Warriors and Justice in Vedic Mythology

Meaning in the Mahabharata

Different Aspects of the Parashuram Avatar

by 

Michael Dolan/ B.V. Mahayogi

The story of Parashurama is told in different parts of the Mahābhārata as well as in the different Pūrānas, including the Bhāgavata. Parashurama is considered an avatar, a descent of the Godhead. In this case the avatar  embodies a particular divine power--that of justice.

यदा यदा हि धर्मस्य ग्लानिर्भवति भारत |
अभ्युत्थानमधर्मस्य तदात्मानं सृजाम्यहम् ||4.7||

yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir bhavati bhārata
abhyutthānam adharmasya tadātmānaṁ sṛijāmyaham

The descent of the avataras is discussed by Krishna in Bhagavad-Gita: “Whenever and wherever there is a decline in dharma, O Bhārata, and a rise of adharma—at that time I descend Myself.” 

Dharma is a flexible and subtle concept. It does not mean “religion” in the sense that we in the West normally understand it. Western religion in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic sense is highly moralistic and focuses on “sin.” The Eastern view of dharma is quite distinct, where the idea of right and wrong is tied to one’s role in society. The same rules do not apply for all, since we all have a distinct nature.

Nevertheless there are societal norms, as explained in the Manu-saṁhita which sees society as fulfilling different roles. These roles are divided into the secular social orders called varnas and in monastic society into distinct spiritual orders called ashramas.

When the different aspects of society function in harmony, there is no need for divine intervention. According to Vedic law society is harmonious when the social body is healthy.  The Law of Manu sees four social groups which function together like the fingers of the hand. These groups are called varnas.

They  are the Brahmanas, or the wisdom teachers Kshatriyas, the rulers who protect social values, Vaishyas, who drive the economics and Shudras, or proletarian classes.

This is again confirmed in the Bhagavad-Gita.

चातुर्वर्ण्यं मया सृष्टं गुणकर्मविभागश: |
तस्य कर्तारमपि मां विद्ध्यकर्तारमव्ययम् || 13||

chātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛiṣhṭaṁ guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśhaḥ
tasya kartāram api māṁ viddhyakartāram avyayam

Krishna says, “The four categories of occupations (varnas) were created by divinity according to people’s qualities and activities. Although I am the creator of this system, know me as divinity to exist outside this mundane consideration of time and space.”

It is crucial to note that while Vedic political theory might classify society into divisions, these four categories of occupations are not according to birth, but according to nature. This is the real meaning of dharma. To classify people according to their birth is against dharma. This is tantamount to racial discrimination and goes against the Laws of Manu. The idea of dharma  is to maintain harmony and balance.

Spiritual harmony and balance is maintained when people work according to their nature and when society functions accordingly. A strict interpretation of Bhagavad-Gita and the laws of Manu will discover that to artificially force people into categories or “castes” has nothing to do with Vedic political theory. The so-called “caste system” where people denied social mobility and are forced into roles defined at birth is patently unfair and is not real varnashrama dharma  as it is formulated in the ancient wisdom traditions of India.  

On the other hand, the analysis of society as conforming to different classes defined by occupations and abilities exist in every society. Even in egalitarian political systems, this social diversity is undeniable. Marx did his best to posit a “classless” society, but even in the Communist Soviet Union there were the philosophers who are the communist party think-tanks, the military men to protect the country, there are the farmers who engage in agriculture, and factory workers who supported the “classless” society on their backs.

Vedic political theory approaches the division of society from a deeper point of view. Acting in dharma means acting in harmony with our spiritual self-interest. Adharma,  then is a loss of balance; a loss of harmony. Instead of conceiving of “religion” as properly following a list of rules and avoiding sin, Vedic thought sees us as either living in harmony with our true self or living in darkness and self-denial.  Self-denial of spiritual life (adharma) is found where there is a greater investment in materialism. Denial of the self means deeper involvement in the material energy.

In creating a political analysis of social groups, it may seem naïve to connect the dots between spiritual life and material energy. Materialism teaches us that if soul exists it must be a product of matter. In this view, there is no need for any spiritual consideration when creating a social organization. But, while the materialistic paradigm pervades our modern understanding, Vedic wisdom held that consciousness is inseparable from material nature.  Any analysis of the social organism which avoids spiritual considerations would be superficial.

If dharma is light, adharma  is darkness. Western religion and thought has traditionally seen the world in terms of light and dark, sin and piety, good and evil.

But the Vedic analysis points out that just as light has different degrees of shade and color, so does our experience. We do not live in a black and white world.

The degrees or frequencies are divided into the primary colors which give us all the colors and shades of human perception. Magenta, Cyan, and Yellow combine to create all the colors seen by the eye. According to the Vedic analysis, material existence is not a simple exercise of black and white, good and bad karma.

In the ancient system of understanding practiced by the seers of the Vedas, existence and nonexistence are not simple questions, but involve the subjective evolution of consciousness.

In this view, consciousness is not a product of material energy. Consciousness permeates material energy in a myriad of subtle ways. But just as color theory can break down millions of hues by reducing them to a combination of primary colors, the relationship between consciousness and material energy can be divided into three main influences called gunas. Just as the different frequencies of light in primary colors combine to give us all the different shades of the spectrum,  these “influences” or subtle shades of consciousness and its degradation combine and evolve to give us the varieties of material experience. The three influences or levels of consciousness are called sattva guṇa (the influence or mode of goodness), rajo guṇa (mode of passion), and tamo guṇa (mode of ignorance).

The influence of these three “modes” or “gunas” have been seen and analyzed on many levels—biological, psychological, medicinal—when they are applied to human society they inform Vedic political analysis.

In this sense, brahmanas are those members of society who are under the influence of preponderance of sattva-guna, or the mode of goodness. It is not a question of birth or appointment to a political position.  According to Manu’s analysis, those members of society who  are predisposed toward teaching and worship, thinking and inner reflection, are brahmanas. They are further characterized by compassion, kindness, truth-telling, cleanliness, and austerity. They cannot avoid these characteristics. It is their nature.  

Those who are predisposed towards leadership, who are given to rule, are Kshatriyas. Kshatriyas are noble, since they are also influenced by sattva-guna—the quality or mode of goodness; but as a social class, they have a preponderance of raja-guna the mode of passion. Kshatriyas are naturally inclined toward public service and leadership, towards administration and management.

According to the Vedic social analysis,  the entreprenuerial, business, and agricultural class called Vaishyas are more influenced by rajo-guna  or the mode of passion and creativity and their consciousness tends more towards tamo-guna, or the mode of darkness. form the business and agricultural class. Again, one does not become a Vaishya  or Kshatriya  by birth, while this may be a consideration. The idea is that some people prefer to live and work as entrepeneurs than in public service.

The great majority of the population are the working class, the proletariat or Shudras, who are predominated by the mode of darkness. They form the working or productive classes. Thomas Hobbes described their lives: "No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."

Again, this classification was a question of Vedic political theory, it was neither meant to be according to birth, nor was it unchangeable. Krishna clearly explains in this verse that the classification of the social system was meant to be according to people’s qualities and activities,not according to birth and political considerations.

Krishna also explains here that these social considerations have evolved apart from his personal position as “creator.” That is, while God is responsible in some sense for the nature of material reality, He is remote, he is the non-doer.

Śrīla Prabhupāda explains this as follows:

“Just as rain water falls equally on the forest, yet from some seeds huge banyan trees sprout, from other seeds beautiful flowers bloom, and from some thorny bushes emerge. The rain, which is impartial, is not answerable for this difference. In the same way, God provides the souls with the energy to act, but they are free in determining what they wish to do with it; God is not responsible for their actions.”

We have seen an idea of the Vedic social analysis and how it is supposed to unfold. Plato saw the ideal Republic as one presided over by philosopher-kings. The Mahābhārata tells of just such a golden age. Enlightened kings took spiritual instruction from disinterested sages and did their best to follow dharma according to the teachings of the Vedas.

And yet, even a world as harmonious as the ancient Vedic society saw conflicts between the different social classes. Dharma became adharma. Enlightened kings became despots, and despots became tyrants. Kartavirya-Arjuna is just such a tyrant. Violating the rules of dharma he steals the mystic cow, Kamadhenu, from the gentle brahmana, Jamadagni. This abuse of dharma triggers the advent of Parashuram, the avatar of God as justice. Parashuram does justice for the brahmanas who practice nonviolence. Jamadagni and his followers have forsworn violence and will not resist a tyrant with force. Parashuram has no qualms about nonviolence. Whenever brahmanas are insulted by tryants Parashuram appears as a godly avenger.

Parashurama’s appearance in the family of brahmanas is the result of a curse. He has been cursed to be a warrior among brahmanas. He must struggle against anger. His father tests him by having him behead his own mother, Renuka. Renuka’s head is restored by mystic mantra. She has no memory of the crime. Is it all a dream? Ram must discover inner peace in the mountains with Shiva before fulfilling his destiny as a warrior.

He confronts the tryant Kartavirya, punishing him by severing his arms. It is said that Kartavirya had thousands of arms--it may be that he was expert in many weapons-arms. When the sons of Kartavirya revenge themselves on Ram’s father, Ram rages against all despotic kings and princes.

The idea that Kartavirya had thousands of arms may seen in the modern sense. Parashurama was an advocate for “arms control.” When tyrannical power rages against innocent and peace-loving citizens, divinity may appear, even in a terrible form, to punish the evil-doers.