth child in this way] would be a loose woman, and the fifth time, she would become a prostitute. O learned one, how can you, for the sake of offspring completely step over this understandable dharma and address me as if out of madness. [1.114.65-66]

	Although the great souls of the Mahåbhårata consistently take pleasure in the performance of dharma there is a sense of reluctance and resignation in the execution of åpad-dharma. Let us return, for an example of this, to the family at Ekacakrå who must sacrifice one of their own to a monstrous Råkßasa. The bråhma∫a’s wife, while arguing that she should be sacrificed to save the others, makes an interesting claim which indicates that in the time of the Mahåbhårata, åpad-dharma was seen as necessary, at times, but certainly not desireable, and to be replaced as soon as possible by one’s regular duties: 

The bråhma∫a’s wife said: This very thing which I desire to do [to sacrifice myself to save my family] agrees with dharma and is approved by the supreme. It is actually desireable and it is actually beneficial, certainly for you and for the family. In fact, offspring, material goods, dear friends and loved ones, and a wife as well, are all desired to get freedom from åpad-dharma. That is the opinion of the saintly ones. [1.146.25-26]
	
	We may note here that for an ordinary person, or indeed for an ordinary bråhma∫a, the lack of a good wife, basic material goods, loved ones or close friends, would create problems in the execution of one’s many religious duties. The cooperation of friends and family, especially of a wife, and the use of certain material goods, are all normally required to fully comply with ordinary religious obligations, certainly for those who are not renounced mendicants or sannyåsis. Thus the lack of these items could activate åpad-dharma. åpad means “calamity” or “misfortune” and one seeks the basic needs mentioned above to avoid the “dharma of misfortune”.

dharmya
	Also common in the Mahåbhårata is the word dharmya: “having the quality of dharma,” consistent with dharma,” “conducive to dharma” etc. At the very beginning of this epic, the sages at Naimißåra∫ya describe the Mahåbhårata as dharmya, in expressing their wish to hear the great epic from the learned and versatile speaker, Ûrî Süta: 

We wish to hear that which is equal to the four Vedas, the dharmya compendium that drives away the danger of sin, and whose author is Vyåsa, of miraculous deeds. [1.1.19] 

	King Du˙ßanta convinces the charming Ûakuntalå to marry him after lecturing her on the various types of marriage that are dharmya, and those that are not. [1.67.8-14]
	King Yayåti defends his acceptance of a Dånava princess as a second wife, against the order of his powerful father-in-law Ûukra who is about to curse him, with these words:

Yayåti said, “O lord, that which I have done for the daughter of the Dånava king is dharmya, for my only thought was that she was begging for [the fulfillment of her fertile] season. [1.78.31]

	Yayåti finally reached material heaven, only to fall once again to the earth. His last wish in heaven is granted and he falls in the midst of a group of saintly kings who converse with him about spiritual knowledge and virtue. Among other things, Yayåti tell them:	

Minding the dharmya path that leads to glory, a king should execute dharma, keeping it in his sight.[1.87.17]

	When the lovely river goddess Gaõgå tests the saintly king Pratîpa by inviting him to break his vow of monogamy and accept her as a second mate, the monarch reminds her of his commitment to a single wife, saying “you must know this to be my dharmya vow.” [1.92.6] 
	About to narrate an authoritative historical incident, the chaste Kuntî tells her husband På∫∂u: “Now then, hear from me this ancient dharmya narration.” 1.112.6]
	Not to be outdone, På∫∂u narrates a story of his own, adding: “…O blameless woman, it is right that you act on my dharmya statement.” [1.113.24]
	Finally, and most poignantly, when the great Draupadî is dragged into the the wicked Kuru gambling hall, she piteously declares:

They have never before brought dharmya ladies to the hall. It is finished, the eternal dharma the Kurus once had. [2.62.9]

kßatra-dharma
	The Mahåbhårata often speaks of råja-dharma and kßatra- or kßåtra-dharma, indicating the “dharma of kings” or the “dharma of the ruling warrior class”. The dharma of rulers is central to the epic since the main figures in the Mahåbhårata are kßatriyas, members of the ruling, warrior class. Indeed the events leading up to the the climactic and devastating war of Kurukßetra turn on the failure of the Kurus to practice fairly the dharma of kings. 
	A brief survey of the occurences of the terms råja-dharma and kßatra- or kßåtra-dharma will give us a sense of the political culture of those times, the essence of which was to protect all those born in the realm (prajå), whether human beings or animals. Thus the great King Janamejaya declared to the young sage Uttaõka:
	“By thoroughly protecting these prajås, I thoroughly protect my own kßatra-dharma.”
	According to the Bhagavad-gîtå [18.43], one of the qualities of a kßatriya is dåkßyam, “skill” or “adeptness”, and Janamejaya’s father, Parikßit Mahåråja,  is described as “competent in råja-dharma and in the practical affairs (artha) of kings.”[1.45.14]  In a very similar passage, the river goddess Gaõgå describes her son Devavrata (Bhîßma) as “skilled in råja-dharma and in the practical affairs (artha) of kings.” [1.94.36]
 	In the same Gîtå passage cited above, Lord K®ß∫a also gives as a kßatriya quality, “not fleeing from battle” [yuddhe cåpy apalåyanam 18.43] A splendid example of this occurs in chapter  ninety-six of the Ådi-parva. Eager to arrange a proper royal marriage for his stepbrother Vicitravîrya, Bhîßma attends the bride competition of the three lovely young princesses of KåΩi, and in the presence of all the world’s royalty, boldly places them on his chariot and calmly departs. Suddenly a rival king, Ûalva, challenges the mighty Bhîßma and Bhîßma’s reaction clearly reveals the kßatriya demeanor:

Then that tiger of a man, Bhîßma, wrecker of enemy armies, was agitated by (Ûalva’s) statement and he began to blaze like smokeless fire. Standing fully on the principle of kßatra-dharma, devoid of fear and confusion, the great chariot warrior turned back his chariot toward Ûalva. [1.96.28-29]

	Unfortunately, Vicitravîrya died prematurely, leaving his young widows childless. Once again it was Bhîßma’s task to arrange for royal progeny. Rejecting the desperate plea of his grieving stepmother Satyavatî that he personally accept the young widows, Bhîßma presents an alternative course of action which he justifies in terms of kßatriya-dharma:

[Bhîßma said to Satyavatî:] “O queen, I shall declare to you the eternal dharma of kßatriyas by which Ûantanu’s lineage may be unperishing on the earth.” [1.97.25]

	The term cakra, “wheel” is commonly used in the Mahåbhårata as a symbol, since the essential movement of time and events within time is a circular, cyclical movement. Thus there is a dharma-cakra, a wheel of dharma, in various senses: many religious duties are cyclical, in that they are to be performed periodically. Also, the king had to care not only for his own dharma, but he had to see that all the citizens were nicely engaged in their respective dharma. Thus he had to deal with a wide circle of dharma. Finally, the cakra as a discus is a famous weapon of Lord Viß∫u, whom the monarch is supposed to represent. Even today in Hindu Nepal, the king takes his throne as a representative of Viß∫u. The Mahåbhårata refers as follows to the dharma-cakra at a time when the three Kuru princes, Dh®taråß†ra, På∫∂u, and Vidura, were still too young to rule and their step-uncle Bhîßma ruled on their behalf as regent. 

Enjoined by Bhîßma, the dharma wheel rolled on in the kingdom. [1.102.12]

	Adherence to the dharma of kings at times leads a ruler into difficult situations. For example, it is mentioned at least twice that Yudhiß†hira Mahåråja agreed to gamble with the Kurus, even though he suspected, correctly, that the outcome would be disastrous for the På∫∂avas, because it was his dharma to do so. Thus after the first gambling match, Arjuna pacifies the furious Bhîma with these words:

Challenged by others, and steadily remembering kßåtra-dharma, it was by th wish of others that the king gambled, and that will bring great fame to us. [2.61.9]

	When Yudhiß†hira is called to gamble a second time, the sage VaiΩampåyana informs us: 

	Out of modesty and attachment to dharma, the son of P®thå went again to gambling. [2.67.15] 

	We should recall that Yudhiß†hira was not only obliged, as a kßatriya, to accept an invitation to gamble, he was doubly obliged since the invitation came from his uncle Dh®taråß†ra who assumed the authority of Yudhiß†hira’s father upon the death of his real father På∫∂u. Significantly, whenever Duryodhana decides to hold a gambling match, he did not personally invite Yudhiß†hira, but in both cases, he arranged for his father, Dh®taråß†ra, to issue the challenge.
	There are at least two instances where evil monarchs misapply the rule of kßatriya-dharma to justify their questionable activities. The first case is Jaråsandha, a misguided ruler who captured and imprisoned thousands of lesser kings whom he intended to butcher alive before  Lord Ûiva as a sacrificial offering. When confronted by Lord K®ß∫a, he replied that, 

They say, K®ß∫a, that this is the dharmya way for a kßatriya, to earn a living: showing his valour and gaining control, he may act as he wishes. [2.20.26]

	An equally cynical reading of råja-dharma is to be found in the following statement of Duryodhana who is plotting to steal the riches of the På∫∂avas, whom he bitterly envies: 

Dissatisfaction is the root of riches. Thus it is dissatisfaction that I desire. One who endeavors for an exalted position, O king, is the supreme strategist. One can not claim opulence or wealth as one’s own. That which one formerly acquired, others will take away. That is the dharma of kings, say the authorities. Having made a treaty of non-agression, Indra then cut off Namuci’s head. Indra considered that to be the eternal course of action toward an enemy. [2.50.18-20]

	We conclude with two cynical statements that amount to a “might makes right” philosophy of råja-dharma, the sacred duties of kings. The authors of these twisted statements are Kar∫a and Duryodhana who consistently practiced these views in real life.
	When the På∫∂avas are reluctant to accept Kar∫a as a member of the warrior class, Kar∫a declares: “Those who are greatest in prowess belong to the kingly class. Dharma depends on strength!” [1.126.19]
	Attempting to convince his father to sanction his evil plan, Duryodhana declares:

Mahåråja, a warrior’s course of action is based on victory. Let it be dharma or adharma, O noble Bharata, as long as it is his course of action! [2.50.15]
	
	This flagrant disregard for the actual principles of dharma led to the catastrophic Battle of Kurukßetra, as we shall see later in the epic.

reciprocal power of dharma
	The actual laws of dharma have a kind of power to reciprocate with those who do or do not follow them. Thus when the sage Ûamîka finds out that his immature son Ûrõgî has cursed the great King Parikßit to die in seven days, the sage admonishes Û®õgî and reminds  him that Parikßit Mahåråja has always protected them and only for that reason can they, the bråhma∫as, peacefully protect dharma. In the course of this lecture, Ûamîka refers to this awesome reciprocal power of dharma:

Ascetics like us must always forgive the king in whichever way he acts, my son. Indeed when dharma is struck, it strikes back without a doubt. [1.37.22] 

	The power of dharma to harm those who harm it is intelligible in practical as well as spiritual terms. Thus Ûamîka explains the dangerous consequences of killing a saintly king over a minor fault:

If the king should not protect us, suffering would overcome us. My son, we would not be able to happily practice dharma. [1.37.23] 

	Lord Indra makes a similar statement about dharma when he urges King Vasu to return to his own royal duties on earth, and refrain from aspiring to take Indra’s post in heaven:

This dharma [of governing] should not be confused on the earth, O lord of the earth. Protect dharma, for when dharma is sustained, it sustains the entire universe.

	In Sanskrit, Indra utilizes the root of the word dharma, which is dh®, “to sustain”, to make his point. Thus he says, “when dharma is dh®ta (sustained), then it dhårayate (sustains) the world.
	The lovely goddess Gaõgå tests the virtue of her future father-in-law, King Pratîpa, by sitting on his lap and inviting him to enjoy with her. But the saintly king remains true to his vow of monogamy on the grounds that his vow is dharmya, based on dharma, and so to break his vow would be a violation of dharma, and that would surely ruin him: 

Pratîpa said:
	O fair one, I cannot, out of desire, approach another woman (besides my wife), nor one who is not of my warrior class. Good woman, understand this to be my dharmya vow.
The woman (Gaõgå) said:
	I am not an inauspicious nor an unapproachable woman, nor am I ever blameworthy. O king, accept me, as I am accepting you, for I am a virgin and an excellent woman.
Pratîpa said:
	I have foresworn that pleasure which you urge upon me. Otherwise, were I to surrender to your proposal, that transgression of dharma would destroy me. [1.92.6-8]

 The glory and power of dharma is nicely depicted in a statement describing Yayåti’s return to heaven with his royal descendents:

Mounting the chariots, all of those illustrious kings departed, striding up to heaven along the sun-rays, covering sky and earth with dharma. [1.88.16]

dharma-psychology
	Dharma is not merely a way of acting, it is also a state of mind. For instance, when his descendent kings offer him their pious merit in charity, Yayåti vehemently protests on the basis of dharma that bråhma∫as and not kßatriyas are recipients of charity:
	
A man of my sort, with dharma-consciousness (dharma-buddhi), would not knowingly perform such a miserly act, as you have stated. Keeping his mind on the dharmya path (dharmyam mårgam), his vision fixed on dharma, a ruler should perform acts that lead to fame. [1.87.17]

	The Mahåbhårata declares that the rule of a saintly king leads the people to a proper awareness of dharma. Thus it is said of Ûantanu:

When that best of Kuru lords was present as the ruler of the kings of kings, speech adhered to truth, and the mind took shelter of the dharma of giving. [1.94.17]

	When Lord ParaΩuråma had killed all of the kßatriya men on the earth, the kßatriyå ladies approached selfless bråhma∫as, conceived sons, and thus revived the warrior race. The mental state of these royal ladies is described as follows:

Completely fixing dharma in their mind, the women approached the bråhma∫as. [1.98.5]

	Vyåsa agrees to obey the command of his mother to beget Kuru princes in his brother-in-law’s widows, because, he declares, his mother knows dharma and her mind is fixed in dharma:

Vyåsa said: “You understand dharma, Satyavati, both higher and lower as well. And as your mind is fixed in dharma, O knower of dharma, therefore by your command, in which you indicate dharma as the reason, I shall do what you wish, for this is seen to be the ancient way.” [1.99.36-37]
 
	That dharma can and does exist within a pious person is explicitly stated in this eulogy offered by V®ßaparvå, king of the demons, to his guru Ûukra:

O Bhårgava (Ûukra), I know there is no adharma or false speech in you. In you are dharma and truth! Therefore be merciful to us, sir. [1.75.6]

dharma-artha
	Dharma is regularly complemented and balanced by a second key social need and norm, namely artha, which has a somewhat broad family of meanings. Artha is a common word for aim, or goal, and thus it may refer to the objects of the senses, indriya-artha. Similarly, it can signify purpose, motive, or the reason for which something is done. Thus it is used at the end of a compound to indicate for whose sake, or for which purpose an action is performed.  Continuing along this semantic trail, artha may indicate advantage, use, or utility; and thus wealth, property, opulence, money, or business. As a complement or balance to dharma, i.e. virtue, piety, justice, duty, etc., artha shows a concern for practical action aimed at securing one’s basic needs. Indeed the Mahåbhårata appears to have little patience for an exaggerated piety that ignores or subverts legitimate wordly needs. 
	A clear picture of the Mahåbhårata’s search for balance between dharma and artha is available in chapter five of the Sabhå Parva. There, in the longest sustained contemplation of political science found in the first two books of the epic, Nårada Muni instructs King Yudhiß†hira by asking a series of questions to the effect of, “Are you doing this or that?” and “Is such-and-such taking place?” In his first four questions to King Yudhiß†hira, the king of dharma, Nårada immediately focuses in on this essential balance in society between dharma and artha. In my rendering of Nårada’s words, and throughout this section of the Introduction, I will give the words dharma and artha, without translating them. 

Nårada Muni said:  Are your arthas (plans, purposes, political and business affairs) succeeding and does your mind delight in dharma? Are pleasures being experienced so that the mind is not frustrated. O King, do you practice the unperishing course of action that your forefathers once observed, and which, among men, is joined to dharma and artha? Are you neither impeding dharma through artha, nor artha through dharma, nor both through enjoyment simply meant for pleasure? O greatest of conquerors, giver of boons, do you always attend to artha, dharma and kåma (enjoyment), assigning them to the proper time, you who understand time? [2.5.7-10]

	In the course of Nårada’s didactic questions, dharma and artha also appear as follows:

O lord of earth, having slept at night for the first two yåmas (periods of three hours each), do you then arise in the final yåma, and deeply ponder dharma and artha? [2.5.75]

Dear king, do you listen to the elders whose words comprehend dharma and artha? The elders always understand artha and they are contantly seeing dharma. [2.5.105]

	It is not difficult to see why a good king had to be expert in both dharma and artha. The prosperity, success, and happiness of the kingdom depended on dharma, following the laws of God, and artha, or practical, efficient administration. Thus as we have seen earlier, Parikßit Mahåråja, considered an ideal saintly king, is said to be “expert in the dharma and artha of kings”. [1.45.14] Similarly, when the river goddess Gaõgå delivers to her former husband Ûantanu their glorious son, Devavrata, she praises their son with these words: 

O king, O hero, take to your home this hero, your own son given by me. He is a great archer, and he is learned in the dharma and artha of kings. [1.94.36]
 
	Even in times of misfortune, one must know dharma and artha. Thus when Bhîßma is about to explain to Satyavatî the proper method to reinstate the Kuru line of kings, he advises her:

Having heard about this (dharma), you should take it up along with wise priests who are learned in the dharma and artha for times of misfortune (åpad), keeping in view, also, the ways of the world. [1.97.26]

	There are many examples of important personalities in the Mahåbhårata who consistently show a deep concern both for virtue, dharma, and for so-called worldly affairs, artha. For example, when the great sage Ka∫va offers his newly-wed daughter Ûakuntalå a boon, her choice of a blessings nice illustrates these twin concerns: 

Thereupon, Ûakuntalå, desiring the good of (her husband) Du˙ßanta, chose (as her boon) that (her husband’s dynasty) the Pauravas achieve the highest status of dharma, and that they not fall from their kingdom. [1.67.33] 

	Similarly, when Satyavatî is vainly trying to convince Bhîßma, sworn to celibacy, to break his vow and procreate heirs to the Kuru throne, she tells him:

O punisher of the foe, act so that your family line, and dharma, not be overcome, and so that your well-wishing friends may rejoice. [1.97.22]

	When Bhîßma insists that according to dharma it is rather a selfless bråhma∫a who should beget a Kuru prince, Satyavatî proposes that her own son, the greatest of sages, Vyåsa, could perform this duty. Bhîßma replies

This, what you have spoken now, appeals to me for it is the highest good. It conforms to dharma, and it certainly benefits our family. [1.99.20]

	Having persuaded her son Vyåsa to save the dynasty, now Satyavatî had to convince the elder of the young widows to accept him in union. Again dharma and artha are invoked:

Thereupon that godly woman (Satyavatî), approaching her daughter-in-law, and meeting with her in a secluded place, spoke words that were  consistent with dharma, fully adapted to artha, and beneficial. [1.99.44]

dharma & pleasure
	Dharma is not dry or artificial. As  the Bhagavad-gîtå teaches, dharma engages the natural propensity of a conditioned soul, and regulates the commerce of human interaction so that all members of society can progress smoothly toward spiritual purification and ultimate liberation. Since the soul is by nature blissful, ånanda-maya, the practice of dharma is ultimately a pleasure, and not a pain. Thus the word ‘dharma’ is often used in conjunction with various words derived from the Sanskrit root ram, “to delight, enjoy, or take pleasure.” For instance when the creator Brahmå offers a boon to Ananta Ûeßa, that divine serpent replies as follows:

Ûeßa said: “This alone is the boon that I now long for, O great-grandfather -- may my intelligence delight (ramatåm) in dharma, and in tranquility and austerity, O lord. [1.32.17]

	Similarly, in glorifying the state of society during the rein of Mahåråja Du˙ßanta, we find this statement:

The four social classes, free of selfish desire, took pleasure (remire) in godly activity through their own dharmas. [1.62.9]  

	In at least two cases, physical places are described as dharmya, “endowed with the quality of dharma”  and at the same time “pleasurable” (ramya/rama∫îya). The first example involves a description of the åΩrama of the sage Vasiß†ha, in reference to the kåma-dhuk, “wish-fulling cow” that dwelled there:

Dwelling in that forest of ascetics, frequented by sages, and both pleasurable (ramya) and dharmya, that cow grazed there free of fear. [1.93.10]

	Similarly, we find this description of Arjuna’s sojourn to many places of pilgrimage during his year of exile:

Crossing over the Kaliõga lands, and observing the sanctuaries that were dharmya and pleasurable (rama∫îya), that lord (Arjuna) went on his way. [1.207.12]

	There are also frequent statements to the effect that a civilized person fulfills his or her desires in accordance with dharma. Thus when the goddess Devayånî queries her friend and servant Ûarmiß†hå about the latter’s sudden pregnancy, apparently out-of-wedlock, we get this reply:

Ûarmiß†hå said: A certain sage arrived here. He had a soul of dharma, and was a master of the Vedas. I begged that boon-giver for my desire which was in accord with dharma. I do not improperly act on my desires, O bright-smiling one! [1.78.3-4]

	Similarly, when the famous King Yayåti regained his lost youth, he set out to satisfy his desires in the following way:

According to his desire, his enthusiasm, the circumstances, and his own happiness, that richest of kings, engaged in pleasure, pursued pleasing sense objects that were not opposed to dharma. A leader of kings, he certainly did only what was appropriate. [1.80.1-2]

	Lord K®ß∫a makes a similar point in the Bhagavad-gîtå: 

And of the strong, I am strength devoid of desire and passion. I am the desire in creatures when it is not opposed to dharma, O best of the Bharatas. [Bg. 7.11]

	We may note that having first identified Himself with “strength devoid of kåma, (material pleasure or selfish desire)” Lord K®ß∫a then immediately adds that He is present in kåma  “which is not opposed to dharma” (dharmåviruddha) the very words used to describe Yayåti’s position.  

dharma-artha-kåma
	In its first chapter, the Mahåbhårata indicates that the processes of dharma, artha, and kåma are intrinsic to the purpose and function of the creation, as revealed in the description of the cosmic vision of the great sage Vyåsa:

The sage (Vyåsa) saw, with clear realization, the process of the Vedas: dharma, artha, and certainly kåma. He saw the various scriptures for dharma, artha, and kåma, and that for the maintenance of the world, an arrangement had arisen. [1.1.46-47]

	Of course the fourth and ultimate purußårtha, or goal of life, is mokßa, spiritual salvation, which we shall discuss later. But for now the Mahåbhårata confines its discussion to the worldly goals. Thus the ideal state of society during the reign of Du˙ßanta is described as follows:

O tiger of a man, when that (Du˙ßanta) was lord of the citizens, men, devoted themselves to dharma and artha, cultivating pleasure based on dharma. [1.62.7]

	In the preceding two verses, we have seen dharma, artha, and kåma operating on a cosmic scale, and within a large kingdom. But these same three elements also motivate individual human relationships. That is, in worldly society people form friendships, marry one another etc., in a quest for virtue, prosperity, and sense pleasure. We see it in the following statement of Du˙ßanta to his wife Ûakuntalå, whom for the moment he is pretending not to recognize:

I do not remember having a relationship with you based on dharma, kåma, or artha. Go or stay as you like! Or do do what you wish! [1.68.19]

	We see the same notion in Devayånî’s bitter words to Kaca, who does not return her love:

Devayånî said: “O Kaca, if you reject me in dharma, kåma, and artha, even though I have encouraged you (to accept me), then this science of yours will not be successful.” [1.72.16]

	Since dharma, artha, and kåma constitute the basic needs or goals of human society, it is natural that proper governance means to properly and efficiently administer these three. Thus, when Nårada Muni comes to instruct Yudhiß†hira in political science, through a series of rhetorical question, the Mahåbhårata tells us that in fact he came to talk about dharma, artha, and kåma: 

Worshiped by all the På∫∂avas, the great sage, a master of the Vedas, asked Yudhiß†hira about this (issue) concerning dharma, kåma and artha. [2.5.6]

	Toward the end of his discussion, Nårada again touches on these three: 

O sinless one, do your thoughts and deeds lead to a long life and a noble reputation, and do they show the way of dharma, kåma, and artha? [2.5.91]

	Although, as we shall see, dharma is the most important of the three worldly human goals, a king must provide a balanced life for his citizens. That is he must not only guide them in virtue and dutifulness (dharma), but he must also see that they are prosperous (artha), and that they have good facility to satisfy their bodily needs (kåma). As we shall see in the story of Yayåti, insufficient satisfaction of basic human needs may lead to frustration and obsession, which act against the development of spiritual consciousnses. Thus the Mahåbhårata praises King Yudhiß†hira’s ability to balance dharma, artha, and kåma.

That best of the Bharatas (Yudhiß†hira) cultivated equally dharma, kåma, and artha, honoring all three as a man with relatives honors his relatives as equal to himself. When dharma, artha, and kåma were thus equally divided, and (were as tangible) as if embodied on the earth, the king shone among them like the fourth. [1.214.3-4]

	Yet despite the necessary balancing of human activity, it is clear that dharma is most important. Thus we find that even artha and kåma must be performed according to dharma. Yudhiß†hira’s balancing of dharma, kåma, and artha in fact was conducted “according to dharma:”

At that time, whatever was suitable in regard to dharma, kåma, and artha, the king (Yudhiß†hira) did it according to dharma, for he was famous for his protection of the kingdom. [2.22.58]

	Finally, in the course of listing the sterling qualities of King Ûantanu, the Mahåbhårata attributes to him a firm conviction as to the superiority of dharma over artha and kåma.

“Dharma is certainly beyond kåma and artha!” (Ûantanu) was fixed in this resolve. [1.94.4]
degrees of dharma
	The Mahåbhårata tells us that some persons uphold dharma better than others. In other words, some are more virtuous, more dutiful, more religious, more law-abiding, than others. The most common term used for such comparisons is dharma-bh®t, “one who supports, maintains, cherishes, or, to use the cognate English term, one who bears, dharma.” Thus in the Ådi-parva, six persons are described or addressed as sarva-dharma-bh®tåµ vara, “the best or excellent one of all those who bear dharma.” These six are: Yudhiß†hira [1.2.193], Bh®gu [1.5.13], Û®õgî [1.38.6], Arjuna twice [1.60.4] [1.125.12], Bhîßma [1.97.7], and Bharadvåja [1.121.6]
	We also find the superlative term dharma-bh®tåµ Ωreß†ha, “the very best, most glorious etc. of those who maintain dharma,” used twice for King Yudhiß†hira [1.56.9] [1.114.6], and once for ParåΩara Muni [1.99.7]. 
	The similar term, dharma-bh®tåµ variß†ha, “the most excellent of those who maintain dharma” is used twice in the Ådi-parva, again in relation to King Yudhiß†hira [1.179.21] [1.183.4], once in a description of Lord K®ß∫a’s first meeting with King Yudhiß†hira:

Then Våsudeva (K®ß∫a), approaching Kuntî’s son, the most excellent of those who maintain dharma, said to him: “I am K®ß∫a,” and pressed the feet of King Yudhiß†hira, descendent of Ajamî∂ha [1.183.4]

	We also learn in the Mahåbhårata that some persons understand dharma better than others. The term sarva-dharma-vidåµ vara, “best of those who know dharma,” occurs three times in the first two parvas of the epic, in reference to Ûantanu [1.94.6], Yudhiß†hira˙ [2.12.7], and Nårada Muni [2.33.21].
	There is a general definition for one who is to be considered dharma-vid uttama, “the highest knower of dharma”

One who maintains dharma in times of calamity is the highest knower of dharma. It is said that for one who follows dharma, the ruination of dharma is the only real calamity. [1.143.14]

Finally, there is the following praise of Vidura who, after all, is an incarnation of the god Dharma: 

In the three worlds, there was no one equal to Vidura. Always engaged in dharma, O king, he then achieved the highest point in dharma.” [1.102.20]
	
	As implied in this statement, apart from the various gradations or levels among the people who maintain and know dharma, there are also different degrees or stages within dharma itself. Vyåsa himself says to his mother Satyavatî:

Vyåsa said: “You understand the superior dharma, Satyavati, and the inferior as well.” [1.99.36]

	The words param and aparam, translated here as “superior and inferior” may also mean “higher and lower, absolute and relative,” etc. 
	There are also several instances in the Mahåbhårata’s first two books in which a speaker declares a particular virtue to be the “higest dharma” or a “superior dharma”. For instance, a young sage cursed to become a reptile saves himself from Ruru, a serpent-killing bråhma∫a, by giving him these good lessons:

“Authorites consider non-violence toward all living things to be the highest dharma (paramo dharma). Therefore a bråhma∫a should never injure any living being.” [1.11.12]

	The sage then goes on to classify non-violence as one of a cluster of qualities that together comprise paro dharma, “superior dharma”:

It has been concluded that non-violence, speaking the truth, and forgiveness are the superior dharma of a bråhma∫a, even more than holding the Vedas (in one’s memory). [1.11.14]

	Clearly the fallen sage had good reason to convince Ruru of the supreme merits of non-violence, since Ruru was about to kill him. Ûakuntalå also gives a practical lecture on dharma to her husband King Du˙ßanta, when the latter falsely claims he does not recognize her, that truthfulness is the highest dharma.
	
There is no higher dharma than truth, there is nothing greater than truth. [1.69.24]
 
	Arjuna defeats the Gandharva king, Citraratha, who then attributes his defeat to Arjuna’s practice of celibacy (brahmacaryam), a “superior dharma”:

Celibacy is a superior dharma (paro dharma˙), and because that very principle is constant in you, you have defeated me in battle, O Pårtha. [1.159.13]

	Trying to convince her husband King Du˙ßanta not to abandon their son, Ûakuntalå made this interesting statement:

The forefathers have said that a son is certainly the foundation of family and dynasty. Therefore one should not reject a son, for he is the highest of all dharmas. [1.69.17]

	Presumably Ûakuntalå means to say that to beget, protect, and religiously educate a son is the “highest of all dharmas”, a task which her husband ultimately accepted. Their son, of course, was to become the illustrious King Bharata, famous to this day in India.
	We have seen in the above verses that non-violence, truthfulness, forgiveness, celibacy, and raising a good soon have all been praised as the best dharma, or at least a trascendent dharma of a higher order. We have also seen that in specific circumstances, in the face of particular problems or needs, the necessary dharma will be put forward as a superior, if not the very best, of all dharmas. What are we to make of this? 
	In a sense, all of the speakers are correct in two ways: first, the dharmas listed above are not ordinary duties. Each one is a foundation of the Vedic culture of the Mahåbhårata, and so each can seriously be said to be a superior principle. But what of the apparently contradictory claims that a particular principle or virtue is the best dharma. This leads to our second point. Clearly, we are dealing with a type of context-specific ethical system. That is, a person’s principle moral or ethical duty in a given situation is defined by the need of the day, or of the moment. For example, all of Ruru’s other brahminical qualifications would be virtually meaningless were he to cruelly slaughter an innocent creature. Thus for him at that moment, ahiµså, non-violence, or “non-injury” was his chief obligation. Similarly, when confronted by his innocent and godly wife, Du˙ßanta could only maintain his position as a decent, and what to speak of religious, king by telling the truth. So from Ûakuntalå’s point of view, at that time and in that situation, his chief cuty was to care for his son.
	In fairness to Du˙ßanta it should be noted that his real intention was to save his family. Realizing that the unusual and secretive circumtances of his marriage might cause a scandal that would force him, as an ideal king, to leave his family, he schemed to oblige the gods to declare the legitimacy of Ûakuntalå and his son, by publicly dening them, precisely so that he could remain with them.
	There is one instance where Kuntî, mother of the På∫∂avas, states that a “great dharma” will be done if her son Bhîßma kills a demon who is literally eating up the town of Ekacakrå. According to a contract made with the demon, each family in the town, in turn, sacrificed one of their own, lest the demon kill and eat entire families at once. When the pious bråhma∫a family that hosted the incognito På∫∂åvas faced their turn, Kuntî intervened and declared that Bhîma would go and kill the demon, which he did. In the following statement, it is noteworthy that Kuntî considered that Bhîma’s act would serve two purposes: it would repay the På∫∂åvas’ debt to the family, and it would be a “great dharma” in its own right. Thus Kuntî convinces Yudhiß†hira of her decision with these words:

Indeed two purposes will be carried out, Yudhiß†hira: both the reciprocation of our residence here, and the performance of a great dharma. [1.150.20]

	Again we see that there are greater and lesser dharmas. Finally, we turn to a planetary view of dharma in which the general quality and quantity of dharma on the earth varies according to the historical age. The Mahåbhårata teaches that there are four yugas or planetary ages, and dharma, fully represented in the first age, the “Age of Truth” (satya-yuga) gradually diminishes in the following three ages until the cycle begins again with another Satya-yuga: 

Because he knew that in each yuga (planetary age) dharma decreases by one fourth, and observing that the duration of life and power of mortals also went according to the yuga; and thus desiring to further the objectives of the Absolute, brahman, and the bråhma∫as, Vyåsa divided the Vedas, from which he is remembered as Vyåsa, “the divider”. [1.57.72-73]

sanåtana-dharma
	There is a special and superior type of dharma distinguised as sanåtana-dharma, or “eternal dharma”. Before examining the instances of the term sanåtana-dharma in the first two Parvas of the Mahåbhårata, we shall first review the use of the term sanåtana, “eternal” itself. There are various ways of saying “eternal” in Sanskrit, such as sanåtana, ΩåΩvata, nitya etc. The point here is that a close study of the text reveals that of these terms, sanåtana is used more often in a purely spiritual sense in describing something fully transcendental to material time. The word ΩåΩvata is used both for truly eternal objects, as well as for “perpetual” things in the material world that last a long time, or always reoccur. And the word nitya, used at certain key moments to mean “always existing” or “eternal”, is commonly used in the simple sense of “always”, “regularly” etc. We shall examine the specific usages of these three terms: sanåtana, ΩåΩvata, and nitya; first as independent adjectives to get a sense of their weight and import, and then specifically as they occur in conjunction with the term ‘dharma’.	
	As a simple adjective, and apart from its use with ‘dharma’, the word sanåtana, “eternal”, usually appears in descriptions of a grand, or cosmic scale, and normally when a straightforward sense of spiritual eternality is intended. For example, in the beginning of the Mahåbhårata, Ûrî Süta first declares that he will narrate this epic work of Vyåsa, after offering his respectful obeisances to:

The primeval Lord, the controller, called by many names, praised in many ways; He who is truth, the one unperishing Absolute, manifest and unmanifest and sanåtana. [1.1.20]
	
	Süta goes on to glorify the Lord as the Absolute, brahman, whose many qualities include that of being sanåtana:

At the beginning of the (cosmic) age, there existed that instrumental cause which they call the great divine, and in which, say the scriptures, exists that light, that truth, brahman, which is sanåtana. [1.1.28]

	In the above text, the absolute, brahman, is glorifed as jyotis, the effulgence or light. Later in this same chapter we learn that this jyotis or light is actually the Supreme Lord, who again is said to be sanåtana:

The Supreme Lord, who is sanåtana, is glorified here. He is actually truth, the single verity, the purifier and the only pure; the everlasting Absolute, supreme and constant, and the light (jyotis) that is sanåtana. [1.1.193-194]
	
	Later in this same parva it becomes clear that the sanåtana Lord of whom we speak is Våsudeva, a plenary expansion of Lord Nåråya∫a:

He who is named Nåråya∫a, is the God of gods, sanåtana. By His portion, glorious Våsudeva appeared among human beings. [1.61.90]

	Thus the Supreme Personality of the Godhead is declared to be sanåtana. eternal. He is glorified by names such as Nåråya∫a, Viß∫u, and Våsudeva, for after all, Süta has told us that the Lord is puru-hütam, “called by many names.” As we will show later, this same Lord is ultimately known as K®ß∫a, and it is in this form that the Lord enlivens the history of the Mahåbhårata.

	Süta also reveals that the original scripture, the holy Veda, is sanåtana:

Having divided the sanåtana Veda, with austerity and celibacy, the son of Satyavatî composed this pious history (Mahåbhårata). [1.1.52]

	Thus the word sanåtana has been applied to such important spiritual truths as the Lord Himself, His aspect as brahman, and the holy Veda which ultimately reveals His glories. 
	There is another use of the word sanåtana in this volume, apart from its connection with dharma. In this final case, the lovely and strong-willed goddess Ûakuntalå, while lecturing her husband on the importance of a good wife, explains that since a man takes birth again in the form of his son, a man’s wife is also his mother. Thus she concludes: 

Wives are the holy sanåtana field of one’s own birth. [1.58.51]

	As we see in this and other examples, when speakers wish to emphasize that the religious principles they are recommending are not merely circumstantial, but rather perennial principles of virtue, they add that the act they propose is not merely dharma, but rather sanåtana dharma, i.e. that which is always dharma in all circumstances. For instance, as we have seen earlier, when Bhîßma rejects his stepmother’s suggestion that he break his sacred vow of celibacy and marry, he then tells her:

O Queen, I shall explain to you the sanåtana dharma of warriors, by which the lineage of Ûantanu may in fact be unperishing on the earth. [1.97.25]

	The sense here is that although, as we have seen, there can and often are debates over dharma, and between various rules of dharma, the statement that an act is sanåtana dharma is meant to give a special status to the proposed behavior. Such dharma is not åpad-dharma, invoked to cover an emergency.
	When a Gandharva king, sporting with his consorts, tries to violently prevent the På∫∂avas from bathing in the holy Ganges River, Arjuna furiously replies:

(Access to) the virtuous river of the gods is unrestricted, for she bestows heaven (on those who bathe in her waters). How can you seek to limit her? This is not sanåtana dharma! [1.158.20]

	In other words, such a drastic action as restricting the access of innocent pilgrims to the holiest of rivers, would have to be based on a powerful dharma principle, and not merely on one’s selfish wish to enjoy beautiful women in peace. Thus Arjuna pointed out to the powerful Gandharva that his action had nothing to do with sanåtana dharma.
	There is one instance in the Mahåbhårata where one is inclined to think that a great soul is manipulating the term sanåtana dharma in order to accomplish a particular purpose. Cursed to die should he attempt to personally beget a son, and haunted by his lack of a son, the great På∫∂u desperately tries to convince his beloved wife Kuntî to do what the widows of På∫∂u father Victravîrya did: to accept union with a qualified bråhma∫a. Indeed På∫∂u himself was born of such union. Kuntî, however, is extremely reluctant to even think of another man beside her husband. På∫∂u then tells her that the current moral law of female chastity is a somewhat recent invention, and that in fact, formerly, women were free to unite with men at their will and their was no sin in this. På∫∂u then declares:

Even today among the Northern Kurus, O shapely woman, this sanåtana dharma, so merciful to women, goes on. [1.113.7]

	He then narrates a story which, he claims, accounts for the modern notion that a woman should be faithful to her husband. In this story a desirous man is about to lead away a sage’s wife to unite with her, and all this in the presence of the woman’s son Ûvetaketu who angrily protests. But the father intervenes:

Seeing his son Ûvetuketu so angered, the father said to him, “Dear boy, don’t be angry! This is sanåtana dharma. Certainly the women of all social classes (var∫as) on this earth are unrestricted in their own group, dear boy, just like the situation of cows and bulls. [1.113.13-14]

	But the angry boy will have none of this:
  
The sage’s son could not tolerate this dharma, and he established a moral boundary (maryådå) on the earth for male and female, among human beings but not other creatures. We hear from authorities, O fortunate lady, that since then, that moral boundary has been in effect. ¸vetuketu declared: “From this day on, women who offend their husband by adultery commit a sin equal to killing the embryo in the womb, and their deed shall bring them to grief. A man will surely fall by the very same sin when he offends by adultery a devoted and religious wife who married as a virgin. And this very sin will arise for a wife who refuses when her husband enjoins her to have a child.”
O shy one (Kuntî), thus it was formerly Uddålaka’s son, ¸vetaketu, who established, by his strength, this moral boundary which is surely in accord with dharma. [1.113.15-20]

	På∫∂u first claims here, on the authority of a statement by the Vedic sage Uddålaka, that there is a sanåtana-dharma, a perpetual or eternal religious law which regards human mating as an innocent, benign affair, much like the innocent and natural mating of cows and bulls. På∫∂u then invokes a maryådå (literally a “boundary” or “limit”, and here, as often, an ethical or moral one) which he claims may act as an ad hoc rule with the power to temporarily substitute an eternal dharma. He now urges Kuntî to ignore the ad hoc rule and return to the real and eternal principle. Thus Kuntî can freely unite with another man so that På∫∂u, her legal husband, may get a legal son and heir.
	It is difficult to confirm the claim that the real and eternal dharma in Vedic civilization is that women may freely mix with men, without in any offending their husbands, society, or the laws of God. The sense that På∫∂u is telling Kuntî a story in a desperate attempt to get a son, is heightened even further when he tells his still reluctant wife Kuntî: 

O king’s daughter, knowers of dharma realize that whatever a husband may say to his wife, be it of the nature of dharma or adharma, it is to be done even so. [1.113.27]

	If På∫∂u truly believed that his wife should blindly follow her husband down the path of adharma, he would not have expended so much energy trying to convince her that his proposal is actually in accord with dharma. There is further evidence of this: later on, after Kuntî has revealed and employed her power to summons and beget sons with demigods, thus producing three glorious sons, På∫∂u requests her to use her power a fourth time. Kuntî strongly objects on the grounds that a fourth, or even a fifth contact with a surrogate husband would render her a progressively a loose woman and finally a prostitute. Convinced that her argument is in accord with dharma, På∫∂u humbly and respectfully accepts her decision. He does not insist that a wife obey a husband’s sinful or immoral command, and so the number of Kuntî’s sons is fixed at three.

Bhagavad-gîtå
	Let us examine the use of the term sanåtana in the Bhagavad-gîtå. The first two occurences of the word illustrate two distinct senses of sanåtana, which literally means: eternal, perennial, enduring, everlasting, primeval, perpetual etc.
	In arguing that he should abandon the fratricidal battle of Kurukßetra, Arjuna insists that the war will necessarily entail the death of many fathers and husbands, whose families will then be neglected and ruined. Thus Arjuna says to Lord K®ß∫a:

	On destruction of the family, the sanåtana family-dharmas perish. When dharma perishes, adharma overwhelms the entire family. [Bg. 1.39]

By way of contrast, Lord K®ß∫a first uses the term sanåtana to describe the eternal soul:

This (soul) cannot be cut, he cannot be burned or moistened, nor can he be dried up. He is eternal, goes everywhere though stationary; he is unmoving, sanåtana. [Bg. 2.24]
 
	Arjuna has used the term sanåtana in the sense of a perpetual religious duty within this world. Lord K®ß∫a, on the other hand, speaks ontologically of an eternal being, an everlasting soul, whose very nature it is to always exist. And while discussing various approaches to religious sacrifice, Lord K®ß∫a explains that as the soul is sanåtana, so also brahman, the Absolute spiritual nature, of which the soul is part, is also sanåtana:

Enjoing the nectar of sacrificial remnants, their sins removed by sacrifice, certainly all these knowers of sacrifice go to brahman which is sanåtana. [Bg. 4.30]

	Lord K®ß∫a also refers to Himself as the “sanåtana seed” of all creatures: 
 
	O Pårtha, know me to be the sanåtana seed of all beings. I am the intelligence of the intelligent, and the splendor of the splendid. [Bg. 7.10]

 	In a powerful and eloquent statement, Lord K®ß∫a also describes His own “supreme abode” as sanåtana:

	Superior to that unmanifest (aspect of the universe), however, is another unmanifest, sanåtana nature which does not perish when all beings perish. Said to be unmanifest and unperishing, they call that the supreme destination. Those who achieve it, do not come back, for that is My supreme abode. [Bg. 8.20-21]

 	Upon seeing the fathomless “universal form” of the Lord, Arjuna acknowledges that Lord K®ß∫a is the protector of eternal dharma, for the Lord is Himself the sanåtana person:” 
 
You are the indestructible, the supreme object of knowledge. You are the transcendental receptacle of this universe. You are inexhaustible, the protector of eternal (ΩåΩvata) dharma. I conclude that You are the sanåtana person. [Bg. 11.18]

	And Lord K®ß∫a, having stated in the second chapter of the Bhagavad-gîtå that the soul is sanåtana, later reaffirms that the living being, specifically as a minute part of the Lord, is sanåtana, eternal, even though the soul is now entangled in a non-eternal atmosphere:

	The sanåtana living being in this conditioned world is part of Me alone. He struggles with the senses, six including the mind, which are situated in material nature. [Bg. 15.7]

	It is apparent that Arjuna’s first reference to sanåtana-dharma as a kind of perpetual, domestic religious ritual or obligation is characteristic of the use of this term throughout the first two Parvas of the Mahåbhårata. It is remarkable however that Lord K®ß∫a then begins to utilize the same word sanåtana to refer to those things which are not only perpetual in a worldly sense, but actually eternal on the spiritual platform. In this and other cases, it is clear that the Bhagavad-gîtå theologically begins where the ordinary topics of the Mahåbhårata leave off. 

ΩåΩvata
	We may compare the term sanåtana, “eternal”, with its synonym ΩåΩvata, which gives the sense of “permanent, perpetual, enduring etc.” The term ΩåΩvata-dharma, “perennial dharma”, occurs in the Ådi-parva of the Mahåbhårata, as well as in the Bhagavad-gîtå, and to better understand this word ΩåΩvata, we will consider its general use in the respective texts and then its specific application to theology and sacred law.
	There are numerous examples in which ΩåΩvata is used in a worldly sense, much as we commonly use words such as “permanent, lasting, enduring, etc.,” in reference to things of this world. In the following examples from the Mahåbhårata, italicized words are always translations of the Sanskrit word ΩåΩvata.
	When the sungod and moongood exposed the plot of wicked Råhu to steal the celestial nectar, a lasting enmity was sealed among them, which endures to the present day. [1.17.8]
	The five sons of King Vasu each became kings in their own right, all five establishing enduring dynasties bearing their names. [1.57.30]
	Defeated by his old friend Dro∫a, King Drupada diplomatically solicits from him his perpetual favor. [1.128.13]
	The bråhma∫a host of the På∫∂avas at Eka-cakrå condemns the incompetent king of the region who cannot provide the people with perennial safety from harm. [1.148.9]
	Offered a boon by the Gandharva king whom he has just defeated and spared, Arjuna declares: “May there be a lasting relationship between us.” [1.158.55]
	In the Sabhå-parva, both Lord K®ß∫a and King Yudhiß†hira speak of their everlasting vows. Thus when King Jaråsandha demands to know why K®ß∫a, Bhîma and Arjuna have shunned the entryway to his city, refused all protocol and have rather violently broken their own way into the city, Lord K®ß∫a explains that:

We should not accept honor from an enemy, having come to his house with a task to perform. Know that to be our everlasting vow. [2.19.50]

	Yudhiß†hira Mahåråja justifies his decision to gamble with the Kurus as follows:

I will gamble with ¸akuni, and not without a desire on my part. But even if I didn’t agree to gamble, he would challenge me in the assembly, and once challenged, I never turn back, for I have established that as my everlasting vow. [2.52.16]

	Although the word ΩåΩvata may indicate the highest sense of permanence, in describing that which is truly and ultimately eternal, the examples we have thus far seen convey an ordinary, worldly sense of permanent, perpetual etc. In this same worldly vein, the feminine form of the adjective ΩåΩvata, which is ΩåΩvatî, is often used with the word samå˙, “years” to indicate a duration of time so long that it seems to be endless, though it is really not. We find this use of the word in the Bhågavad-gîtå, when Lord K®ß∫a says:

Having achieved the worlds of the pious doers, and having dwelt there for endless years (ΩåΩvatî˙ samå˙), a fallen yogi takes birth in the home of pure and opulent persons. [Bg. 6.41]

	It is clearly understood within the Bhagavad-gîtå that the worlds of the pious are temporary, for after having dwelt there, the yogî leaves those worlds and takes birth again. There are at least four examples in the first two parvas of the Mahåbhårata wherein the term ΩåΩvatî˙ samå˙, “endless years”, clearly refers to a temporary time span:
	King Yayåti, son of Nahußa, accepted a very ghastly old age which ruined his beauty, after having ruled the citizens according to dharma for endless years. [1.70.33]
	Hi∂imbå refuses her brother’s order to kill the På∫∂avas, reasoning that by devouring the brothers, she will have a moment’s satisfaction, but by sparing and marrying Bhîma, she will enjoy for endless years. [1.139.16]
	Requested by the fire-god Agni, the lord of the waters, Varu∫a, gave Arjuna two inexhaustible quivers and a fabulous bow which, up to that moment, had been worshiped by gods, demons, and gandharvas for endless years. [1.216.7] 
	When the På∫∂avas are defeated at dice, the wicked Du˙Ωåsana declares that P®thå’s sons have now been driven to hell for a long, virtually unlimited time, and that they are bereft of their happiness and kingdom, and ruined for endless years. [2.68.5]

loka:
	This special sense of the word ΩåΩvata, to indicate a seemingly endless or perpetual time, is especially significant when we analyze the frequent claims in the Mahåbhårata that a pious or worthy person has achieved a perpetual or everlasting world or abode. We have already pointed out Lord K®ß∫a’s statement in the Bhagavad-gîtå that a fallen yogi takes birth again in this world after having enjoyed the worlds of the pious for endless years (ΩåΩvatî˙ samå˙). Such statements are readily visible in the first two Parvas of the Mahåbhårata:
	Assuring his forefathers that he will marry and beget a son who will preserve the family line, thus keeping the forefathers to heaven, Jaratkåru states:
	
Surely for your deliverance offspring will arise in that (marriage). May my forefathers enjoy, having reached the ΩåΩvata status! [1.13.28]
 
	When King Indra of heaven convinces the earthly King Vasu to give up the attempt to take Indra’s position, Indra promises that by sticking to his earthly duties, Vasu will eventually attain to the ΩåΩvata worlds:

Protect the dharma that will take you to higher worlds, ever engaged and with attention, for so engaged in dharma you shall then attain the pious, ΩåΩvata worlds. [1.57.6]

	The sage Mandapåla attempts to enter heaven on the strengthof his pious credits, but he is turned back with these words:

These very worlds are concealed from you because of (your lack of) progeny. Beget progeny and then you shall enjoy these ΩåΩvata worlds. [1.220.13]

	Having begotten good sons, the same Mandapåla offered this prayer to the fire-god, Agni, when the blazing inferno of Khå∫∂åva threatened to consume his young sons:

Offering obeisances unto you, the sages go with their wives and sons to the ΩåΩvata destination, won by their own work. [1.220.25]

	As a final example of a ΩåΩvata or seemingly permanent abode within an ultimately temporary universe, Nårada tells King Yudhiß†hira about the “everlasting” assembly hall of the creator Brahmå:

It is made as if of many shapes, and they shine with a wide range of colors. It is not sustained by pillars, but it is ΩåΩvata, and does not perish. [2.11.11]
	
	To complete our picture of the term ΩåΩvata, King Ûantanu refers to the eternal Veda in three divisions (‰g, Yajus, and Såma) as trayî…ΩåΩvatî, “the everlasting triad.” Thus Vedic injunctions, though prescribing apparently time-bound activities in the material world, are held to be perennial. In every creation cycle, the Lord manifests the Vedas and the Vedic injunctions again come into force. It is in this sense of ΩåΩvata that Lord K®ß∫a says in the Bhagavad-gîtå, in reference to the dark and light mode of leaving this world: 

The light and dark paths from this world are certainly these, and they are deemed eternal (ΩåΩvata). By one path the yogi does not come back and by the other he returns again. [Bg. 8.26]  

	It is thus that we are to understand terms such as ΩåΩvata-dharma when applied to worldly activities, rather than to transcendental deeds of the soul proper. As mentioned earlier, there is one specific instance of the term ΩåΩvata-dharma in the Ådi-parva, spoken by King På∫∂u who seeks to convince his wife Kuntî of the importance of having a son, an activity in relation to the temporary body, but nevertheless an eternal Vedic injunction for souls in this world:

Progeny begotten in conjunction with dharma is the foundation of society, O Kunti, and the sober know that from the beginning this has been ΩåΩvata dharma. [1.111.23]

	We have seen various instances in which the term ΩåΩvata indicates an apparently endless, but ultimately termporary, amount of time. There is one extraordinary instance in which the word ΩåΩvata indicates that which is factually eternal. After K®ß∫a and Arjuna have successfully facilitated the destruction of the Khå∫∂ava forest, Lord Indra descends from heaven and offers the two heroes a boon. Lord K®ß∫a, playing the part of a human being, makes His choice:

Even though He is Våsudeva (K®ß∫a), He took (as His boon) everlasting (ΩåΩvatî) affection with Pårtha (Arjuna). And the king of gods then affectionately gave Him that boon. [1.225.13]

	The Mahåbhårata makes clear from the beginning that Arjuna is the eternal friend and devotee of the Lord. Thus in choosing a boon from His own servant, Indra, Lord K®ß∫a performed His pastime of reaffirming His eternal loving relationship with his pure devotee. A similar episode occurs when, in the Ådi-parva, Lord Viß∫u first meets another eternal devotee of His, Garu∂a, whom the Lord chooses as His carrier. 
	In the previous section, we concluded our discussion of the term sanåtana by stating: “it is clear that the Bhagavad-gîtå theologically begins where the ordinary topics of the Mahåbhårata leave off.” The same will hold true when we examine the word ΩåΩvata in the Bhagavad-gîtå. Arjuna begins this word’s Gîtå career when he refers to family duties as ΩåΩvata: 

By these crimes of the family killers, those who propogate a confusion of social classes (var∫a), community dharmas are destroyed and also the everlasting (ΩåΩvata) family dharmas. [Bg. 1.42]

	This use of the term ΩåΩvata is certainly typical of the general tone of the Mahåbhårata. Arjuna is undoubtedly speaking of families and communities in this world, yet he considers the community and family duties to be perennial. But the purpose of the Gîtå is to take Arjuna beyond the limited world of Vedic piety, and to bring him to the transcendental platform of full spiritual life in the Lord’s eternal abode.
	Lord K®ß∫a first employs the term ΩåΩvata in the second chapter of the Gîtå to describe the eternal soul:

He (the soul) does not take birth nor does he die at any time; having existed he will never cease to be. Unborn, eternal, everlasting (ΩåΩvata), this primordial being is not slain when the body is being slain. [Bg. 2.20]

	As we shall see, virtually whenever Lord K®ß∫a uses the term ΩåΩvata in the Gîtå to refer to that which is ultimately, ontologically eternal, He reinforces the term with various synonyms, confirming that the word is being used at full strength. In the above verse the words “unborn, eternal, and everlasting” combine with the statement of non-birth and non-death to leave no doubt that we are now in the realm of unalloyed spiritual being, that which is unconditionally eternal.
	We mentioned earlier that Lord K®ß∫a uses the term ΩåΩvatî˙ samå˙, “endless years” (Bg. 6.41) in an ordinary Mahåbhårata sense in reference to a material celstial world which is not truly eternal. Lord K®ß∫a’s final verdict on this world, of course, is that it is not ΩåΩvata at all. Rather it is the opposite: aΩåΩvata, “unenduring”:

Having approached me, the great souls do take birth again, they do not return to this miserable place which does not endure, (aΩåΩvata), for they have gone to the supreme perfection. [Bg. 8.15]

	And after hearing extensively from Lord K®ß∫a, Arjuna too begins to use the word ΩåΩvata in the full sense of eternal, first of all to glorify the Lord Himself:

Arjuna said: “You Lord are the supreme Absolute, the supreme abode, and the supreme purifier, the eternal (ΩåΩvata) divine person, the original God, unborn and almighty.” [Bg. 10.12]

	Now that both Lord K®ß∫a and Arjuna have confirmed this higher sense of ΩåΩvata, Arjuna’s subsequent use of the term ΩåΩvata-dharma has a new and spiritually richer sense: 

You (K®ß∫a) are unperishing, supreme, the object of knowing. You are the transcendental resting place of this universe. You are the inexhaustible protector of ΩåΩvata-dharma, for I consider you to be the eternal (sanåtana) person (glorified in the Vedas). [Bg. 11.18]

	In the context of this verse, we are clearly entitled to extend the sense of ΩåΩvata-dharma beyond the ordinary notion of perennial worldly duties. We are now speaking as well of those purely spiritual activities which directly lead the soul to eternal existence in the kingdom of God. It is surely with this expanded sense of the term that Lord K®ß∫a Himself refers to ΩåΩvata-dharma:

I am indeed the foundation of brahman, nexhaustible and immortal, and of ΩåΩvata dharma, and of the ultimate happiness. [Bg. 14.27]

	Lord K®ß∫a concludes his use of the word ΩåΩvata by twice employing it, at the end of the Gîtå to describe the eternal, spiritual position achieved by His devotees: 

Always performing all activites under My shelter, by My grace one achieves the unperishing, ΩåΩvata position. [Bg. 18.56]
Go to Him alone (the Lord) for shelter with all your heart, O Bhårata, and by His mercy you shall attain the supreme peace and the everlasting (ΩåΩvata) abode.

	Our exploration of the concept of permanence or eternality in the Mahåbhårata will finally lead us to a Sanskrit word, nitya, which in its adverbial forms, nityam, nityaΩa˙, nityadå, is the most common Sanskrit word for “always, regularly, permanently, continuously, invariably, etc.”  
	Four kings in the Ådi-parva are said to be dharma-nitya, a compound indicating continuous, steady adherence to the sacred laws of dharma. In order of occurence, these monarchs are King Vasu [1.57.1], King Ûantanu [1.97.3], King På∫∂u [1.102.20], and King Yudhiß†hira [1.117.25].
	Apart from this common sense of “always, regularly, consistently etc.,” the use of nitya to mean eternal, in a full spiritual sense, is found in Vedic literature even prior to the Mahåbhårata. For example, both the Ka†ha Upanißad, and the ÛvetåΩvatara Upanißad declare the Lord to be the supreme eternal being (nitya), who provides all that the many eternal beings (nityånåm) require.  

There is one eternal among the many eternals, one conscious being among the many conscious beings; it is that one who satisfies all the needs of the many. [Ka†h 5.13; Ûvet 6.13]

	Interestingly, in the Ådi-parva, we find two instances where this world is decribed as having the negative quality of a-nitya-tå, literally “non-eternal-ness”, the conclusion in each case being that an intelligent person should be detached from temporary pleasures and pains and seek instead eternal satisfaction on the spiritual platform. In the first instance, King Yudhiß†hira gives up his attachment to this world upon seeing that, in the absence of Lord K®ß∫a, the powers and glory of the På∫∂ava have immediately waned:

	Taking the old and young people from Dvårakå, Arjuna then witnessed [on the way] in a painful misfortune the defeat of his Gåndîva bow, indeed the fall from grace of all his celestial weapons, and the loss of the V®ß∫i wives. Seeing the temporary nature (anityatå) of all  (worldly) powers, and encouraged by the words of Vyåsa, Arjuna came to detachment. Approaching Yudhiß†hira he convinced the king of dharma to give up this world. [1.2.226-228]

	King Yayåti demonstrates the same realization in this statement to his royal descendents who are also cultivating spiritual values:

Having understood the temporary nature (anityatå) of pleasure and pain, for what reason, O Aß†aka, should I accept anxiety? What indeed should I do? What shall I do (in this world) and not suffer?  Therefore, being unbewildered, I reject anxiety. [1.84.11]

	In the Bhagavad-gîtå, Lord K®ß∫a echoes the same idea, that this world is ultimately temporary, but then the Lord goes on to give the solution: devotion to God, K®ß∫a:

Having come to this unhappy, impermanent (anitya) world, worship Me! [9.33]

	Earlier, in the second chapter of the Gîtå, K®ß∫a employs the word nitya three times to say that the soul is eternal, in the full spiritual sense:

These bodies of the eternal (nitya), embodied, indestructible, immeasureable soul are said to have an end. Therefore fight, O Bhårata! [Bg. 2.18]

He (the soul) does not take birth nor does he die at any time; having existed he will never cease to be. Unborn, eternal, (nitya) everlasting (ΩåΩvata), this primordial being is not slain when the body is being slain. [Bg. 2.20]

If  one knows this soul to be indestructible, eternal (nitya), unborn, inexhaustible, O Pårtha, whom can he kill, and whom can he cause to kill? [Bg. 2.21]

This (soul) cannot be cut, he cannot be burned or moistened, nor can he be dried up. He is eternal (nitya), goes everywhere though stationary; he is unmoving, sanåtana. [Bg. 2.24]

	Again, in all four of these verses, the term nitya appears within a cluster of synonyms whose collective power points unmistakeably to the full spiritual sense of eternal, i.e. that which has always existed and which will always continue to exist.

Dharma in the Bhagavad-gîtå

	Dharma is the first word in the Bhagavad-gîtå, for the great work begins when the blind, old king Dh®taråß†ra asks his secretary Sañjaya about the battle that was to take place at dharma-kßetra, the “field of dharma”, known even today as Kurukßetra. Ûrîla Prabhupada explains in his purport to this verse that Dh®taråß†ra, knowing his sons to be evil, worried that the spiritual influence of the dharma field would favor the pious På∫∂avas.
	As the Gîtå’s first chapter unfolds, Arjuna also grows wary of the influence of dharma, fearing that his, and K®ß∫a’s, participation in the war will lead to a violation of dharma, and perpetual residence in hell. We have already discussed extensively that moral disputes within the Mahåbhårata are debated and resolved in terms of dharma and its opposite, adharma, and a typical case of this begins to occur at the outset of the Gîtå when Arjuna naturally tries to justify his reluctance to fight in terms of dharma. But the Bhagavad-gîtå is not to be merely another debate over wordly dharma, for the teaching of the Bhagavad-gîta goes beyond dharma itself. Our thesis here shall be that by surveying the path of the the word ‘dharma’ as it appears and reappears in the Gîtå, we can grasp not only much of the fundamental teaching of the Mahåbhårata, but over and above this, the clear way in which the Bhagavad-gîtå transcends the general body of the Mahåhårata, and establishes the highest, transcendental truth of the soul and K®ß∫a.
	Arjuna begins his argument for non-violence, in the name of dharma, by assuming that to attack and kill so many leading men, practically all of whom are fathers and husbands will destabilize the important families and communities for which these men are responsible, and which are themselves vital to the peace and virtue of society. His argument then, literally translated, proceeds as follows:

A. “On destruction of the family, the perennial family dharmas perish. 
B. “When dharma perishes, adharma overwhelms the entire family. [Bg. 1.39]
C. “From the predominance of adharma, O K®ß∫a, the family women are polluted.
D. “When the women are polluted, O Vårß∫eya, a confusion of social orders arises [Bg. 1.40]
E. “This confusion leads only to hell both for the destroyers of families and for the family. Certainly the forefathers fall (from heaven) since the ritual offerings of rice balls and water are suspended. [Bg 1.41]
F. “By these crimes of the family killers, who propogate a confusion of social classes, community dharmas are devastated and also the everlasting family dharmas. [Bg. 1.42]
G. “We have always heard, O Janårdana, that those men who devastate family dharmas have their residence fixed in hell.” [Bg. 1.43] 
	
	Arjuna has sounded a familiar Mahåbhårata theme, namely that dharma protects when it is protected, but injures when it is injured. We may recall the statement of the sage Ûamîka to his errant son Û®õgî who cursed to death a great king who protected dharma for all, including the sages:

Ascetics like us must always forgive the king in whichever way he acts, my son. Indeed when dharma is struck, it strikes back without a doubt. If the king should not protect us, suffering would overcome us. My son, we would not be able to happily practice dharma.[1.37.22-23] 

	This argument is similar to that of Arjuna, who, after all, would be killing kings in the battlefield, virtually all of whom protected at least the basic rules of dharma in regard to social order, ethics, and worldly religious rites. And Arjuna’s fear of var∫a-saõkara, a confusion or mixing of social orders, is echoed in Lord Indra’s statement to King Vasu, whom he feared would usurp his post, throwing the universe into chaos:

This dharma [of governing] should not be confused on the earth, O lord of the earth. Protect dharma, for when dharma is sustained, it sustains the entire universe.	

	We have explained already that the var∫åΩrama social system was based on a keen insight into the different natures of the various members of society, and the best means to integrate the variety of human types for the smooth functioning, prosperity, and ultimate spiritual enlightenment of the entire society.  But Lord K®ß∫a is about to teach His friend Arjuna that above even dharma is God, and the Lord Himself desired the battle. Lord K®ß∫a rejects Arjuna’s argument as mere “weakness of heart” (h®daya-daurbalyam) and “impotence” (klaibyam) and urges Arjuna to fight. 
	Despite his previous argument about dharma, Arjuna now admits that he is actually dharma-sammü∂ha-cetå˙, “confused in his mind about dharma”, [Bg. 2.7] and thus he gives up his polemics and surrenders to Lord K®ß∫a as his spiritual master. Thus the teaching of the Bhagavad-gîtå begins in earnest. 
	Lord K®ß∫a does not immediately address Arjuna’s argument about dharma, as we would expect in a typical Mahåbhårata debate. Rather, the Lord at once reveals to Arjuna, in twenty verses (Bg. 2.11-30) the eternal nature of the soul. Then the Lord comes back to the topic of dharma, in order to show that it is Arjuna who is neglecting his dharma by refusing to fight:

And even considering your personal dharma as well, it is not right for you to hesitate. There is nothing better for a kßatriya than a fight based on dharma (dharmya). [Bg. 2.31]

 	It is significant here that after a thorough explanation of the eternal soul, the Lord mentions dharma as an additional point to consider, as we can see from the words sva-dharmam api cåvekßya, “And even considering your personal dharma as well…” One gets the impression by reading the Mahåbhårata that life is meant to practice dharma, but we find here in the Bhågavad-gîtå that dharma itself is meant to assist the real goal of life, understanding the eternal soul and its relationship with the Supreme Soul, K®ß∫a. In any case, Lord K®ß∫a concludes this brief reference to dharma by saying:

Now if you do not execute this dharmya battle, then having given up your personal dharma, and reputation, you shall incur sin. [Bg. 2.33] 
 
	Arjuna previously argued that if he and K®ß∫a were to fight the Battle of Kurukßetra, they would be destroying dharma and incurring sin. [Bg. 1.36, 39-44] Now Lord K®ß∫a tells Arjuna that the truth is just the contrary. By not fighting, Arjuna would be rejecting dharma, in fact his personal dharma, and incurring sin. Lord K®ß∫a does not directly address Arjuna’s detailed description of how the fall of dharma would pollute the women of the society and thus cause massive social confusion. Arjuna’s case rests on his premise that the battle will destroy dharma, and Lord K®ß∫a has refuted that. Throughout the rest of the Gîtå, Lord K®ß∫a speaks of dharma in terms of His own teaching of spiritual knowledge and not directly in response to Arjuna’s argument about dharma. 
	We have mentioned that Lord K®ß∫a begins His teaching in the Gîtå by elaborately describing the eternal nature of the soul. Having done so, Lord K®ß∫a states [Bg 2.39] that what He has just taught Arjuna is buddhi, “real intelligence or understanding”, and that He has taught it såõkhye, “in a philosophical sense” of identifying the soul as a seperate element apart from matter, represented by the body. Now, says the Lord, He will talk about the same buddhi, or spiritual intelligence, but yoge, in practice. And it is precisely this buddhir yoge, this applied spiritual understanding, to which Lord K®ß∫a now gives the name dharma:

Even a very small amount of this dharma saves one from great danger, for there is no loss in such an endeavor, and it knows no diminution. [Bg. 2.40]

	Lord K®ß∫a’s next reference to dharma reinforces his earlier statement that Arjuna must perform his own dharma, and not neglect it in the name of dharma. Arjuna cannot protect dharma by giving up his personal dharma, nor will he be able to keep himself on the spiritual platform if he abandons the duties born of his nature. Thus the Lord says:

One’s own dharma, performed imperfectly, is better than another’s dharma well performed. Destruction in one’s own dharma is better, for to perform another’s dharma leads to danger. [3.35]

	This point has already been elaborately discussed and we refer the reader to the section on sva-dharma.
	In the fourth chapter Lord K®ß∫a reveals that He appears in this world in order to protect the principles of dharma, and to curtail the destructive influence of adharma:

Certainly whenever a decline of dharma occurs, O Bhårata (Arjuna), and an uprising of adharma, I then manifest My Self. To deliver the saintly and to vanquish the evil-doers, to reestablish dharma, I appear in every age. [Bg. 4.7,8]
 
	It is clear in this context that a sådhu, a saintly or good person, is one who follows dharma, whereas an evil-doer, dußk®t, is the opposite, he is one who practices and promotes adharma. Thus to reestablish dharma is to support those who support dharma, and vanquish those who oppose it. We recall again the statement by Lord Indra to King Vasu:

Protect dharma, for when dharma is sustained, it sustains the entire universe.

as well as the words of the sage Ûamîka

Indeed when dharma is struck, it strikes back without a doubt. [1.37.22] 

	We see that according to the Bhagavad-gîtå, dharma ultimate wields its universal reciprocal power through the agency of the Supreme Lord Himself. We may also recall that at the start of our discussion of dharma, we cited the following declaration from the Ûrîmad-bhågavatam: 

…dharma is brought forth by the Lord Himself. [SBh 6.3.19]

	The complete picture begins to emerge. Just as an effective government must not only create laws, but enforce them as well, so the Supreme Lord “brings forth” His law as dharma, and when obedience to His law collapses, and human beings propagate instead their own illicit “law”, the Lord descends to protect the good citizens of His kingdom, vanquish the outlaws who practice adharma, and reestablish in human society the prestige and power of His will. Thus it is easy to understand the idea of sage Ûamîka, that when God’s law is attacked, it strikes back at the offender. Similarly Lord Indra is now seen to be stating the obvious, that God will take care of those who take care for His law. In fact, it is confirmed by Arjuna in the Bhagavad-gîtå, that it is Lord K®ß∫a who presonally protects the perennial principles of dharma:

You are the inexhaustible protector of everlasting dharma. [Bg. 11.18]
	
	Lord K®ß∫a later declares as much in the fourteenth chapter:

Indeed, I am the foundation of brahman, and of unending immortality, and of everlasting dharma, and of the ultimate happiness. [Bg. 11.18]

	Again, it is the Bhagavad-gîtå that reveals the full theistic implications of the Mahåbhårata’s teachings. We can now see why Arjuna’s initial argument, that to obey Lord K®ß∫a and fight would go against dharma, cannot be correct. For dharma is nothing but the Lord’s will.
	The Lord states that our activities in this world, even those that appear to be most mundane, such as the exercising of power or sexual intercourse, can be performed on the spiritual platform if they are done according to dharma:

And I am the strength of the strong, devoid of lust and attachment. O best of the Bharatas, I am sex that is not contrary to dharma. [Bg. 7.11]

	Lord Krishna speaks again of dharma in the ninth chapter when he declares that spiritual knowledge of Himself is dharmya conducive to, or consistent with, dharma:

The Lord said: I shall speak to you, who are free of envy, this most confidential knowledge, together with its realized discernment, knowing which you shall be freed of the inauspicious. [Bg. 9.1]
This knowledge is the king of sciences, the king of secrets, and the supreme purifier. Understood by direct perception, it is conducive to dharma, very easy to perform and everlasting. [Bg. 9.2]
People who do not place their faith in this dharma, O burner of the foe, do not attain me, but return to the path of death and material existence. [Bg. 9.3]

	It is significant that Lord K®ß∫a here repeats the words “this dharma” (asya dharmasya), for we found this same phrase earlier:

Even a very small amount of this dharma saves one from great danger, for there is no loss in such an endeavor, and it knows no diminution. [Bg. 2.40]

	It is clear that Lord K®ß∫a reserves the phrase “this dharma” for discussions of K®ß∫a consciousness, pure devotion to the Lord. Further, when we examine the ninth chapter to see what this dharma is, we find that it is nothing but knowledge of K®ß∫a Himself, culminating in the understanding that the individual should reject the worship of many gods, as well as the effort to reach a mundane heaven, and instead should surrender fully to K®ß∫a, the Supreme Lord. The supreme process which Lord K®ß∫a said is “very easy to perform” (susukham kartum) is precisely the devotional service of the Lord, for that is the only process praised in this chapter. In marked contrast, Lord K®s∫a criticizes the ordinary Vedic dharma by which one seeks residence in Indra’s heaven: 

Those who follow the science of the three Vedas, and drink the Soma, their sins purified, aspire to go to heaven through sacrifices. Having reached the pious world of the king of gods, they partake in heaven of the celestial enjoyments of the gods. [Bg. 9.20]
Having enjoyed the vast world of heaven, they fall to the mortal world when their piety is exhausted. Thus those who desire sense gratification, and who have consistently resorted to the dharma of the three Vedas, achieve only ‘going and coming’. [Bg. 9.21]

	In this ninth chapter, Lord K®ß∫a starkly contrasts the ordinary dharma of the Vedas and much of the Mahåbhårata, with this dharma, which is pure devotional service to K®ß∫a. Lord K®ß∫a concludes the important ninth chapter by showing the power of this dharma, unalloyed K®ß∫a consciousness, to purify and save the fallen soul: 

Even if a man who has grossly misbehaved worships Me, devoted to Me exclusively, he is certainly to be considered a sådhu (good person) for he has actually come to a perfect determination. 
	Quickly he becomes a righteous soul, dharma-åtmå, and attains to lasting peace. O son of Kuntî, proclaim it, that my devotee is never lost! [Bg. 9.30-31]

	It is simply on the strength of devotion to K®ß∫a that even a man of terrible conduct quickly becomes devoted to dharma. There is no corresponding assurance in the Gîtå that by practicing ordinary Vedic dharma one will become a pure devotee of the Lord. Rather, the fruit of trayî-dharma, the religious duties of the three Vedas, is that one goes up to the mundane heaven and comes back again to the mortal earth. Thus for one who is exclusively devoted to God, K®ß∫a (bhajate måm ananya-bhåk), a solid standing on the platform of dharma comes automatically. And we should remember that for the Gîtå, the highest dharma is to surrender to the Supreme Lord in love and service. 
	Now that Lord K®ß∫a has explained asya dharmasya, “this dharma” of K®ß∫a consciousness which leads to the Lord’s eternal abode, we can better understand Arjuna’s statement in the eleventh chapter, that Lord K®ß∫a is the protector of “everlasting (ΩåΩvata) dharma”:

You are the indestructible, the supreme object of knowledge. You are the transcendental receptacle of this universe. You are inexhaustible, the protector of everlasting dharma. I conclude that You are the eternal person. [Bg. 11.18]

	Lord K®ß∫a again indicates that there is a truly eternal dharma in the last verse of the twelfth chapter:

But those who fully honor this immortal nectar of dharma as it has been spoken (by Me), having faith, taking Me as supreme---  those devotees are exceedingly dear to Me. [12.20]
  
	In the eighteenth and final chapter of the Bhagavad-gîtå, Lord K®ß∫a refers three times to dharma, the first occasion being a reaffirmation of the importance of doing one’s own, and not another’s dharma. [18.47] We have elaborately discussed this section of the Gîtå earlier on, and we will not repeat that discussion.
	We have often stated that the Bhagavad-gîtå begins where ordinary Vedic dharma leaves off, and Lord K®ß∫a has personally indicated this in various ways. But at the end of His teaching, the Lord most dramatically declares that full surrender to the Supreme Lord, of whom we are eternal fragmental parts [Bg. 15.7], stands above the entire range of sacred duties known as dharma: 

Renouncing all dharmas, take refuge in Me alone. Have no regret, for I shall free you from all sins. [Bg. 18.66]

	Thus surrender to K®ß∫a, as declared in the ninth chapter, is the highest duty of the soul, and therefore the supreme dharma. All other dharmas are preliminary duties, meant to bring one to the highest spiritual understanding of K®ß∫a consciousness.  Such conventional dharmas are useful until one comes to the point of utter surrender to God. So there is nothing incoherent when the Lord finally declares that the entire Bhagavad-gîtå is conducive to dharma:

And if one will study this dharmya conversation of ours, he will indeed worship Me by the sacrifice of knowledge. That is My opinion. [Bg. 18.70]

dharma-lopa etc.
	In this section, we will survey the powers and activities that attack and weaken dharma. In the Ådi-parva, a violation or even simple neglect of dharma is often indicated by various words formed from the Sanskrit verb lup. The verb itself means “to break, violate, hurt, injure, spoil, etc.,” and from this verb comes the noun lopa: breaking, injuring, interruption, neglect, transgression or violation (of a vow or duty) etc. In the story of Jarat-kåru we find the reapeated use of the term dharma-lopa, “the neglect, violation, transgression etc. of dharma.”
	Sometime after the marriage of the bad-tempered ascetic Jarat-kåru to Våsuki’s saintly sister, also named Jara-kåru, the sage was sleeping with his head in the lap of his wife. When he did not awake to perform his twilight religious duties, his wife was thrown into a quandry. The incident is narrated as follows:

Then after several days, the great ascetic Jarat-kåru, placing his head in the lap of his wife, and looking depressed and tired, began to sleep. As that most learned bråhma∫a slept, the sun set over the hill. Thereupon, at the finish of day, the sister of Våsuki began to worry. That thoughtful lady was afraid of dharma-lopa. “What would be the right thing to do,” (she thought), “to wake up my husband or not? This dharma soul has a melancholy nature; how may I not offend him? Either this man, whose very nature is to perform dharma, will get angry, or alternatively he will get dharma-lopa. In this situation, dharma-lopa would certainly be heavier.”  
	Thus she made up her mind: “If I wake him up, he will surely show his anger, but if he transgresses the twilight (religious duties) there will surely be dharma-lopa.”
	When her husband was indeed enraged upon being awakened, just as she had feared, the innocent woman pleaded that:

I did not wake you up out of disrespect, learned bråhma∫a. I did it so that there would not be dharma-lopa for you. [1.43.26]

	We also find a similar term lupta-dharma, “violated or neglected dharma” in a statement of Bhîßma to his stepmother Satyavatî upon the tragic death of her grandson, King På∫∂u. Bhîßma reveals to her that bad times are coming, and it is thus a good time for her to give up the world and retire to the forest for spiritual perfection:

There will be a frightful time, filled with much illusion, infested with faults, an age in which dharma, religious rituals, and proper behavior are all violated (lupta). Stand firmly on renunciation, and go to live in the austerity-forest. May you not see the frightful self-destruction of this noble family. [1.119.7-8]

	The verb lup is also used in a similar sense with the prefix vi, which here gives the sense of “asunder”. Thus when a bråhma∫a victimized by thieves comes to the På∫∂avas for help, he declares that when a bråhma∫a’s property is plundered (vilupyate), dharma and artha, “prosperity”, are ruined (vilopita):

The sacrificial butter of a distracted bråhma∫a is being plundered (vilupyate) by crows. A lowly jackal is grasping an empty tiger’s cave. You must take up arms when a bråhma∫a’s property is stolen by thieves, when both dharma and prosperity are thus ruined (vilopita), and when I am crying out for help!”

	The Någa princess Ulüpî, eager to marry Arjuna, argues that his dharma will not be violated by such a union since Arjuna’s vow of one year of celiabacy is only in relation to his first wife Draupadî and not other woman:

That exile you all agreed upon, for the sake of dharma, is in regard to Draupadî. So in this case, your dharma is not contaminated (dharmo na dußyati). O handsome one, those who are suffering should be saved, and by saving me, your dharma will not be violated (dharmao na lupyate). Or even if there may be some subtle transgression of this dharma, let this alone be your dharma, that you gave me back my life, Arjuna. [1.206.26-28]

 	The Mahåbhårata analyzes the specific qualities, such as rage, lust, greed, and injustice, that ruin one’s dharma, both by leading one to neglect one’s religious duty, and by inducing one to commit a sinful or evil act against dharma. 
	In our first example, the sage Ûamîka admonishes his bad-tempered son who has just cursed the saintly King Parikßit:

Anger steals away the dharma that ascetics have painstakingly accumulated. And those bereft of dharma do not attain their desired destination. [1.38.8]

	Cursed by his guru’s young daughter, Devayånî, whom he refused to marry, the celestial student Kaca, son of B®haspati, chastises the impetuous maiden with these words:

O Devayani, even as I am speaking the dharma of sages, I am cursed by you. I am undeserving of this curse, which has come today from lust, not from dharma. [1.72.18]

	In the Sabhå Parva of the Mahåbhårata, when the blind King Dh®taråß†ra finally realizes that the offenses of his sons against the saintly Draupadî will devastate his dynasty, he desperately tries to assuage the abused Queen by offering her one boon after the other. But after using the first two boons to regain the freedom of her five husbands, Draupadî turns down a third boon:

Greed leads to the destruction of dharma, O lord. Being unworthy, I do not dare to take a third boon, O most noble of kings. [2.63.34]

	Even the wicked king Jaråsandha, who falsely presumes himself to be noble, is able to state a general truth about dharma: that even a warrior of the royal class must suffer if he injures dharma by attacking an innocent person. [2.20.3]

So the mind suffers intensely from an offense to dharma, even for a kßatriya, no doubt, who lets forth on an innocent person. [2.20.3]

	Finally, in a moving speech in defense of Draupadî and the På∫∂avas, delivered before the bewildered Kuru assembly, Vikar∫a spells out clearly the four “calamaties” that induce a monarch to abandon dharma. Those practicing K®ß∫a consciousness will recognize these four disastrous habits as the four sinful activities one must give up in order to practice bhakti-yoga. In the words of Vikar∫a:

O best of men, they say that there are four disasters for earthly rulers: hunting, drinking, gambling, and excessive attachment to domestic affairs. A man attached to these certainly gives up dharma and thus passes his life. The world does not esteem the activity performed by one so engaged. [2.61.20-21]

adharma vs. dharma
	At the beginning of the Bhagavad-gîtå, Arjuna argued that the Battle of Kurukßetra would lead to the destruction of dharma and the triumph of adharma. Dharma and adharma can be compared to light and darkness. If light is removed, there is automatically darkness. Similarly, wherever dharma, is weakened or abandoned, adharma immediately takes its place. This can be clearly seen in Arjuna’s statement: 

When the family declines, the perennial family dharmas perish. When dharma perishes, adharma overwhelms the entire family. [Bg. 1.39]

	The simultaneity of dharma’s fall and adharma’s rise is evident in Lord K®ß∫a’s description of His descent into this world:

Indeed whenever a decline of dharma occurs, O Bhårata (Arjuna), and an uprising of adharma, I then manifest My Self. To deliver the saintly and to vanquish the evil-doers, to reestablish dharma, I appear in every age. [Bg. 4.7,8]

	If we scrutinize the Sanskrit grammar of the Lord’s statement, we find that Lord K®ß∫a declares that a decline of dharma, in one sense, is an uprising of adharma. Dharma’s fall and adharma’s rise are simply two aspects of the same event. It is also significant that Lord K®ß∫a then states that He comes “to deliver the saintly and vanquish the the evil-doers…”. In this context the saintly, the sådhava˙, are plainly those who follow dharma, whereas the evil-doers, dußk®ta˙, are those who reject dharma and thus necessarily promote adharma. 
	Lord K®ß∫a’s final reference to adharma occurs in His analysis of buddhi, “analytic intelligence”, as it manifests variously in the three modes of nature: goodness, passion and ignorance. There we find that when our intelligence is covered by material passion, we imperfectly perceive the difference between dharma and adharma. And when ignorance clouds our intelligence, we see dharma as adharma, and adharma as dharma:

O Pårtha (Arjuna), by means of passionate intelligence, one understands incorrectly dharma and adharma, and also that which is to be done and not to be done.
O Pårtha, that intelligence which, covered by darkness, believes that adharma is dharma, and thus gets all meanings backwards, is ignorant intelligence. [Bg. 13.31-32]

To see things as they are, one must acquire intelligence in goodness:

O Pårtha, intelligence in goodness is that which knows engagement and disengagement, prescribed and forbidden acts, danger and safety, and bondange and liberation. [Bg. 18.30]

	There is a dispute over dharma between two noble ladies in which both disputants argue in terms of dharma and adharma. When Devayånî, the pet daughter of the powerful guru Ûukra, marries King Yayåti, her girlfriend Ûarmiß†hå accompanies the newlyweds as Devayånî’s maidservant. However before they leave for Yayåti’s kingdom, Ûukra specifically warns Yayåti that he must never call Ûarmiß†hå to his bed. But Ûarmiß†hå convinces Yayåti that he should accept her anyway, by pleading the cause of dharma over adharma: 

Ûarmiß†hå said (to Yayåti): Save me from adharma, O king , and lead me to dharma. If I were to be the the mother of your child in this world, I would practice the most noble dharma. [1.77.21]

	Yayåti agrees, despite Ûukra’s warning, and surreptitiously gives Ûarmiß†hå three children, whom the mother claims were fathered by a wandering saint who blessed her with his holy seed. Devayånî eventually discovers the truth, and flies to her father’s house where she accuses her husband of fostering the defeat of dharma at the hands of adharma:

Devayånî said (to her father Ûukra): Adharma has conquered dharma.  …O glory of the Bh®gus, this king is celebrated as “one who knows dharma”. But he has stepped over the moral boundary, Kåvya, this I tell you. [1.78.27,29]

	In order to fetch his weapons to save an innocent bråhma∫a from criminals, the great hero Arjuna must intrude upon his elder brother Yudhiß†hira and Draupadî, even though he will thus violate a convenant, and unleash upon himself a one year exile in the forest. Arjuna decides however that the dharma of saving the bråhma∫a, at any cost, is better than the adharma of neglecting his duty as a ruler sworn to protect the people:

[Arjuna thought]: Now, if I enter upon the king I will have to live in the forest. Either there must be a great adharma (i.e. not helping the bråhma∫a), or my death (in the forest). But even at the cost of one’s body, dharma is certainly better. [1.205.17]

adharma as påpa
	By examining the first two books of the Mahåbhårata, we see that the notion of adharma is closely linked to that of sin, expressed by the word påpa. For example, at the beginning of the epic, we find that the Mahåbhårata is dharmya, i.e. based on, conducive to, or teaching dharma, and thus the great work is påpa-bhayåpahåm, “it drives away the danger (or fear) of sin.” [1.1.19].
	
	Discovering that his disciple Kaca has been slain by the demons, the guru of the demons, Ûukra, rebukes the demon-king V®ßaparvå, and in so doing, he equates adharma with påpa: 

O king, when one commits adharma, like a cow it does not yield its fruit all at once. One sees the reaction in the children or grandchildren if not in oneself. Sin will certainly yield its fruit, like heavy food in the belly! [1.75.2]

	The proximity of adharma and påpa can also be seen in the incident wherein King Yayåti hesitates to accept the ardent marriage proposal of young Devayånî, since she comes from a higher bråhma∫a class. Yayåti’s appeal to Devayånî’s father, the powerful sage Ûukra, reminds us of Arjuna’s appeal to Lord K®ß∫a in the first chapter of the Bhagavad-gîtå:

Yayåti said: O Bhårgava, a great adharma born of the mixing of social divisions (var∫a-saõkara-ja˙) verily must not touch me. Thus I appeal to you. [1.76.31]

However Ûukra then assures the young monarch in words that clearly link the notions of adharma and påpa, sin:

I release you from adharma. Be satisfied now to marry this girl. Have no misgiving over this marriage, for I am taking away your sin. [1.76.32]

adharma people
	Many statements in the first two books of the Mahåbhårata give us a general picture of adharma, and of those who practice it. For instance, we learn that the practice of adharma leads to exclusion from celestial abodes such as Mount Meru: “Those who abound in adharma are unable to measure or overcome Mount Meru.” [1.15.6]
	Chapter 60 of the Ådi-parva describes the original peopling of the universe by primeval beings, and there we find that the cosmic origin of adharma occured when savagery, manifested as the indiscriminate killing and eating of other creatures, led to the birth of personified adharma:

From the mutual devouring of creatures greedy for food, there arose adharma, devastating to all creatures. And his wife is Nir®ti, “Calamity”, whereby the Nair®tas, three monstrous, horrible sons, took birth. Always engaged in sinful work, their names are Fear, Great Fear, and Death, who finishes all creatures. [1.60.52-53]

	 The Mahåbhårata praises the ideal moral, economic, and cultural state of the Kuru society which rejoiced in the birth of the three Kuru princes, Dh®taråß†ra, På∫∂u and Vidura. And among the glorious features of the Kuru land, it is mentioned that the people felt no attraction to adharma:
 
There were no thieves in that land, nor people who relished adharma. Even in the remote corners of the Kuru lands, it seemed as if the Age of Truth was taking place. [1.102.5]

	Similarly, realizing that they can call any demigod to give them a son, På∫∂u and Kuntî chose the god Dharma on these grounds:

Without a doubt, this son will be the dhårmika (righteous one) of the Kurus. For indeed the mind of one given by Dharma will not delight in adharma. [1.113.41]

	In fact, På∫∂u’s first born son Yudhiß†hira came to be known as the “king of dharma,” a man who could honestly say: “My voice does not speak untruth, nor does my mind dwell in adharma…”  [1.187.29]On the other hand, Yudhiß†hira himself accurately depicted the wicked Purocana, minister to Duryodhana and architect of a cruel assasination attempt against the På∫∂avas and their mother, as one who had no fear of adharma, an attitude that cost him his life: “This Purocana fears neither censure nor adharma.” [1.134.21]

	Thus for a dhårmika, a righteous man, adharma is to be feared and steadfastly avoided. From a worldly viewpoint adharma is manifestly unjust, and the holy Vedas reject it as well. Thus when Drupada is shocked that all five På∫∂ava brothers intend to marry his one daughter, he appeals to Yudhiß†hira:

Kaunteya, you are a dhårmika (righteous one), a decent man, it is not right for you to commit adharma which the world and the Veda oppose. Why do you have such ideas? [1.187.27]

	Eventually the great sage Vyåsa arrived on the scene and revealed to King Drupada that the marriage of his daughter with the På∫∂avas was literally a “match made in heaven,” upon which the king was satisfied. But one may also fall into adharma through neglect, by not properly performing one’s duty. In an incident already cited above, a troubled bråhma∫a exhorts Arjuna to save him from thieves, yet to do so, Arjuna must violate a covenant made with his brothers and risk exile. Arjuna agrees to save the bråhma∫a at any cost on these grounds:

If I do not give protection forthwith to this bråhma∫a who cries out at my door, then a very great adharma, born of neglect, will accrue to me as a ruler of the earth. [1.205.14]

	Finally, in the midst of a desperate assembly of celestial serpents who frantically scheme to save themselves from genocide, the pious members of the group reject proposals for questionable violence with these poignant words:

In times of trouble, true dharma is in every sense the basis of supreme peace. The predominance of adharma surely casts the whole world into grief. [1.33.20]