Caste references by Vishnu...

Image courtesy: spirituality-krishna.blogspot.com

In all of the Mahabharata, I can think of only two instances where Vishnu explicitly mentions or uses the caste of a person for any purpose at all.

Karna goes to learn from Parashurama
Parashurama had taken a vow that he would only teach brahmanas, and hence Karna is forced to pretend that he was a brahmana to learn archery from him.

Karna does learn from Parashurama, including the use of the brahmAstra, the most potent astra there was, for the purpose of fighting Arjuna (?). On one occasion, when Parashurama was resting his head on Karna's thigh to sleep, a wasp bores into Karna's thigh. Karna, not wanting to disturb his guru, does not move but bears the wasp's bite for a while. Because  of the heat generated by the wasp sucking blood, Parashurama wakes up. Realizing that only a kshatriya could bear such pain, he curses Karna to not be able to remember the mantra for the brahmAstra in time of need.

Parashurama, here, does not actually uphold the caste system. He breaks it, and as a rule. Quite a surprising act from the Lord. Further, it's ironic that the first person that recognizes him as a kshatriya (good news?) also gives him bad news in the form of the curse.

Krishna advises Draupadi to reject Karna
Unfortunately, the second instance also involves Karna. Karna contests in the Draupadi swayamvara, and when it appears that he might actually be able to win Draupadi (on advice of Krishna) stops him and rejects him stating that he was not eligible because he was not a kshatriya.

The Purusha Sukta
The purusha sukta has been slighted sometimes and mentioned in controversial light because it is a key sukta in the vedas, and mentions the castes by name.

"Brahmanosya mukhamaseet bahoorajanyahkrutah, ooroo tadasya yadvaishyah padbhyaam shoodro ajayata..."

The sentence is literally translated "the brahmana came from the face of the Lord, the kshatriya from his arms, the vaishyas from his thighs, and the shudras from his feet." The sukta goes on to describe that the moon came from his mind, etc.

I've heard some supporters of the Dravidian movement in Tamil Nadu mention this part of the purusha sukta, and talk about how the upper castes (and God, the "co-conspirator") have set in stone the backwardness of the lower castes.

Firstly, I don't think a literal translation of the vedas is going to yield significant insight. Scholars and schools of thought have evolved over centuries essentially debating the meanings, each school propounding a different meaning or 'spirit' to many such portions of the vedas.

Secondly, the vedas and puranas emphasize that the caste (varnAshrama, really - I don't know that 'caste' is an accurate meaning, but it works for our purpose) of a person is really based on the person's innate qualities or sAdhana, not based on birth or colour (as some people tend to incorrectly translate varna).

However, we also see vedic schools of thought with theories that suggest that while the dharma for a person being born into a certain varnAshrama is that of the typical activities of that varnAshrama for the benefit of society, the ideal progression over several births is from shudra to brahmana. I don't know if this progression refers to the innate quality (sAdhana). There sure must be two different planes on which varnAshrama is defined/used in our scriptures.

In the epics and puranas, we also see instances of caste being dynamic, changing with marriage (at least for the offspring), etc. So one was supposedly able to move between castes. I've never understood how this worked, and how this became rigid over time, though. Even more perplexing is when and how people ended up in a 5th category (the untouchables), beyond the 4 castes. Definitely blemishes in Indian society that no doubt have existed since the days of the Mahabharata or even earlier.

And btw, my examples of Vishnu using the caste of Karna in seemingly negative ways, were not intended to suggest that Vishnu might have done wrong. There sure must have been reasons, and it would be nice to understand in better detail.

Getting the Pandavas' uninteresting grandparents out of the way...

My intro post was about the start of the Mahabharata, with Devavrata becoming Bhishma. This is in continuation...

Probably the most uninteresting characters in the Mahabharata were Bhishma's step brothers  - Chitrangadha and Vichitravirya.

Chitrangadha, the elder of the two becomes the king of the Kurus when Shantanu is gone. He soon dies childless, and the still very young Vichitravirya ascends to the throne with Bhishma ruling on his behalf. I'm guessing that Bhishma is already quite old by this time (say 50 or so), but probably still young given the lifespans in those times.

Bhishma hears of the king of Kashi announcing a swayamvara for his daughters - Amba, Ambika, and Ambalika. Since Vichitravirya is too young, Bhishma decides on go to the swayamvara on his behalf. But... he has other plans for the swayamvara itself. There probably are different varieties of swayamvara, including contests (like the one Arjuna wins at Draupadi's swayamvara), and others where the princess chooses one herself. Irrespective of the mode of the swayamvara, there appears to have been a rule that any suitor prince can kidnap the princess and challenge the rest of the princes to battle. If the kidnapper wins, he gets to marry the princess. Not sure what happens if he loses. I suppose he would be considered disqualified, and the swayamvara would continue as before. Or, maybe the prince that wins against the kidnapper prince is considered the winner of the swayamvara.

Since Bhishma is at this swayamvara on Vichitravirya's behalf, he decides to take the kidnap route. By the way, I read a quasi-history/indology article (or maybe it was a documentary) a while ago that places the Mahabharata, or at least parts of it in Central Asia, since the kidnapping of girls to marry them is apparently common there even now (?). I'm losing patience with  indology researchers who jump to conclusions based on what appears to be flimsy evidence. But I digress...

Bhishma kidnaps the three princesses, challenges the other assembled princes, and dashes off to Hastinapura. On the way, he is challenged by several of the other princes who lose easily. Even Shalya, himself a mighty warrior loses. Shalya is important in this episode because he and Amba have already taken a liking to each other, and Amba expects him to be her man at the end of the swayamvara.

On reaching Hastinapura, Amba reveals her interest in Shalya, and Bhishma lets her go. However, Shalya refuses to accept her because she was won by someone else. Amba now finds herself in a spot, and goes back to Bhishma to ask him to marry her. Bhishma refuses, saying he has already taking a vow to remain a bachelor for ever. Amba is now furious, because she has no options ("it's complicated"). She then requests Parashurama to fight Bhishma for her revenge, which Parashurama accepts.

(image courtesy wikipedia)

Bhishma and Parashurama fight for 23 days, and is unable to fell Bhishma. Some versions of this story say that Bhishma decides to use an astra that Parashurama has no knowledge of, at which point the Gods and Parashurama's father rishi Jamadagni intervene and stop Bhishma and Parashurama, respectively.

I'm not sure why Parashurama, an avatara of Vishnu, who is all seeing-knowing, ends up in this situation, but that's a different matter. The Parashurama character deserves a dedicated post..

Anyway, once Parashurama declares that Bhishma is invincible in battle, Amba decides to take her fight to her next birth. She prays to Shiva, and obtains a boon that she will be born a man who would remember his past birth, and will also be the cause of Bhishma's death. Amba is hence reborn as Shikhandi (to Drupada, Draupadi's father), who fights on the side of the Pandavas in the Mahabharata war.

The story now shifts to the Mahabharata war, where knowing that Bhishma would not fight Shikhandi, the Pandavas plan for him to face Bhishma. The Pandavas do this based on Bhishma's suggestion when they seek his advice on defeating him. Even though Shikhandi is a man, I suppose the reason Bhishma would not fight him is that the true nature of Shikhandi is female. Some schools of thought hold that each soul is inherently male/female, and hence a mere accidental birth (for whatever reason) in the opposite sex would not change the inherent.


(image courtesy sbonlifensuch.wordpress.com)

There are only two episodes in the entire Mahabharata (that I am aware of) where Bhishma drops his weapons and welcomes death. Is this selfish behaviour or a character flaw as the commander of an army? Perhaps, but more on this question later.

The first incident is at the start (?) of the Mahabharata when Arjuna refuses to fight Bhishma. Krishna tells Arjuna that if he wouldn't fight Bhishma, then he would finish Bhishma off. On seeing Krishna rush towards him, Bhishma drops his weapons and welcomes death at the hands of the supreme being. This incident, of course, do not end in Bhishma's death because Arjuna stops Krishna and agrees to fight.

(image courtesy indianetzone.com)

The second incident is when Shikhandi (Amba!) is put by the Pandavas before Bhishma on the battlefield, and challenges him to a fight. Arjuna takes Shikhandi along in his chariot, and when Shikhandi challenges Bhishma, the latter drops his weapons.

This being the only chance to take Bhishma out, Arjuna puts arrows into Bhishma and lays him on the bed of arrows.

While it is Arjuna who fells Bhishma, it is Shikhandi who 'causes' his death, technically satisfying Shiva's boon while still giving Bhishma an honourable death at the hands of Arjuna. Arjuna brings Bhishma's mother Ganga to him, by shooting an arrow into the ground (baan-ganga) that creates a fountain of water for him to drink from. Bhishma also recites the Vishnu sahasranama on his death bed, singing Vishnu's praise. Bhishma, not wanting to die in Dakshinayana, postpones his death (boon from his father Shantanu) until the start of auspicious Uttarayana (just before sankaranthi/pongal).