Bhagavatam study 33 01.7.38-43 Ashwatthama’s actions were inexcusable and punishable

Thank you. Krishna is speaking to Arjuna and Krishna is stressing to Arjuna that Ashwathama should not be released, that he should not be given any mercy. The previous verse stated that, previous two verses stated that he has acted in a horrendous way, utterly unbefitting for Brahmana and therefore, he does not deserve any mercy, he deserves punishment.
And Krishna is telling Arjuna, now he is stressing that same point from the point of view of, from another angle. He is saying that I have heard you, Pratishthaam cha bhavata. Krishna is referring to Arjuna here in a respectful second person tone, not tam, but you, bhavata.
So, Arjuna, you are an honourable Kshatriya and you have given your word and you have not just given a word to any other person, this word to your own wife. Panchal yai, shunvato mama. So, you have spoken it.
So, now if it’s a private word, even then a Kshatriya should not break it. But if it’s a word given publicly, then that should never be broken. It’s like, we have the Shat Maharaj, you know, he had given his word to Kaikeyi and he just couldn’t break that word because that’s the meaning of a Kshatriya.
A word of honour needs to be honoured. So, Panchal yai, shunvato mama. So, I have heard you speak this, oh Arjuna, and aharishe shirasthasya.
What was the word that you have given? You said aharishe, that I will bring. Shirasthasya, I will bring the head of that person. Este manini putraha, oh you, who are a respectable lady, one who has killed your son, one who has beheaded your sons, I will behead him and bring his head to you.
So, Krishna reminds Arjuna of his words, so that Arjuna will not slacken in his resolve. Text 39, tad asau vadhayatam paapa, atattaya atma bandhuha, bhartushcha vipriyam veera, krutavan kulla paamsinaha. So, tad asau vadhayatam paapa.
So, this, this person, vadhayatam, he deserves to be killed. Why? This man is paapa, he is a sinner. Atattaya, atattaya, he is an aggressor.
Atma bandhuha, he is the murderer of your own family members. Bhartushcha vipriyam veera. Further, he has displeased even his own master.
Krutavan kulla paamsinaha. By his action which he has done, he has, he has actually destroyed the good name of his dynasty. So, here, Krishna is speaking very strong words.
You know, often, a person who does something glorious is said to be kulbhushana. He is the person who brings glory to the dynasty. Or, if a great saintly person is born in some dynasty, then that person will be called as kulpavanaha.
He is the purifier of his dynasty. So, that is positive, glorifier or purifier of dynasty. But a very negative one is kulpaamsinaha.
Paamsinaha means one who, Prabhupada translates it as the burnt remnants of the family. So, normally, when a fire comes, then fire illumines. But if ashes are left, the ashes have no capacity to illumine.
And the ashes simply signify an utter wastage of things. So, similarly, what is conveyed here is that kulpaamsinaha, Ashwathama, he may have been born in the illustrious dynasty of Brahmanas, but he is not a, he is not a, he is not a, sometimes the word pradeepa is used. He is the light of the dynasty, kulpradeepa.
But he is a kulpaamsinaha, he is the ashes of the dynasty. Now, ashes are not considered to be of any use. So, he is, his crime, Krishna is stressing, that he is, he is a sinner, he is an aggressor, he is a murderer of your own family members.
And further, bhartushya vipriyam vira. So, here, Krishna is pointing out that, you know, he was so misdirected that even the grievous deed that he did, that did not even please his master. So, who was his master? That was Duryodhana.
And Ashwathama, he had decided that he would do something for Duryodhana. And he decided that, I will kill the five Pandavas and bring them to you, he had told Duryodhana. And accordingly, he had gone at night and attacked the Pandava camp and had killed five people in the most opulent tent in the Pandava camp and he had thought those five people were the Pandavas.
And he had killed them in the, when he was in the fire of anger, he was carried away by that fire of anger. At that time, he had killed everybody else also over there. And then he had brought the five heads and Duryodhana had been delighted, oh, the Pandavas, the mortal enemies are dead.
But when he took, he was still, Duryodhana was still, he was shrewd. Although he was obstinate, he was evil, he was envious, but still he was shrewd. He knew that it would not have been so easy to kill the Pandavas, what the whole Kaurava army had not accomplished, how had Ashwathama succeeded in accomplishing that.
So, in checking that, he asked to be shown the heads. And when he was shown the heads, at that time, he, even in his weakened stage, he was able to crush the heads. And when he crushed the heads, he said, these are not the Pandavas’ heads, these are the sons of the Pandavas.
And Duryodhana was upset. He was mortified, not because it was such a terrible crime to kill the five Pandavas’ sons. Still, he was thinking of the fact that all my sons have been killed and our dynasty will end.
And that was a matter of grief, matter of lamentation for him. So, he wanted, he had that sense of dynasty and he wanted that dynasty to continue. So, when the dynasty was threatened with an end because of Duryodhana’s misguided actions, he was horrified, mortified, agonized.
And in this way, Ashwathama’s actions, the point here is that sometimes if a person has a terrible crime, that person may take, may claim blamelessness or at least may claim partial, may claim that I am not fully culpable, I am partially culpable because I was simply following orders. So, for example, the Nuremberg Trials which were held after the Second World War, at that time, many of the Nazi generals and Nazi soldiers who were in charge of, say, the gas chambers where millions of Jews and others were killed. So, they said that we were simply following orders.
So, can a person claim immunity from blame because that person is following orders? Actually, no, because even when one is following orders, at that time, even when they are following orders, one has to have one’s basic intelligence, basic conscience and one has to distinguish what is to be done, what is not to be done. So, even if in the name of following orders one does abominable, despicable, reprehensible things, then one will be held responsible. Just like if a person is a hired killer, a mercenary and that person murders someone.
Yes, the police will want to know that who was the person who sent you, who paid you and that person also will be punished. But that does not mean that the person who killed, who pulled the trigger will not be punished. The culpability will be shared.
But the killer, the person who pulled the bullet will also have to bear culpability. But in the case of Ashwatthama, that would also not apply. You know, there will be no one to share his culpability because when Ashwatthama killed, it was not on behalf of Duryodhana.
Duryodhana had wanted him to kill the Pandavas, not the Pandavas’ sons. So, he could not even take the justification, the rationalization that I was following orders. He had done something which was not according to the orders.
Ashwatthama had not told even Duryodhana that I will fight and I will kill the Pandavas when they are sleeping. He had done that of his own accord and on top of that also, first of all, he had killed with ghastly level of unfairness and that too he had done without, and ended up displeasing the person whom he was supposed to be obeying. And that’s why Krishna is saying that he is pointing that out.
He is talking about this point that there is no extenuating circumstance here. He cannot even be claimed to be following orders because the orders were not to kill the Pandavas’ sons. So, now the discussion moves on.
Suta Vacha, text 40. 40. So, Parikshita, the word Parikshita is the name of, is a proper noun referring to Maharaj Parikshit, who is not yet born here.
Here the word Parikshita is the word which is related with the word Parikshita, not as a proper noun, but as a general noun, common noun. So, Parikshit can refer to a person. Parikshit can also be, can refer to one who is being examined.
So, Parikshita, so this was an exam which is going on. So, Krishna was provoking Arjuna that don’t release him, punish him. You can even kill him right now over here.
Because you have not promised Yudhishthira that you will bring Ashwathama back as a prisoner. You have in fact promised Draupadi that you will bring the head of the beheader of her sons. So, you should kill him right away.
Don’t have any mercy on him. So, this sort of statements were actually a test for Arjuna. So, how much was his understanding of Dharma? How much was he, Arjuna, capable of reigning in his impulses and pursuing the course even when he had enormous rationale for provocation, enormous reason for provocation, for feeling provoked.
So, Krishna was instructed by Partha Das, he was encouraged, impelled, motivated to kill him. But Arjuna remembered that this is Gurusuta. He is the son of my Guru, Dronacharya.
Actually, even on the fateful 15th day when Drona put down his weapons on hearing that Ashwathama had been killed from Bhima, a news that was false, at that time Arjuna did not desire to kill Drona. Arjuna’s primary desire was to have Drona arrested and kept in house arrest honourably till the war ended. But Dhristadyumna had an impulsive act rushed forward and despite being reproached and ordered to stop by the various watching Kshatriyas, Dhristadyumna had beheaded Drona.
So, Arjuna was very remorseful at that time. In fact, Arjuna expressed the greatest amount of misgivings for that action. And there was almost a verbal fight between Arjuna and Bhima at that time, where Bhima actually celebrated Dhristadyumna’s action whereas Arjuna reproached and condemned Dhristadyumna’s action.
So, now Arjuna did not want to go further and kill the Guru’s son unless it was necessary. At least he did not want that action on his hands and he wanted to act according to proper principles of Dharma. So, although Ashwathama had given abandoned provocation and nobody would have faulted Arjuna at this point, if he had killed Ashwathama but still exhibiting knowledge of the principles of Dharma, Arjuna decided not to kill Ashwathama.
Text 41. So, eventually, as Krishna spoke to Arjuna that we should not spare him, but Krishna decided to take Ashwathama to his shibir and there Govinda Priya Sarathi. And when Krishna saw that Arjuna had this desire, then Krishna also assented.
Krishna did not insist on those words. So, Govinda acted as his Sarathi. And here, of course, the word is used Govinda Priya Sarathi.
So, Arjuna was Govinda Priya. Arjuna was dear to Govinda and he went with Krishna who was also dear to him and who was acting as his Sarathi. And he took him, took Ashwathama to his Priya, his dear wife.
Shochantya Atmajaan Hataan. Shochantya, she was grieving Atmajaan Hataan, her own children, sons who had been murdered. So, Arjuna got Ashwathama as a prisoner of war and entrusted him to Draupadi.
Draupadi would decide the fate of those warriors, of this war, this person who had acted so despicably. So, when he was brought like this, Ashwath Pashabaddham, he was brought like an animal in front of her after being bound with ropes. Pashabaddham.
He had nothing to speak. He had acted in such a despicable way. Ashwathama stood in front of Draupadi.
Now, there are few things which drive home the reality and brutality of one’s actions as being confronted with those who have been hurt, devastated by one’s actions. When two people are fighting and one person kills the other person, then this person is brought in front of the loud ones, his widows, his children, his mother. So, then the brutality of that crime, the gravity of that action, it may not always be a crime if it’s a war and then one has to fight, one may have to kill, but still, their suffering is real.
And the gravity of the action that one has done, that is driven home when one confronts on a face-to-face basis those whose lives have been devastated by one’s actions. So here, Ashwathama, in his blind rage, had done ghastly things. But now, when he was brought face-to-face with the consequences of his action, he had no words to speak.
What could he speak based on the kind of actions he had done? It was utterly indefensible. So, it was an indefensible action. So, he did not speak anything at all.
But on seeing him, Krishna is the Supreme Lord Krishna. Krishna is a name which is frequently used in the Bhagavatam. It will refer to Draupadi.
So, she has dark complexion, beautiful dark complexion and she was known as Krishna. Krishna Apakritam. So, krti is action.
Apakritam is one who does foul action. Guru Asutam. Although he had done Apakritam, Draupadi’s past interactions with Ashwathama had been very respectful as well appropriate for a Kshatriya or a Kshatrani, Kshatrani to deal with a Brahmana.
So, she saw him now, she saw him as Guru Asutam. She saw that Dronacharya was the Guru of her husband and he was respectable for their whole dynasty. She saw him, this is the son of Ashwathama, so he deserves respect.
So, Krishna Apakritam Guru Asutam. On seeing the Guru Asutam, what? Vama Svabhava. She is here described as having a gentle nature and Kripaya Ananamaja.
She felt compassion. Ananamaja, she actually offered her respects, offered obeisances. This is actually, this is incredible, the kind of action that Draupadi is doing over here.
It might be said that she just forgave him. Forgiving is also very difficult in such a situation because he has killed her sons. But actually offering respects to such a person is unimaginable.
Normally, respects are offered based on the actions of a person. But if a person is acting in a reprehensible or abominable way, what is the reason for offering respects to that person? That question comes up naturally and that question has no easy answers. So, Ananamaja, so now what is it is described, she offered respects because it said Vama Svabhava, Kripaya, Guru Asutam.
Three things are talked about. Although he was the killer of her son, she saw him not just for his immediate actions, but she also saw him in terms of his connections. Vama Svabhava, she was of a gentle nature.
So, our actions should be determined not just by our circumstances or others actions. Our actions should be determined by our own principles, by our own nature and principles of Dharma. So, she felt that as principles of Dharma, she was herself gentle.
Now, it’s interesting, Draupadi, if you look at the whole Mahabharata, is she really gentle? Sita can be called as Vama Svabhava. Draupadi is actually quite a furious lady. She gets angry with, she gets upset with Arjuna when Arjuna marries the second wife Subhadra.
She doesn’t even want to talk with him at that time. Then, when in the forest, she goads Yudhisthira to fight and reclaim their lost kingdom immediately without waiting for the 14-year period to get over. And she speaks quite strongly to him.
And here, Vama Svabhava, she’s called of a gentle nature because although she would get angry, she was also very soft-hearted. She was also very gentle. This is the incident which brings out her Vama Svabhava in a very striking way that although this person has killed her own sons, there is no pain for a woman as to undergo the death of her own sons.
And to lose one son is bad, to lose all of one’s sons in one go, that is unbearable. And yet, Draupadi, far from exhibiting a vengeful streak or a malevolent disposition, she is described as Vama Svabhava. She has a gentle nature.
That is the nature of her character. In text 43, what does she speak? So, uvaca, she speaks, asahyantya asya, she could not bear the fact that bandhan, that he was bound, anaynam, you have brought him bound to me, sati, she was devoted to her husband, but her devotion to her husband did not mean that she would just blindly approve every action of her husband. She protested.
She said, no, this should not be the muchyatam, muchyatam asya, please free him, free him. So, muchyatam, muchyatam, the repetition twice indicates the stress of her, the strength of her desire as well as the fervent emotion underlying it. And she gives reasons quickly.
He is a brahmana, he is a brahmana, nitaram guru, who at further, he is our guru, he is connected with our guru, he is the son of our guru. So, in one sense, he is our guru. So, here there can be conflicting ways of looking at this.
You know, in one sense, Prabhupada’s purports also in this section go both ways. In general, when we are looking at characters in scriptures, we are too small people to arrive at a specific value judgment of what should have been done and what should not have been done, of how they should have acted. What we should instead focus on is what we can learn from such actions.
So, now, the actions could have gone both ways. Here we could say that Draupadi was too soft hearted. Draupadi was respecting a person simply for the externals and not for himself.
That means she was simply looking at what is, where he was coming from, which caste, which dynasty, which family, but she was not looking at his own actions and thus she was not seeing deep enough. She was looking at superficial considerations. So, that would be one way of looking at it.
But another way of looking at it is that actually this person was the killer of her sons. That was understood, that was known. And instead of just focusing on that fact, Draupadi was looking at other things also.
So, her capacity to see all this, that he is the son of our guru, he is a brahmana, and all this, this also we could say that indicates capacities to look deeper. So, this will vary according to time, place, circumstance. Sometimes some people wear the dress of a sadhu and general people offer respects when they just see anyone wearing that dress.
But is the dress alone enough? That person has to act like a sadhu. If the person doesn’t act like a sadhu, then wearing that dress alone is far from enough that can lead to misleading and misrepresentation of the order that one is supposed to represent. So, is this action appropriate? Now, Draupadi will give several reasons in the next verses, wherein she will strongly protest this treatment of Ashwathama.
And those we will discuss in our future talks.