35

John Nemec

When the Parampar Breaks:

On Gurus and Students in the Mahbhrata
iyas te ha dhi m tv prapannam
I am your student. Teach me who supplicates you.

Mahbhrata (Bhma Parvan) 6.24.7d

Introduction

The purpose of this essay is to illustrate the prevalence of

guru-student relationships in the Mahbhrata.1 I will argue
that not only are stories of teachers and their students cen-
tral to the epic, involving key characters and pivotal scenes
of the narrative, but the guru-disciple relations presented
therein are frequently marred by the shortcomings of the
characters involved, confused by the circumstances in which
they are formed, and morally complicated by the real virtues
of some of the characters who nevertheless break the laws
of dharma, as they are expressed in the Mnavadharmastra
(hereafter referred to as Manu). In a word, the Mahbhrata
depicts what cannot but be described as failed teacher-stu-
dent relationships and in doing so narrates the very deterio-

1
For the purposes of this essay, I follow Hiltebeitel in understanding
the Mahbhrata as a narrative continuum, as a work in progress, rather
than [choosing] one variant or portion of the epic as a fixed or original
text. See Hiltebeitel 1976: 14-15. In other words, I intend to examine the
narrative and literary qualities of the epic in its present form (by which I
mean the form canonized in the Poona Critical Edition), rather than to
scrutinize the authenticity and/or relative antiquity of various passages
and variant readings of the text.
36 The A nthropologist and the Native

ration of dharma that one would anticipate in the epic, given

the works larger themes.
That such concerns play themselves out within the param-
eters of the ideally sacrosanct teacher-student bond a social
institution meant to perpetuate knowledge, both by control-
ling access to it and ensuring its accurate transmission fur-
ther expresses a certain concern for the integrity of the in-
stitution. Historically derived from and structurally similar
to the father-son bond, the Mahbhrata narrates the social
dangers of failed teacher-student relationships, in particular
those involving princes and kings, as well as the role that the
institution plays in maintaining the integrity of the social or-
der. In response to such a concern, the epic narrative elabo-
rates an innovation on the institution of the guru, presenting
the teacher not merely as a learned mortal, as Manu does, but
as, in Kas case, a fully divinized guru, unmoved by the self-
serving, private concerns that so commonly afflict teachers
and their students in the Mahbhrata. To isolate the institu-
tion of the guru in the larger epic, then, offers a window on
one historical moment and a pivotal one, indeed in the
development of the institution itself, the moment when the
idea of a fully divinized guru becomes fully articulated.

1. Ideals and Norms: Manu 2 on the Institution of the Guru

Although the teachers3 (guru, crya) described in Manu

are primarily brahmins and teachers of the Veda, rather than
of the arts of war (as are the figures of primary interest, for
the purposes of this essay, in the Mahbhrata), the law book
offers prescriptions for normative behavior and as such illus-
trates the ideal manner in which any teacher should be re-
garded.4 Even if the martial arts are not the primary subject
of instruction there, Manu explicitly links Vedic study with the
warriors pursuit of power, the former leading to the acquisi-

2
All quotations of the Mnavadharmastra (henceforth Manu) in this
essay refer to the critical edition presented in Olivelle 2005.
3
For definitions of the various types of teachers, see Manu, 2.140-143.
See also Manu, 2.191, where the terms guru and crya are used synony-
mously. Finally, see J. Gonda, The Guru, in Gonda 1965: 229-283, and
esp. 237-241 for a discussion of the etymology of the Sanskrit term guru.
4
It merits noting that, while the teachers that concern us in this essay
primarily communicate the arts of war and transmit magical powers to be
used in combat, they are nevertheless, more often than not, brahmins and
not members of the warrior caste.
 When the Parampar Breaks 37

tion of the latter,5 and the text more generally suggests that
knowledge of various kinds can be fruitfully acquired from
members of any caste. It is even possible, in adverse times,
to learn the Veda from a non-brahmin, and Manu requires
the student to afford such a teacher the same deference and
respect due to his brahmin exemplar, at least for the duration
of the period of instruction.6 The prescriptions for and de-
scriptions of the institution of the guru in Manu, therefore,
are to a large degree indicative of the normative standards by
which to judge the teacher-student relationship in general,
and therefore are by no means inapplicable to the epic.
Furthermore, while it is perhaps impossible to know be-
yond doubt the degree to which the normative account of so-
ciety presented in Manu reflects contemporaneous realities,7
one can be certain that the author(s) of the text set out to
encapsulate a set of social ideals, legitimate particular cus-
toms, or even to invention tradition; it is even possible that
all of these ends were pursued, simultaneously.8 As such
and given that by all accounts Manu and the Mahbhrata

5
See Manu, 2.37c, where we are told that a katriya intent on gaining
power should undergo the upanayana initiation in his sixth year, as op-
posed to the usual eleventh: rjo balrthina ahe.
6
See Manu, 2.238-242.
7
In my view, Olivelle is right in suggesting an indirect and abstracted, but
real, relationship between Manu and contemporaneous social life, it being a
text concerned with ideal human behavior that nevertheless reflects, to some
significant extent, contemporaneous social realities. According to Olivelle:
Although it presents the should more often than the is and may occa-
sionally engage in pious wishes and wishful thinking, the amount of detail it
presents with regard to diverse areas of human activity ritual, food, mar-
riage, inheritance, adoption, judicial procedure, taxation, punishment, pen-
ance shows that it was not divorced from reality. See Olivelle 2005: 65-66.
8
As a stra, Manu can be said to constitute, quoting Pollock, a verbal
codification of rules, whether of divine or human provenance, for the posi-
tive and negative regulation of particular cultural practices. Pollock goes
on to catalog the possible relationships of stric works to actual social
practices as follows: stra could be viewed as offering a real blueprint for
practice; as merely describing, ex post facto, a cultural product and thereby
explicating its components for the benefit of a cultivated public; as pro-
viding, in the guise of normative injunctions, something like a standard
of taste and judgment to critics, that is as defining the classic; even as
functioning in some cases to invent a tradition; as constituting, in the
hegemonic manner of high cultures elsewhere, practices as sciences for
theoretical or actual control; oras endowing a practice with the status,
legitimacy and authority directly confirmed by any Vedic charter, some-
thing most stras aspire to become. See Pollock 1990: 17-26, esp. 18; 25-26.
Olivelle quotes the latter passage in Olivelle 2005: 63.
38 The A nthropologist and the Native

were, more or less, contemporaneously redacted9 it is not

inappropriate to presume that many, though certainly not
all (Hopkins 1882-1885: 251), of the norms articulated in
Manu were anticipated in the narrative of the Mahbhrata
and, indeed, probably expected by its audience.10
Manus account of the teacher-student relationship, as is
the general tone of the work, is prescriptive, affirming cer-
tain norms and prohibiting a variety of actions. As the book
is organized in large part on the basis of the chronology of
an individuals life, the teacher is of primary interest in the
section dealing with the first rama, which is the principle
subject matter of the second chapter. After the teacher re-
leases the student to enter into the householder stage of life
(3.1-4; 4.1; cf. 2.245-246), his presence in Manu is greatly
diminished, excepting intermittent reminders of the teach-
ers preeminent stature (e.g. 4.182)11 and exhortations to
respect and honor him.
Of paramount importance throughout is the students def-
erence to and respect for the teacher. He is regularly exhort-
ed to revere and serve him (e.g. 12.83)12 and to give him his
obedience, this in order to gain access to the knowledge con-
tained in him.13 The student must not argue with his teacher

9
See Olivelle 2005: 20-25; Bhler 1886: xcii-cxviii; Hopkins 1882-1885:
239-275, esp. 268.
10
This is not to say that Manu was already a fully formed text that was
directly quoted during the time of the composition of the Mahbhrata,
but rather that the normative social vision articulated in Manu, by and
large, would have been known to the authors of the epic and their audi-
ence. In other words, whether or not Manu was fully formed by the time
of the completion of the great epic, both texts elicit a shared and received
common wisdom. Hopkins argues as much when he suggests that, while
the Mahbhrata was unaware of Mnavadharmastra as a complete, auton-
omous, and authoritative text, the stram [i.e., Manu] was in great part
collated between the time when the bulk of the great epic was composed
and its final completion and previous to its collation, there had existed
a vast number of sententious remarks, proverbial wisdom that floated
about in the mouths of people, and as such were drawn from the hearsay
of the whole Brahman world. See Hopkins 1882-1865: 268.
11
Bhler considers the verse in question to be an interpolation. Olivelle
does not. See Bhler 1886: lxviii; Olivelle 2005: 54-55.
12
While Bhler considers the verse in question to be an interpolation,
Olivelle does not. See Bhler 1886: lxxiii; Olivelle 2005: 60-62.
13
The analogy is with digging for water: Just as a man, digging with a
spade, finds water, so too does the one who wishes to learn find the knowl-
edge contained in [his teacher]. See Manu, 2.218: yath khanan khanitrea
naro vry adhigacchati | tath gurugat vidy urur adhigacchati.
 When the Parampar Breaks 39

(4.179-180),14 nor may he even tread on his shadow (4.130).

Controlling his thoughts, disciplining his body (2.192-193),
the student must show him utter deference, whether by eat-
ing food or wearing clothes of lesser quality (2.194), by occu-
pying a lower seat (2.198), refraining from speaking to him
while lying down (2.195), or by standing down from a vehicle
before greeting him (2.202). He must never mock his teacher
(2.199), and he must never abandon him.15 Loyalty is further
measured by the company one keeps, for the student must
avoid his teachers opponents (3.153) and absent himself
from the company of those who mock him (2.200). Bearing
all of these strictures in mind, it should be obvious that Manu
proscribes the student from harming his teacher (4.162).
The same respect, moreover, must be granted the teachers
teacher (2.205), as well as the teachers family, and Manu is
particular to proscribe lustful encounters with the women of
the gurus family (2.211-214).16 The student is also linked ritu-
ally with the teacher and his family, as he must respect the rules
of ritual purity when his teacher or members of the teachers
family expire.17 The same respect is granted to fellow students,
although the period of ritual impurity is shorter.18
In addition, the teacher is further associated with the stu-
dents father (and family) in a number of passages: Manu ex-
plicitly requires the student to treat his teacher in the same
manner as members of his own family (2.206), and he should
never treat his parents, older brother, or teacher with con-
tempt (2.225).19 As is well known, the student should live with
the teacher for the duration of his Vedic training (2.164),
and the text suggests that the second birth, into the Veda, is
rather more valuable than the first, biological one, which de-
pends on mere kma, the parents sexual desire (2.147-148).

14
Bhler considers 4.180-185 to be an interpolation; Olivelle does not.
See Bhler 1886: lxviii; Olivelle 2005: 54-55.
15
See Manu, 11.60 ff.
16
Bhler considers Manu, 2.213-215 to be interpolated verses, though
Olivelle disagrees. See Bhler 1886: lxvii; Olivelle 2005: 54-55.
17
See Manu, 5.80-81. The impurity lasts for three days, while the impu-
rity following the death of someone of the same ancestry (sapia) lasts for
ten days (or alternatively three or even only one), for which see Manu, 5.59.
18
It lasts for only one day in the case of the sabrahmacrin. See Manu,
5.71ab.
19
Bhler considers Manu, 2.225-237 to be the innovation of a later re-
dactor/compiler of the text, though he accepts the possibility that similar
verses appeared in the original. Olivelle readily accepts the authenticity of
these verses, however. See Bhler 1886: lxvii and Olivelle 2005: 54-55.
40 The A nthropologist and the Native

The teacher is even labeled the students father in his sec-

ond birth (2.169-171). In a word, and as Gonda suggests, the
similarity of the father with the teacher is the result of the lat-
ter having been developed on the model of the former: Ac-
cording to Manu 2.142 and Yjavlkya Smti 1.34 the guru is
the one who performs the saskras, maintains the child, and
imparts the Veda to it. This must show that at least in the first
place or originally the father is meant (Gonda 1965: 241).
The aforementioned prescriptions are perhaps best
summed up by the general injunction (2.191) that the stu-
dent, whether enjoined by the teacher to do so or not, should
recite the Veda daily and likewise always perform those acts
that benefit his teacher:20 the student should always offer him
his loyalty, deference, and respect. Finally, Manus extensive
treatment of student errancy is justified by the idea that the
guru is responsible for the karmic consequences of his stu-
dents misdeeds, receiving the karmic fruits of his sins.21
As will be shown, truth-telling, whether by keeping a vow
or uttering statements of fact, is a virtue of particular impor-
tance in the Mahbhrata and in particular in the guru-stu-
dent relationships depicted therein.22 Manu, however, does
not explicitly associate this virtue with the institution of the
guru, though the text clearly expresses the value of truthful-
ness23 and indirectly associates it with the institution in ques-
tion by identifying it particularly with brahmins.24 On the oth-
er hand, the text is explicit in linking to the institution of the
guru another virtue of central concern in the epic, conform-
ity to the rules of varramadharma. While Manu reserves a
certain subordinated position of respect for dras (2.136-
137), the text also reviles the husband of a dra woman
(valpati) (3.155) and is explicit in condemning those who

20
See Manu, 2.191: codito guru nityam apracodita eva v | kuryd ad-
hyayane yogam cryasya hiteu ca. Of additional interest in this verse is the
synonymous use of the terms guru and crya.
21
See Manu, 8.316-318.
22
On vows, curses, blessing, and the like in the Mahbhrata, see Hilte-
beitel 1976: 38-39.
23
See, for example, Manu, 1.29, a verse that Bhler thinks absent from
the original form of the text, but which Olivelle accepts as part of it. See
Bhler 1886: lxvi; Olivelle 2005: 52-54.
24
For example, brahmins must take an oath in court on truth itself.
Katriyas, by contrast, must swear on their vehicles and weapons. See
Manu, 8.113ab: satyena payed vipra katriya vhanyudhai. It is also
possible (but less likely) that the dvandva compound, vhanyudha, refers
to the warriors army and weapons.
 When the Parampar Breaks 41

teach, or are taught by, members of the fourth caste (3.156),

going so far as to prescribe reviling (jugupsita) names for
dras (2.31), though the injunction is immediately followed
(2.32) by another that recommends names connoting mere
servitude (preya). Thus, certain caste-based taboos are rec-
ommended in Manus account of the institution of the guru.
It is worth noting that, while cataloging a wide range of
possible failures on the part of the student, Manu is relative-
ly silent on the possible failures of the teacher. Apart from
the aforementioned prohibition from teaching students of a
low caste, the text merely suggests that the guru should not
charge a fee for his teachings (3.156), aside from the daki,
and that he may not impart learning to those who have not
asked for it, or to those who have asked in an inappropriate
manner.25 It may therefore be observed that Manu employs a
strategy of presuming the integrity of the teacher. (To an ex-
tent, however, this may reflect the fact of the teachers senior-
ity in relation to his pupils, who very often would have been
pre-pubescent, or perhaps not much older.)26 Finally, one
must note that, while the text has not yet reached the point of
presuming the teachers divinity,27 it assumes his conformity
to dharma and further associates brahmins, the teachers un-
marked caste-status in Manu, with the liberating knowledge
of brahman, provided the teacher is well-versed in the Veda.28
The Mahbhrata, by contrast, narrates not an idealized
form of the guru, but rather the failures of both teachers
and their students, and it occasionally depicts the institu-
tion as an instrument with which to exercise power, both
by dint of the moral shortcomings, personal idiosyncrasies,
and private desires of the teacher and as a result of the mor-
al shortcomings of his students, leading almost inevitably

25
See Manu, 2.110-111. Presumably, the latter violation entails the stu-
dents failure to show proper deference and respect to the teacher, or per-
haps it involves the student lying to the teacher, examples of which appear
in the Mahbhrata, about which see below.
26
It might also reflect the bias of the probably brahmin authors of the
work, itself.
27
Gonda suggests that the guru has always been considered to be di-
vine, though he also acknowledges an increasing deification of the same
in the history of the religion. Unnoticed is the great difference in tone
and content of Manus presentation of the guru from that of the epic; in
Manu, while his integrity is assumed, the guru is depicted as rather more a
learned elite than a divine being, quite a contrast from the epics depiction
of Ka as a fully divinized teacher. See Gonda 1965: 230-231; 280-283.
28
See Manu, 2.242.
42 The A nthropologist and the Native

to ruinous ends. In other words, the anxiety illustrated (by

way of the many rules proscribing the students behavior
towards the teacher) in Manu over the integrity of the guru-
student relationship is further elaborated in the narrative of
the Mahbhrata, a text that, insofar as it catalogs the dete-
rioration of dharma at the dawn of the last and morally dark-
est of cosmic eons, the Kali Yuga, is ideally conceived for the
exploration of such failings.

2. Of Loyalty and Caste: Ekalavya

Recall, for example, the story of the outcaste prince,

Ekalavya.29 Young, determined, devout, the son of the king
of the Nidas, Ekalavya set out to learn the art of archery
from Droa, the greatest guru of the martial arts. Droa,
however, who knew the law (dharmaja), declined to teach
the prince out of respect (anvavek) for his students, the
Pavas and Kauravas, who were katriyas and therefore
loath to associate with the outcaste prince.30 That Ekalavya
nevertheless crafted and worshipped an image of the famous
guru is testament to an unwavering loyalty, a virtue explicitly
attributed to him31 and by which he won unsurpassed agility
with bow-and-arrow.32
It is Ekalavyas steadfast devotion to his self-selected guru
that makes him extraordinary and consequently evokes
sympathy for his plight, but abundance of one virtue does
not guarantee sufficiency in another. In Ekalavyas case, his
exemplary devotion is presumptuous, because it renders
him blind to his disqualifying caste-status. And while caste
is a deplorable cause for exclusion from a modern point of
view, it was utterly justifiable indeed, mandated under
the strictures of varramadharma, for, as mentioned above,
Manu is reproachful of the teacher who deigns to instruct a
dra, let alone an outcaste.33

29
See Mahbhrata, 1.123.10-39. All quotations of the Mahbhrata in
this essay refer to the enumeration of verses found in the Poona Critical
Edition, for which see Belvalkar, Sukthankar 1933-1960.
30
See Mahbhrata, 1.123.10-11: tato nidarjasya hirayadhanua suta |
ekalavyo mahrja droam abhyjagma ha. na sa ta pratijagrha naidir iti cin-
tayan | iya dhanui dharmajas tem evnvavekay.
31
See Mahbhrata, 1.123.14ab: paray raddhay yukto yogena paramena ca.
32
According to Gonda, it is with Ekalavya that the concept of the grace
of the guru is introduced. See Gonda 1965: 252.
33
See Manu, 3.156c ff.
 When the Parampar Breaks 43

Nevertheless, Ekalavyas devotion is not opportunistic: he

offers it not only in the quest to acquire Droas instruction,
but also when the latter takes it from him, and the devotion
that wins Ekalavya supremacy in archery consequently pales
in comparison to his eponymous34 display of loyal obedience
in the face of his teachers exacting command. I am of course
referring to Ekalavyas run-in with the Pava brothers and
in particular their teacher. At some point following his aus-
terities, the Pava brothers enter the forest, along with a
dog that, barking incessantly, earns Ekalavyas wrath and is
forced to swallow seven of his arrows, fired in simultaneous
succession.35 The Pavas were amazed at that feat of ar-
chery, and Arjuna in particular was dismayed to hear the out-
caste prince claim Droa as his guru, who had promised him
that he would remain unmatched in all the martial arts.36
Not to be made a liar, Droa quickly found Ekalavya, was
greeted appropriately by his student, and promptly demand-
ed the latters thumb as daki. Declaring, There is nothing
I will not give to my guru, Ekalavya, in an act of utter obedi-
ence to his teachers harsh (drua) command, fulfilled his
teachers wish, but at the cost of his light touch in archery.37
Droas daki exhibits a ruthless efficiency, and not sim-
ply due to the uniqueness of the object he desires.38 To accept
the gift is to recognize Ekalavya as his student, and yet the na-
ture of the demand presents him with an exacting choice, for
to defy the order of a teacher is strictly forbidden, but to lose a
thumb is devastating for an archer. Thus, Ekalavya was forced
to choose between the teacher and the fruits of his teaching,
and while his decision exemplified his allegiance, it cost him
precisely what his devotion and loyalty had earned him.
The story is touching, and indeed the authors of the
Mahbhrata felt it necessary to justify the violence done to
the prince: in the Droa Parvan, it is suggested that Ekalavya
would have been undefeatable in battle had he retained his
right thumb.39 Still, if the episode evokes sympathy by contrast-
ing Ekalavyas faith in his teacher with his failure to adhere to
the laws of varramadharma, it also exhibits a second layer

34
The name Ekalavya can be translated Gets one cut off.
35
See Mahbhrata, 1.123.15-19.
36
See Mahbhrata, 1.123.25-28.
37
See Mahbhrata, 1.123.29-39.
38
On the nature of daki, see Gonda 1965: 198-228.
39
See Mahbhrata, 7.156.19: ekalavya hi sguham aakt devadnav |
sarkasorag prtha vijetu yudhi karhi cit.
44 The A nthropologist and the Native

of conflicting virtues, a clash of loyalty and truthfulness. Eka-

lavyas mastery of the art of archery puts in doubt the veracity of
Droas promise to Arjuna, and to guarantee his word, Droa
must exploit the (albeit misplaced) loyalty of his disciple.
Whats more and as is so often the case in the
Mahbhrata the incident is tainted by the cross-purposes of
one of the characters involved, in this case Droa, for the Eka-
lavya episode is not the only occasion when Droa requests
an unusual daki.40 And the promise he made to Arjuna was
perhaps not an entirely benevolent one, for it is linked with
his desire to prosecute a personal vendetta. Just prior to the
encounter with Ekalavya, Droa hinted at a forthcoming de-
mand the capture of Drupada in return favor for his in-
struction in the martial arts, and while the others responded
to the appeal with silence, Arjuna enthusiastically assented to
it.41 Shortly thereafter, Arjunas devotion to his teacher (jux-
taposed in the narrative with, and therefore implicitly com-
pared to, that of Ekalavya) won him his gurus preference.42
At issue is a personal slight, suffered at the hands of a
friend-become-king. Droa and Drupada played together
as children, but when the latter ascended to the throne, he
shunned the former, refusing to grant him a place of promi-
nence in his kingdom. It is with this that Droa set off to the
land of the Kurus to offer his teachings, carrying his grudge
along with him.43 Of course, he eventually pays the price for
his vendetta: although the Pavas capture Drupada, return-
ing to him only half his kingdom, Droa acquires a lifelong

40
At least according to Manu, the daki is more commonly a materi-
al gift, for example land, gold, a cow, or a horse (See Manu, 2.245-246).
It is unusual to demand as daki that ones students settle a personal
vendetta, and it goes without saying that Droas request of Ekalavyas
thumb betrays the spirit of the institution.
41
See Mahbhrata 1.122.40cd-44.
42
Similarly, it is perhaps no coincidence that the famous scene in which
Droa tests his disciples (Mahbhrata, 1.123.45-67) closely follows the Eka-
lavya episode (Mahbhrata, 1.123.10-39). (It is in the scene in question that
Arjuna famously sees only the head of a targeted bird, his concentration
being so exact.) The juxtaposition of the two scenes presents an implicit
comparison of Arjunas skill in archery with Ekalavyas. The comparison is
made more apparent in a short episode immediately following the one in
which Droa tests the concentration and aim of his disciples, one in which
Arjuna is said rapidly to fire five arrows into a crocodile that had gripped
Droas shin (Mahbhrata, 1.123.68-78). For the narration of the capture
of Drupada, see Mahbhrata, 1.128.
43
See Mahbhrata, 1.122.38: drupadenaivam ukto ha
manyunbhiparipluta | abhygaccha kurn bhma iyair arth gunvitai.
 When the Parampar Breaks 45

enemy in the process,44 and it is ultimately Drupadas son,

Dhadyumna, who, having vowed revenge for the injustice
done to his father, kills the vengeful teacher on the field of
battle, despite an overwhelming appeal for mercy from both
the Pava and Kaurava camps.45

3. On Truthfulness and Caste: Kara

While Droas demise is a major development, the Eka-

lavya episode is of course a minor one in the scope of the
larger epic narrative, though it generates a lot of attention
and concerned interest, notably among Dalits, who (right-
fully) tell the story as an exemplar of the cruelties and injus-
tices of caste hegemony. Nevertheless, the issues at play in
the episode are not isolated to it, and they reappear in rela-
tion to some of the most important and significant charac-
ters that serve as teachers or prepare themselves as students
in search of knowledge in the art of war.
Take Kara, for example. In an effort to gain knowledge
of magical weapons, he approached the sage Paraurma
for instruction.46 Kara, however, whose mother Kunt had
abandoned him at birth, did not know his ancestry. To gain
access to instruction, he was compelled to lie about his ge-
nealogy, claiming to be a brahmin. The ruse paid off, tem-
porarily Kara acquired knowledge of superior, magical
weapons, but not decisively. When one day his teacher
fell asleep, his head on Karas lap, an insect (sometimes
said to be Indra, i.e., Arjunas father) burrowed into the lat-
ters thigh. In order not to disturb his teacher, Kara un-
flinchingly endured the pain. Eventually stirring, anyway,
Paraurma noticed that his student was bleeding, queried
its cause, and upon hearing Karas explanation realized
the latter could not be but a katriya, since a brahmin would
not endure such pain so steadfastly.
It follows that Karas fantastic display of devotion cannot
compensate, in the eyes of his teacher, for his lie. To punish
him, Paraurma promises Kara will forget what he has been
taught at the very moment he needs it most, and, indeed, this
curse bears itself out on the battlefield, when the wheel of his
chariot catches in the mud, and Arjuna, prodded by Ka,

44
See Mahbhrata, 1.128.15-18.
45
See Mahbhrata, 7.165, esp. 7.165.51.
46
See Mahbhrata, 8.29.
46 The A nthropologist and the Native

kills him in his moment of vulnerable forgetfulness.47 Like

Ekalavyas, Karas punishment is to lose the very teachings
he so assiduously, but briefly, acquired.
Lying costs Kara, despite his unflinching loyalty to his
teacher, and the epic again depicts a heroic act of virtue how
else can one interpret Karas endurance for pain? fore-
stalled by contravening shortcomings in virtue. And although
Manu considers misrepresentation of ones caste to be the
equivalent of killing a brahmin,48 in this instance one might
expect that Karas great forbearance would in some way have
served to mitigate, or even outweigh, the severity of his trans-
gression. Regardless of how one calculates the dharmic equa-
tion, however, it is clear that the power of the episode in
particular, the sympathy one feels for Kara, who is almost but
not quite a tragic hero49 is derived from Karas conflicting
virtues and dharmic transgressions, along with the question-
able cross-purposes of one of the characters involved.
The cross-purposes in question, of course, are
Paraurmas, for the teacher had his own agenda to pros-
ecute: his indiscriminate disdain for katriyas is in service of
a personal vendetta. Although he comes to be considered
a god, the Mahbhratas contemporaneous audience prob-
ably did not yet acknowledge Paraurmas divinity,50 and
regardless, his hatred of katriyas stemmed from his desire
to avenge the murder of his father, Jamadagni, by a mem-
ber of the warrior caste, Arjuna Krtavrya.51 (Its worth

47
That the wheel catches is of course the result of a different curse. It is
Karas inability to defend himself that results from Paraurmas curse. See
Mahbhrata, 8.67.
48
See Manu, 11.56: anta ca samutkare rjagmi ca paiunam | guro
clkanirbandha samni brahmahatyay.
49
Had Kara never learned his true ancestry, had he not been given the
opportunity to join his Pava brothers prior to the start of the civil war,
and had he not consistently counseled Duryodhana to engage in treachery,
one could rightly label him a tragic hero.
50
See Brockington 1988: 284-286; see also van Buitenen 1975: 193. It
is worth noting that Paraurmas repeated annihilation of the katriyas is
said to take place at the moment of transition from Tret- to Dvparayuga.
See Mahbhrata 1.2.3.
51
Arjuna Krtavrya was properly welcomed, but he did not accept the
hospitality due to his own bent for war. Stealing what he liked and ransack-
ing the house, he left, incurring the wrath of the family and Rmas in
particular. Rma responded by attacking him, whose kin later responded
in turn, killing Rmas defenseless father who, being an ascetic, refused to
resist and instead waited for his sons protection, which arrived too late. See
Mahbhrata, 3.115-117, esp. 3.116.19cd ff.
 When the Parampar Breaks 47

noting that Paraurma himself faced an Abrahamic task,

when his father demanded he kill his own mother to punish
her singular lapse into incontinence. The fifth of five sons,
Paraurma faithfully complied with his fathers wishes by
severing her head with an axe, after his four older brothers
refused to do so).52 Thus, what seems to be a simple moral
exhorting the value of honesty is not as simple as that. Not
only does Karas lie outweigh his heroic devotion, but also,
like Droa with Ekalavya, Karas teacher is motivated by an
agenda that relates only in the most general of terms to the
student who is caught in its vortex. Indeed, under normal
circumstances, Kara, as a katriya, would make an ideal can-
didate for a brahmins instruction.

4. On Truthfulness and Caste: Satyakma

Issues of caste, then abrogation of the laws of

varramadharma disqualify Ekalavya from Droas mar-
tial arts studio, despite the fact that in all other respects he
would have been the ideal student. In Karas case, an oth-
erwise appropriate caste-identity disqualifies him in the eyes
of his teacher, who has it against the warrior class. Both epi-
sodes stand in contrast to one in the Chndogya Upaniad,53
which recounts the intriguing story of a boy who wishes to
learn the secret teaching concerning the identity of tman
and brahman and further highlights the severity of Karas
encounter with Paraurma.
The child in question, Satyakma, approached his moth-
er in order to learn the details of his heritage, this in an-
ticipation of the questions his prospective guru would ask
him. His mother, Jabl, was promiscuous in her youth and
as such was uncertain of who precisely fathered the boy.
Unable simply to identify his father, she instead instructed
Satyakma to tell his prospective teacher that his name is
Satyakma Jabl.54 Presenting himself in this manner,
his prospective guru, Hridrumata Gautama, observed that
only a brahmin could speak as honestly as the boy had spo-
ken, and he taught him the secrets of the Veda. Moreover,
the text explicitly notes that the teaching he received was

52
See Mahbhrata, 3.116.1-19.
53
See Chndogya Upaniad, 4.4.
54
In other words, he is Satyakma, the son of Jabl.
48 The A nthropologist and the Native

complete,55 and he is later depicted as a guru in his own

right, teaching the nature of self and brahman to others.56
Thus, a child of uncertain birth became learned in the
Veda and knowledgeable in its greatest wisdom, and as such
the episode stands in contrast to both the story of Eka-
lavya and that of Kara, in contrast to the latter because of
Satyakmas honesty and to both by virtue of the fact that
Satyakmas (obviously dubious) caste-identity did not dis-
qualify him in the eyes of his teacher. The moral of the
story is that the truthfulness Manu expects of brahmins was
thought at one point to be not only prescriptive, but also
descriptive, something patently not true of the Kali age.57
(On this view, it is Satyakmas brahmin-hood that led to his
honesty, not his honesty that qualified him for a brahmins
education.) And yet, the story further speaks to Karas fate,
for he can equally be said not to know his heritage all the
more reason he must accept the consequences of his lie.

5. On Truthfulness and the Teacher: Yudhihira

Nor is truthfulness, or more specifically its absence, uni-

formly regarded in the Mahbhrata. In one instance, at least,

55
However, the text does perhaps hesitate in endorsing the validity of
teaching someone of such a dubious heritage. We are told that, serving
his teacher loyally for a number of years, Satyakma was taught one quar-
ter of brahman each by a bull, by fire, by a wild goose, and by a water-bird.
When Haridrumata saw him approaching with apparent knowing, he asked
Satyakma how he learned the nature of brahman. Hearing that others, than
men taught him, but that his teacher should teach him again, Hridrumata
Gautama did so without leaving anything out.
I prefer to think that the implication of this, however, is that the boy was
bound to learn the Vedas, not because of his honesty, but because of his
caste, which, although unknown, was clearly indicated by his actions. See
Chndogya Upaniad, 4.5-9 and Radhakrishnan 1953: 408-412; esp. 411-412.
56
Satyakmas learning is confirmed in the next passage, where we
are told of his successful instruction of one Upakosala (See Chndogya
Upaniad, 4.10; cf. Bhadrayaka Upaniad, 6.3.11-12), although he
is associated with the wrong view that brahman is the mind (manas) at
Bhadrayaka Upaniad, 4.1.6.
57
Indeed, Manu suggests as much when mentioning the deterioration
of dharma through the eons. See Manu, 1.81-86. (Note however, that both
Olivelle and Bhler consider the passage in question to be a later addi-
tion. See Olivelle 2005: 52-54; Bhler 1886: lxvi.) The story in question,
however, being narrated in an Upaniad and therefore a part of the Veda,
cannot by tradition be ascribed to any of the four eons, but rather is time-
less. It nevertheless is more indicative of the state of affairs in the first
eon, which is of course the most nearly perfect of the four.
 When the Parampar Breaks 49

lying is sanctioned by a god and materially rewarded on the

battlefield. I am of course speaking of Yudhihiras deception
of Droa. Famous for being a truth-teller, the virtue so closely
associated with the first caste, honesty so defines Yudhihiras
character that he is often referred to as the most brahmin-
like of the five Pavas.58 Yet, it is Yudhihira, at the behest
of Ka, who famously lies to Droa about the death of his
son Avatthman. Of course, it is a half-lie, but nevertheless
a ruse: the wheels of Yudhihiras chariot, which previously
never touched the earth, sink to the ground shortly after he
loudly uttered the words Avatthm is slain, referring not
to Droas son but to an elephant of the same name.59
The further irony lies in the fact that Yudhihira is ly-
ing to misleading, if you like his teacher, the one who
instructed him in the arts of war, just as Kara had done his
own. Unlike Kara, however, who showed his teacher noth-
ing but respect, reverence, and stoical devotion in allowing
the insect to burrow into his leg, Yudhihira goes on to fight
Droa in battle, hardly an act of loyalty to his guru.
Nor does the comparison end here. I do not think it is
a coincidence that Kara is condemned for misidentify-
ing himself as a brahmin while Yudhihira is successful in
wearing the same guise during the year of hiding in Viras
court.60 After all, given Karas true identity as the eldest of
the Pavas, with a legitimate claim to the throne one
that Ka emphasizes in the Udyoga Parvan, while trying
to win Kara over to the Pava side prior to the war,61
Yudhihira is something of a substitute for Kara. Similarly,
it is perhaps no coincidence that Kara falls in battle after
his chariot wheel sinks, just as the symbol of punishment for
Yudhihiras lie involves his chariot wheels sinking from the
air above the ground merely to stand on it.
It is for Arjuna, however, that Kara saves the full force
of his anger and hatred. In part this is sensible, for a war-
rior always measures his strength against other warriors,
and Arjuna and Kara are two of the toughest. However, I
would also like to think there is a further, underlying and
implicit hatred in Kara, stemming from the felicitous fate

58
See, exempli gratia, van Buitenen 1973: 15.
59
See Mahbhrata, 7.164.72c-73b: avatthm hata iti abdam uccai cakra
ha | avatthmeti hi gaja khyto nmn hato bhavat.
60
There is, of course, also a difference in their guises: Kara deceives his
teacher, while Yudhihiras disguise is meant for general consumption.
61
See Mahbhrata, 5.138-141.
50 The A nthropologist and the Native

that ultimately falls to Arjuna: it is through the latter and

not the former that the royal line ultimately passes, from
Abhimanyu, his son by Subhadr, to Parikit to Janamejaya,
a subtle rebuke perhaps unnoticed by all but the most atten-
tive in the audience, but a matter of central concern for the
characters in question.

6. The Honest Guru in the Kali Age

The Mahbhrata also narrates a crucial instance of an

honest guru killed, in part, by his honesty. I am of course
speaking of the ever-truthful Bhma, whose vow of celiba-
cy gives him the power to choose the moment of his own
death, his ferocious presence on the battlefield therefore
presenting a serious obstacle to the Pavas prospects for
victory (Hiltebeitel 1976: 244-250).
A promise to Duryodhana leads Bhma to choose the Kau-
ravas side in the war,62 though as the uncle, protector and,
indeed, teacher of both the Kauravas and Pavas, Bhma
concerns himself with the welfare of both camps, promising
to give Yudhihira sound counsel despite his commitment
to fight for the other side.63 And while by no means perfect,
Bhmas respect for his role as mentor demands his honesty
even at the expense of personal well being. True to that ide-
al, he freely answers Yudhihira when the latter, encouraged
by Ka,64 enquires of him how he can be killed,65 and it is
on Bhmas advice that Arjuna and the others attack him,
using ikha as cover.66

7. Ka and Arjuna: On the guru of the Gt

Nevertheless, while Bhmas counsel is both sound and piv-

otally important to the Pavas in the war effort, it is Kas
famously transgressive leadership that really guides them. As is
well known, he convinces Yudhihira to lie to Droa, induces
Arjuna to kill a defenseless Kara, and encourages Bhma to

62
See Mahbhrata, 5.153.16-24.
63
See Mahbhrata, 6.103.44-45; cf. 5.153.16.
64
See Mahbhrata, 6.103.50-51.
65
See Mahbhrata, 6.103, esp. 6.103.70-82.
66
Because he had promised never to harm a woman, Bhma refuses
to fight ikha, who once was a woman, as the men firing from behind
him/her pepper Bhma with arrows.
 When the Parampar Breaks 51

strike Duryodhana below the waist in the mace fight,67 all acts
that contravene the laws of dharma (Hiltebeitel 1976: 244).
Now, a counselor (mant) is prima facie something close to
a teacher,68 but the Mahbhrata is more explicit in assigning
Ka the role: whether the Song of God is understood to
be integral to the Mahbhrata or an essentially autonomous
work69 I assent to van Buitenens view that the Bhagavadgt
was not an independent text that somehow wandered into
the epic, but rather was conceived and developed to bring
to a climax and solution the dharmic dilemma of a war which
was both just and pernicious (van Buitenen 1981: 5-6)
the form in which the text presents itself, more than mere-
ly a long dialog, which is almost a monolog, as Edgerton
described it,70 suggests a private and uncompromised bond
between a teacher and his disciple. Indeed, the Gts didacti-
cism and narrative style, put forth in the mouths of intricately
developed characters and presented in the context of the larg-
er epic story, implicitly and explicitly evoke an instructional
mode and with it the guru-disciple relationship. So too does
Arjunas predicament, which is typical of an epic dilemma for

67
Apropos of gurus in the epic, it is worth noting that Balarma, who
taught both Duryodhana and Bhma how to fight with the mace, absents
himself from the civil war because he is unable to bear the pending de-
struction of the Kurus. See Mahbhrata, 5.154.23-34.
68
See also Gonda 1965: 243-252 for a discussion of the gurus role as the
royal priest and advisor, the purohita.
69
Both views are commonly held. To give two representative examples,
Edgerton argues that one must think of the Gt primarily as a unit, com-
plete in itself, without reference to its surroundings, while van Buitenen sug-
gests that the text is a creation of the Mahbhrata itself. Edgerton goes on
to suggest that the Gts treatment of non-violence is disappointing, be-
cause the text is hampered by the fact that it is supposed to justify Arjunas
participation in war. Van Buitenen argues that, whatever the further thrust
of Kas teaching and its elaborations, the Gt addresses itself in the first
place to a specific issue that the Bhrata war posed to a more reflective age,
whose attitude toward violence was changing. The Gt, he further suggests,
occurs where it does for excellent reasons: the redactors of the final ver-
sion of the epic include it to justify the pre-existent, violent narrative of the
Mahbhrata to an increasingly more reflective audience, which no longer
regarded the war as a glorious event for celebration but rather as a horren-
dous, blood-curdling finale to an eon. See Edgerton 1944: 105-106; 185-186;
van Buitenen 1981: 1-6; esp. 3-4; 5-6. Brockington provides a comprehensive
review of the literature, for which see Brockington 1988: 267-271.
70
See Edgerton 1944: 105. Nor, incidentally, do I agree with Edgertons
assertion, on the following page, that the opinions that the poem puts
forth are not so much opinions in the intellectual sense as emotional
or, let us say if you like, intuitional points of view.
52 The A nthropologist and the Native

presenting him with two irreconcilable obligations,71 reflect

the Mahbhratas larger concerns regarding the integrity of
the bond between teacher and student.
Indeed, the loyalty that is central to the guru-student dy-
namic constitutes the very dilemma of the Bhagavadgt, for
there can be no doubt that the welfare of his teachers stands
at the core of Arjunas quandary:

How can I fight Bhma and Droa with arrows in battle,

Madhusdana? The two deserve [my] worship, Enemy Slayer.
Indeed, it would be better not to kill [my] highly dignified gu-
rus and to enjoy even begged food here in the world than to
kill my greedy gurus and enjoy spoils dipped in [their] blood.
Nor do we know which is better for us: either that we win or
that they win against us. Having killed Dhtarras men, who
are standing in front of us, we would have no desire to live.72

It is the very exhortation to obey the guru, to honor him,

to do what is pleasing to him, that gives Arjuna pause. The
spirit of Manu is utterly present in and indeed fuels his di-
lemma, just as a concern for the integrity of the teacher-
student bond constitutes not only the dilemma of the Gt,
but also frequently occupies the attention of the epic poets
in the larger narrative.
Nor is it a coincidence that Arjuna takes Ka as his
teacher immediately after uttering the words just quoted,
saying, afflicted by the fault of being weak, I ask you, my
mind stupefied by dharma, what would be better? Tell me for
sure. I am your student. Teach me who supplicates you.73
For, in a moment of confused despair, Arjuna resorts to the
tuition of his friend-become-guru, who provides extensive
metaphysical and soteriological teachings to convince him
to pursue martial ends and, indeed, to kill. Nor again is it a

71
I here quote Matilal, who suggests that Arjunas question at the be-
ginning of the Bhagavadgta is typical in that he was faced with a choice
between two irreconcilable obligations. See Matilal 1989: 7-9.
72
See Mahbhrata, 6.24.4- 6: katha Bhmam aha sakhye Droa
ca madhusdana | iubhi pratiyotsymi pjrhav arisdana. gurn ahatv
hi mahnubhv reyo bhoktu bhaikam apha loke | hatvrthakms tu
gurn ihaiva bhujya bhogn rudhirapradigdhn. na caitad vidma kataran
no garyo yad v jayema yadi v no jayeyu | yn eva hatv na jijvimas te
vasthit pramukhe dhrtarra. The translation is mine, but it is an ad-
aptation of van Buitenens.
73
See Mahbhrata, 6.24.7: krpayadoopahatasvbhava pcchmi tv
dharmasamhacet | yac chreya syn nicita brhi tan me iyas te ha
dhi m tv prapannam.
 When the Parampar Breaks 53

coincidence that Ka begins the long discourse that com-

prises the teachings of the Gt immediately following Ar-
junas pleading, as a student (iya), for guidance.74 For the
Gt is nothing if not an instruction, and while the bhakti it
ultimately espouses is certainly not the same as the loyalty de-
manded of a student by the institution of the guru, it is suf-
ficiently similar to it to justify the comparison.
Whether to defend his kingdom or fight his teachers, Arju-
nas dilemma is well known and has been subjected to a nearly
exhaustive quantity of analysis. It nevertheless is worth noting
that Kas exhortation to fight is supported by Manu, for
the law book suggests that a warriors royal dharma trumps his
duty to honor his guru: a king should punish even his teacher
(crya) for deviating from the law.75 Yet again, however, the
moral of the story is not quite so simple, particularly when
one considers the content of Kas teachings in the Gt in
relation to his role in the larger narrative of the Mahbhrata,
for, as has been mentioned, Kas counsel is persistently
transgressive of the law. Despite all of his insistence in the
Gt on the performance of ones own dharma for its own
sake and without consideration for the fruits, Ka in the
Mahbhrata consistently counsels Arjuna and the Pavas
with utterly practical ends in mind, even at the cost of obedi-
ence to dharma, and all in the name of ensuring a very real
reward: control of the kingdom. Indeed, while considered
an incarnation of Viu, come to earth to preserve dharma,
Ka is perhaps the character that is most ready to counsel
actions that transgress the law in the larger epic narrative.
Of course, the contrast between the Ka-as-guru of the
Gt and the Machiavellian Ka of larger epic cannot but
be intentional. And while proponents of the view that the
Bhagavadgt is an autonomous work, incongruously and awk-
wardly added to the Mahbhrata, may never be convinced of
the epics overall narrative integrity, for which Hiltebeitel has
persistently (and to my mind effectively) argued,76 it might
nevertheless be useful to consider the relationship between
the two portrayals of Ka through the lens of the institu-

74
It is worth noting that the fact that Ka offers such metaphysical
instruction is doubly ironic: it is ironic that he offers a spiritual teaching to
promote war, and it is ironic that Ka, a katriya, offers such a teaching to
a fellow warrior on the battlefield.
75
See Manu, 8.335: pitcrya suhn mt bhry putra purohita |
ndayo nma rjo sti ya svadharme na tihati.
76
See footnote 1. See also Hiltebeitel 2001: 1-3 and ff.
54 The A nthropologist and the Native

tion of the guru. For, while Kas counsel in the epic rec-
ommends acts that contravene dharma, the laws recorded in
Manu also account for his role in the epic, in part at least. As
mentioned,77 the law book condemns the teacher to suffer
the fruits of his students sins. With this dictum in mind, and
given that Gndhr curses Kas family line to extinction in
order to punish his inaction in the face of total war,78 it is per-
haps no exaggeration to understand Ka to have suffered
the karmic fruits of the dharmic transgressions he counseled
the Pavas to commit. After all, it is Kas family line that
is extinguished, though the war is fought (and the dharma
transgressed) to preserve the integrity of the Pavas royal
power and, indeed, the Kurus royal lineage. On this read-
ing, then, Ka counsels acts that transgress dharma, but the
transgressions pale in comparison with what they accomplish.
The ends justify the means, for the kingdom is retrieved from
the Kauravas malevolent hands and restored to the rightful
heirs of the Kuru throne, who will do right by their subjects.
Under Kas guidance, the Pavas transgress dharma in
small ways in order to protect the greater dharmic order,
which will be provided by a Kuru kingdom justly ruled. Nev-
ertheless, the dharmic transgressions do not go unpunished;
only it is the teacher, and not his disciples, who suffer them.
It is worth noting that the Gt claims only Arjuna as Kas
student, while the latter counsels a number of the Pavas
to perform questionable acts.79 And the Mahbhrata ex-
plains Gndhrs curse exclusively as a condemnation of
Kas inaction, his failure to stop the war, while overlook-
ing his active influence as counselor. In light of these two
facts, Kas support of the Pavas as well as the curse
endured as a result of it is perhaps better interpreted in
light of the bhakti of the Gt, and not merely in relation to
the institution of the guru. Give up all duties (sarvadhar-
ma), exhorts Ka, and come to me, the only sanctuary. I
will free you from every sin; do not despair.80 Perhaps such

77
See infra 1, above.
78
See Mahbhrata, 11.25.36-41, esp. 11.25.38.
79
Perhaps, however, this fact is mitigated by other references to Ka as
guru, in the mouth of Yudhihira, for example. See Mahbhrata, 14.70.21.
80
See Mahbhrata, 6.40.66: sarvadharmn parityajya mm eka araa
vraja | aha tv sarvappebhyo mokayiymi ma uca. Ruben, quoted by
Hiltebeitel, also interprets Kas actions in the larger narrative in terms
of the doctrine of the Gt, for which (along with the authors own inter-
preation of Kas expiation) see Hiltebeitel 1976: 287-296, esp. 288.
 When the Parampar Breaks 55

a role can be played only by a god and not a mere teacher.

Nevertheless, one can say that both bhakti and the loyalty
demanded by the institution of the guru are synchronized,
though perhaps not identified, in the epic narrative and in
the character of Ka. For, if the litany of failed teacher-
student relationships narrated in the Mahbhrata suggests,
contra Manu, that one cannot presume that ones teacher
is honest, loyal, and truthful, it is also true that, in the case
of Ka as a divinized guru, it is the teachers divinity that
ensures his integrity, in turn demanding the same reciprocal
loyalty from his students that is prescribed in the law book.
And while it is ironic that Ka is a katriya, given that he
teaches the nature of brahman, his caste-identity is epiphe-
nomenal to his identity as a divinized guru.

8. The Father as Guru, and the Limits of Loyalty

Kas relationship with his student, while both extraor-

dinary and eminently successful, is not the only instance in
the Mahbhrata of an unbroken teacher-student bond, how-
ever. If, as mentioned earlier and as Gonda suggests,81 the
guru-disciple relationship evokes and parallels the father-son
bond whether through the similarity in ritual obligations
vis--vis both father and guru, the metaphor of rebirth into
the study of the Veda, or the fact that the student lives in the
house of the guru under a set of rules that makes the teacher
an analog of the father82 then it is worth noting the ways in
which the epic depicts the latter. Interestingly enough, while
the Mahbhrata often tells of extraordinary problems stem-
ming from the father-son relationship, the problems nor-
mally do not stem from the disloyalty of father to son, or vice
versa; a mutual loyalty is usually secure in the epic narrative,
meeting the ideals outlined in Manu. Instead, as we shall see,
the problem is rather the opposite, a surfeit of loyalty to the

81
Manus explicit association of the two institutions, father and guru, has
already been noted, for which see infra 1, above. See also Manu, 2.144-148.
82
Even the etymology of the term reveals a certain connection of the
two. First occurring in the form of an adjective referring to an important
person, used in particular with reference to members of ones family, the
term guru later appears as a substantive referring to the teacher. (See
Gonda 1965: 240 ff.) As mentioned, it is quite likely that the institution of
the guru as it is known in the Vedic period served in a social role analogous
to that of the father, with the guru serving to train the child in the Veda
when the father could not, or could not do so to the same effect.
56 The A nthropologist and the Native

detriment of the larger social order. (In other words, the

problem presented by these relationships is something of
the opposite of the paradox presented by Kas transgres-
sive council: while Ka councils transgressive acts meant to
preserve the larger dharmic order, the disciples in the fol-
lowing examples virtuously pursue loyalty to extraordinary
limits, disrupting the larger dharmic order in the process.)
First, however, it should be underscored that the bond
between father and son provides for particularly emotional-
ly evocative tests of a disciples loyalty to his mentor, not just
in India, but universally. For example, Paraurmas afore-
mentioned Abrahamic test, administered by his father, is
reminiscent of the Ekalavya episode insofar as both demand
that the disciple choose unwavering faith or loyalty over
an apparently tragic course of action. Matters are resolved
rather more favorably for Paraurma, however, whose fa-
ther, though testing him, never exploits the relationship for
personal gain. Indeed, while the virtue of unblinking trust
in the teacher, expressed in acts of utter obedience, is ex-
ploited by Droa to steal Ekalavyas thumb, Paraurma ulti-
mately negotiates his fathers test unscathed. His obedience
even wins him an unlimited number of boons, only three of
which he uses, one to restore his four elder brothers, who
were cursed to insanity for failing to obey their fathers com-
mand, another to revive his mother, and a third to cleanse
the sin and his memory of the entire episode.83
While Paraurma skillfully acquits himself of his fathers
absurd demand, along the way proving himself to be both
abstemious and unselfish with an unlimited number of
wishes, it does not always end so well in the epic. Indeed,
though admirable, emotionally satisfying, and laudable in
the abstract, in the Mahbhrata filial loyalty is also shown
occasionally to be tragically overdone, with devastating con-
sequences not for father or son, but for society at large. Take
Bhma, for example.
Devavratas vow of celibacy, like Paraurmas matricide,
reflects a sons concern to remain above all a loyal servant to
his father, although atanu neither tests his son nor taxes
him with the burden of solving his problems, and, unlike the
Paraurma episode, this father-son relationship is critical
to the core narrative of the Mahbhrata. As is well known,
atanu was desperate to fulfill the demands of Satyavats

83
See Mahbhrata, 3.116.1-19.
 When the Parampar Breaks 57

father, who would not permit his daughter to marry without

foolproof assurances that the royal line would pass to her
children. Faced with his fathers amorous bind, Bhma took
a vow never to procreate, also promising never to ascend the
throne, so that his father might win his beloved. The results,
however, were disastrous, not for atanu but for the Kuru
line, for they set in motion a series of events that made it dif-
ficult to establish an indisputable order of royal succession,
ultimately leading to the civil war. Had Bhma simply done
what is normally required of an eldest son to marry and
produce children neither Citrgadas death in battle nor
Vicitravryas early demise would have affected the order of
succession: both were born to atanu by Satyavat and were
therefore second to Bhma in their claims to the throne.
Bhmas filial loyalty comes at the cost of dynastic stability
in the Kuru line, but this fact was caused, in part, by fate: there
was no way to anticipate that the sons of Satyavat and atanu
would die without producing a royal heir. Still, Bhmas vow,
itself a self-disciplining form of truth-telling, traps him in a
moral dilemma,84 for he is asked to choose either to honor the
dharma of truthfulness by maintaining his celibacy or to fulfill
his princely duties by performing the act of levirate: both are
required of him, and yet he cannot perform both actions. Had
Bhma chosen the latter course, there would have been no
need to ask Vysa to do so. It is therefore not entirely accurate
to suggest, as Dhand does, that Vysa is the author of the en-
tire Mahbhrata war insofar as it is his condemnation of the
elder Bhrata widow (i.e., of Ambik) that gives birth to the en-
tire conflict,85 for Vysa would have had no role in the levirate
were it not for Bhmas celibacy, and it is Bhmas enthusiastic
filial loyalty that precipitated the crisis. (On the other hand,
one can speculate with some certainty that the ambiguities sur-
rounding the royal succession might have been better negoti-
ated had the irascible Vysa not cursed Dhtarra to blind-
ness). Thus, Bhmas vow, undertaken in loyal devotion to his
father, set in motion the demise of his fathers kingdom.

84
Matilal suggests that a moral dilemma arises when the agent is com-
mitted to two or more moral obligations, but circumstances are such than
an obligation to do x cannot be fulfilled without violating an obligation to
do y. In my view, this serves as an utterly appropriate definition of a moral
dilemma in the Mahbhrata. See Matilal 1989: 5-9.
85
As such, his curse is more properly understood to be a link in the
chain of events leading to the war, one beginning with Bhmas vow of
celibacy. See Dhand 2004: 53.
58 The A nthropologist and the Native

It should come as no surprise that the private bond of son

to father could create such widespread social unrest. After all,
the Mahbhrata is concerned largely with the lives of kings
and princes, and in the epic, as with any work concerned with
royalty, filial loyalty carries significance beyond the familial
bond it seals, for political sovereignty is passed from father
to son. Loyalty, moreover, is demanded not only of a kings
princes, but also of his subjects, just as those loyalties are test-
ed in civil war. Clearly, then, more than a sons personal bond
with his father is at stake, for the loyalties implicated by it
shape the destiny of an entire kingdom, and the very ideals
that are expressed in Manus normative description of the
institution of the guru are tested in the civil war.
Put in this light, Ajunas proposed (in the Gt) course of
action to live an ascetical life in order to avoid fighting his
teachers and elders can be understood precisely as this sort
of overreaching act of loyalty, chosen in the face of a moral
dilemma. For, to give up his duty to protect the kingdom, as-
signed to him by the strictures of varramadharma and his
privileged position as a Kuru prince, would spare him from
the patently unpleasant and morally ambiguous duty of kill-
ing his mentors and relatives, but it would condemn the king-
dom to the rule of wicked men. Even loyalty and filial loy-
alty, at that has its limits in the morally corrupt Kali Yuga.

9. Conclusions: Social Control, dharma, and the Divinized Guru

Whether one is concerned with the relationship of fa-

ther to son, a king and his princes, or a teacher and his
student, the bond implied by the relationship in question is
more than merely a private one. Like the union forged by
marriage, such bonds are both private, shared exclusively
by the two individuals bound by them, and public. They are
public because they confer particular rights and license cer-
tain socially relevant, powerful act, from hereditary rights,
to the right to access sacred scripture and other relevant
forms of learning, such as the martial arts, to the right to
rule as king. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that
Manu so assiduously regulates the institution of the guru. In
expressing a normative model for social behavior (thereby
articulating a normative social order), the law book must
delineate the parameters within which the institution of the
guru, the primary vehicle for the perpetuation of useful and
salvific learning, should function.
 When the Parampar Breaks 59

Nor should it surprise that the epic, in narrating the ad-

vent of the most corrupt of cosmic eons, should tell the sto-
ries of failed teacher-student relationships. Such failure was
understood to be inevitable in the increasingly immoral Kali
age. There should be no surprise, then, that the Mahbhrata
describes teachers pursuing personal agendas for private
reasons (e.g., Droa, Paraurma) and narrates the exploita-
tion of the institution of the guru to the detriment of either
teacher (e.g., Bhma counseling Yudhihira) or student
(e.g., Ekalavya). It is characteristic of the Kali Yuga that the
students encountered in the epic are often uneven in charac-
ter, possessing an abundance of, in particular, the virtue most
vociferously prescribed in Manu, faith in and loyalty to the
teacher (e.g., Ekalavya, Kara), while simultaneously lacking
in other essential qualities, such as truthfulness (e.g., Kara)
or obedience to varramadharma (e.g., Ekalavya, Arjuna in
the Gt being a near miss).
In narrating what cannot but be described as failed
teacher-student relationships, moreover, the Mahbhrata
invokes the very social norms encapsulated in Manus treat-
ment of the institution of the guru. Indeed, the narrative
power of a number of the episodes recounted, above, stems
from the epics deft evocation of the very social norms pre-
scribed in the law book. While Manu catalogs social ideals,
the Mahbhrata invokes them to create narrative tension
and to portray a decline in dharma that is characterized, in
part, by the confrontation of conflicting dharmic values and
norms. Thus, Ekalavyas fate is regrettable because of his
great loyalty, but mandated by varramadharma and driven
by both his teachers need to prove his truthfulness and his
desire to prosecute a personal agenda. Kara attracts sym-
pathy in part because his true identity suggests he should be
king, and largely because of his admirably unflinching loy-
alty not only to his guru, Paraurma, but also to his patron,
Duryodhana. His lie, however, is sinful, even if his teacher is
motivated by a personal vendetta, and his loyalty to Duryod-
hana is misplaced, knowingly so, given Kas overtures in
the Udyoga Parvan. Devavrata is admirable for his steadfast
commitment both to his vow and to the truth more gener-
ally, which allows him to serve the Kauravas without blemish
to his reputation and to counsel the means to his own death
without appearing to be suicidal, or foolish. Yet, it is his vow
that sets in motion the disastrous string of events culminat-
ing in the devastating fratricidal war.
60 The A nthropologist and the Native

That Manu and the Mahbhrata are equally concerned with

the social order is readily apparent. After all, as Olivelle has al-
ready argued, the socio-political environment that prompted
the composition of the great epic was not too different from
that of [Manu] (Olivelle 2005: 38). It was an environment
marred by threatening foreign invasions and troubled by the
historical reality and especially the historical memory of rule
under the Buddhist Mauryas, a period that knew the rule of
dra kings, as well as a significant loss of influence amongst
the brahmins (Olivelle 2005: 37-41). What I wish further to
suggest is that the two texts also share a concern for the integ-
rity of the institution of the guru, evidenced in Manus legalis-
tic prescriptions and the epics failed guru-student bonds. At
the least, the texts attempt to evoke concern for social order,
and obedience to the laws of dharma governing them, by in-
voking the institution of the guru and problems marring it.
Perhaps it is more than a coincidence, then, that the
authors of both Manu and the Mahbhrata present their
works in the form of narratives put across by both teacher
and disciple, the latter providing most of the narrative un-
der supervision of the former,86 for by framing the texts in
this manner the authors rhetorically claim a certain propri-
ety and integrity for their works, marking them with the au-
thority of the institution of the guru. However, while Manu
innovates on the previous literature of the dharma tradi-
tion in presenting a narrative structure that consists of a
dialogue between [a] teacher and others desiring to learn
from him (Olivelle 2005: 25),87 the frame story establish-
ing this narrative structure is much less elaborate than that
of the great epic. The Mahbhratas frame story88 not only
mentions the teacher passing the job of narration to his stu-
dent, but it also provides extensive details of the context in
which he does so, thereby emphasizing the nature of the
social order promoted in the text.
The audience is told that Vysa, with the help of
Vaiapyana, his disciple, recounts the story of the epic
in order to educate the current heir to the Kuru throne,
Janamejaya, Arjunas great-grandson (and, not incidentally,
Vysas great-great-great-grandson: teacher and student are
here bound by both a familial and a guru lineage). Thus,

86
See Manu, 1.58-60 and Mahbhrata, 1.54.
87
See Manu, 1.58-60.
88
See Mahbhrata, 1.53.
 When the Parampar Breaks 61

the epic itself is an instrument for a teachers instruction of

a young king: in the frame story, we are told that the young
Janamejaya hears the epic in order to know not only his an-
cestry, but also to know how to preserve and protect the king-
dom.89 That story, however, begins with yet another a curse.
The then Kuru king, Parikit, was once hunting deer, and
in anger and frustration he wrapped a dead snake around
the neck of a sage who, under a vow of silence, did not an-
swer him when asked whether he had seen his recently shot
prey.90 The sage ignores the slight, but his son does not an-
other instance of filial loyalty and the latter curses Parikit
to die by the bite of Takaka, the snake-king, within a period
of seven days.91 Parikit assiduously avoids this fate, but then
allows a strange insect to sting and kill him, anyhow, in or-
der to ensure the truthfulness of the sages vow, and thereby
saving the latter from having uttered an untruth.92
Upon his death, Janamejaya is anointed king,93 and to
avenge his fathers death, he organizes a sacrifice to rid
the world of snakes.94 (Yet another act of filial loyalty, a son
avenging the death his father readily accepted). Soon after
the sacrifice commenced, a brahmin, stka, came to visit
Janamejaya and, praising him,95 was granted a boon. Just
at the moment when the sacrifice would bring Takaka to
his end, having sent many snakes to their demise already,
stka asks that his boon be granted in the form of a par-
don for the snake-king.96 Giving Janamejaya time to decide
what to do, the brahmin uses a spell to suspend the snake-
king in midair, above the fire, awaiting his fate. Knowing
the importance of serving a brahmins wishes, Janamejaya
in the end complies with stkas request, having secured a
promise no longer to be bothered by the snake-king,97 and
it is at this point that the Mahbhrata story is recounted for
Janamejayas benefit, with Vysa turning the narrative over

89
Hiltebeitel has recently written a long and important book on the sub-
ject of the epic as an educational instrument, for which see Hiltebeitel 1976.
90
See Mahbhrata, 1.36.
91
See Mahbhrata, 1.37.
92
See Mahbhrata, 1.39.
93
See Mahbhrata, 1.40.
94
See Mahbhrata, 1.47.
95
See Mahbhrata, 1.50.
96
See Mahbhrata, 1.51.
97
See Mahbhrata, 1.53.1-26.
62 The A nthropologist and the Native

to Vaiapyana.98 All ends harmoniously, in contrast to the

terrible events of the Bhrata war, with the handover of the
kingdom to Janamejayas able hands.
The frame story is instructive in a number of ways. Firstly,
one should note that it presents the audience with a pair of
moral dilemmas, one faced by Parikit, who must choose be-
tween the dharma of maintaining his kingdom and his duty
to protect the integrity (in the form of truthfulness, in this
instance) of the brahmins who live in it, the other by Jan-
amejaya, who chooses to honor his promise to a brahmin
rather than indulge his prerogative to avenge his fathers
death. Secondly, both father and son resolve their dilemmas
by honoring the brahmins with whom they are occupied.
Thirdly, while Parikits act is similar to Bhmas in that both
exhibit extraordinary self-sacrifice for the sake of another,99
one nevertheless senses that, rather than foreboding, a new
beginning is promised in the frame story. Indeed, Janame-
jayas decision, far from calling to mind the feelings of ex-
cess that characterize Bhmas extraordinary vow, instead
suggests a sense of proportion and discretion.
What is more, it also embodies the sort of respect for brah-
mins that is so pervasively demanded by Manu.100 Just as his
father sacrificed himself for the sake of a brahmins truthful-
ness, Janamejaya surrenders his own personal vendetta (i.e., to
avenge his fathers death) in order himself to honor a brahmin,
in this case stka, who uses his promised boon to secure the
snake-kings pardon. All rejoice for Janamejayas having done
so, and one suspects that the deference and respect Janame-
jaya shows his brahmin guest, as did his father the brahmin
sage living in his kingdom, embodies precisely the conformity
to dharma so famously advocated by Ka in the Gt, one that
guarantees the social order despite the arrival of the moral un-
certainty of the last eon. The bond between katriya and brah-
min supersedes even the one between father and son.
With this in mind, it is perhaps not out of bounds to con-
clude that the concern evidently expressed in Manu and the

98
See Mahbhrata, 1.53.27 ff.
99
It is worth noting that both figures in question are teachers of sorts,
the father in Bhmas case, a brahmin in Parikits.
100
Olivelle suggests, convincingly in my view, that the author of Manu,
has two goals: he wants to tell Brahmins how to behave as true Brahmins
devoted to Vedic learning and virtue, and he wants to tell kings how to
behave as true kings, devoted to Brahmins and ruling the people justly.
See Olivelle 2005: 41.
 When the Parampar Breaks 63

Mahbhrata over the integrity of the institution of the guru

points to the larger socio-political concerns contemporaneous
with the final redaction of the epic, to conclude, as Olivelle
does, that the authors of both [Manu and the Mahbhrata]
probably came from the class of educated and somewhat con-
servative brahmins intent on protecting the rights and privi-
leges of their class (Olivelle 2005: 38). This endeavor requires
the preservation of the tradition of learning controlled by the
institution of the guru, the preservation of the bond between
brahmins and katriyas, and assurance of the integrity of the
latters royal lineages, all in the context of a world in which
one can often expect others to act immorally.
What, then, does this tell us about the history of the in-
stitution of the guru? In the context of the epic narrative, it
is for Ekalavya and Kara, and Bhma and Droa, that the
parampar breaks. Caught in a morally complicated and con-
flicted world at the dawn of Kali Yuga, when the laws of dharma
are prescriptive but no longer descriptive of human action,
both teacher and student are all too often shown to be all-too-
human. But the institution of the guru, paradigmatically asso-
ciated with a brahmin teacher and katriya student, occupied
with the perpetuation of valuable and valued systems of learn-
ing, and enmeshed with the royal court, the king, and issues of
royal succession, is too important to surrender to the dharmic
transgressions of men, so common in the Kali age. Perhaps,
then, it is more than coincidence that the long tradition of the
perfect, divinized guru, which becomes the normative form of
the institution in the body of the extant textual corpus postdat-
ing the epic, has Ka as its exemplar and precedent.

Bibliography

Belvalkar, S.K., Sukthankar, V.S. (1933-1960). The Mahbhrata:

For the First Time Critically Edited, (19 vols.). Poona:
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
Bhler, G. (1886). The Laws of Manu, (Sacred Books of the
East, vol. 25). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Buitenen, J.A.B. van (1973). The Mahbhrata, (Vol. 1). Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
(1975). The Mahbhrata, (Vol. 2). Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
64 The A nthropologist and the Native

(1981). The Bhagavadgt in the Mahbhrata: text and

translation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brockington, J.L. (1998). The Sanskrit Epics. Leiden: Brill.
Dhand, A. (2004). The Subversive Nature of Virtue in the
Mahbhrata: A Tale About Women, Smelly Ascetics,
and God. Journal of the American Academy of Religion,
72(1), pp. 33-58.
Edgerton, F. (1944). The Bhagavad Gt. New York: Harper
and Row.
Gonda, J. (1965). Change and Continuity in Indian Religion.
The Hague: Mouton.
Hiltebeitel, A. (1976). The Ritual of Battle: Krishna in the
Mahbhrata. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
(2001). Rethinking the Mahbhrata: A Readers Guide
to the Education of the Dharma King. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
Hopkins, E.J. (1882-85). On the Professed Quotations From
Manu Found in the Mahbhrata. Journal of the Amer-
ican Oriental Society, 11, pp. 239-275.
Matilal, B.K. (1989). Moral Dilemmas in the Mahbhrata. New
Delhi: Indian Institute of Advanced Study.
Olivelle, P. (2005). Manus Code of Law: A Critical Edition and
Translation of Mnava-Dharmastra. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Pollock, S. (1990). The Idea of stra in Traditional India.
In A.L. Dallapiccola (Ed.), Shastric Traditions in In-
dian Arts. Stuttgart: Steiner.
Radhakrishnan, S. (1953). The Principal Upaniads. New York:
Harper Brothers.