by Daud Shawni
*****
The Mutilation of Surpanakha
Aurangzeb said, "You are devious in argument. Pious men should clasp their hands to their ears in your presence. I would accept these words as unalloyed truth, but men of learning and intelligence armed me in my youth. As I learned to fight from masters in the art of war, so too I was taught to reason and believe by the wisest of my father's court. I am acquainted with your legends, as I am with the Quran. I see nothing in common between them. You build arguments on a weak foundation. You contradict your conclusions with the very evidences upon which you rest them. If Rama were a messenger of God, then tell me why his teachings differ from Muhammad's? In fact, what teachings does Rama bring at all? What guidance has he provided? We have only the Ramayana, a wretched patchwork of shameful stories and monstrous half-truths. Consider Rama's murder of Vali. I am aware of Rama's strange self-justification, but this is poor solace for Rama's unrighteousness and his thoughtless violence. He deserved punishment, not praise. But the tellers of the Ramayana are all Rama's partisans and they put words even into Vali's mouth praising their flawed hero."
The boy said, "O king, if you had heard Rama's reasons from Rama's mouth, you would not slander him. And if you consider what I have said to you today, you would realize that Rama's killing of Vali conformed to dharma and was consistent with Rama's station. In this you might find Rama's teaching."
Aurangzeb said, "If I accept the validity of these tales of Rama, I cannot put aside Rama's wrongdoing. I will not allow you to fly circles around this. Rama hid himself and attacked and killed one who had not offended him. He put Vali to death, not face-to-face, but secretly and maliciously."
The boy said, "Rama's wrongdoing was only seemingly so. When Rama accepted Kaikeyi's wish, fulfilling his father's oath, and went into exile, the people were distraught and wondered why their prince had put aside his royal robes and put on the rags of an ascetic. A few said, 'Perhaps he has committed a crime and his exile is his punishment at the king's command.' When Rama's brother, Lakshmana, heard this talk, he drew his sword and said, 'Let me taste the blood of anyone who accuses Rama of wrongdoing! He has done nothing wrong. Imagine that he had committed a crime! Even so, a crime from Rama's hand is a mercy and a blessing for those who perceive properly; it is no crime at all. It is only through Rama that we perceive and discern right from wrong. He decrees a thing "Be" and it is. Have no doubt about this, or you are lost. A thousand years of your righteousness will be accounted as nothing if you have not acknowledged the truth of this.'"
Aurangzeb said, "Rama's expulsion was at the behest of the envious. In this, Rama was innocent. But I have asked about Vali and Rama's murder of that mighty king."
The boy said, "Your question is fair, but Rama's reasons for attacking Vali are clear. Vali did not pardon Rama, but sought pardon from him. Through Rama Vali was revealed just as through Rama was Sita revealed. Without Rama, these two, the one condemned and the one devoted, would remain veiled; Sita's beauty hidden to Sita and Vali's ugliness hidden to Vali; even as we are hidden to ourselves without His intervention. We are not less beautiful or ugly in ignorance, but ignorance obscures all and this is the true source of samsara."
Aurangzeb said, "Still you do not answer me! I have read the Ramayana and have found no meaning in it, except that Sita was beautiful but foolish and that Rama was at turns cruel and kind with no apparent motive. This is not scripture; it is a book of fairy-tales fit for children. Rama was merely a man who lost his kingdom to his brother and lost his wife to Ravana and then by prowess and trickery regained them."
The boy said, "Though kingship was his rightful inheritance, only when the Ravana of opposition was overcome would he be proclaimed king. Rama was born to undo Ravana, and then he might be crowned before the people. Rama did not have to earn that right, but his mission was first to overcome Ravana in the world."
Aurangzeb said, "Still, kingship was ultimately the consequence, and the motivating cause of Rama's journey. This 'face of God' among men sounds like many men I have known, despicable in ambition and desperate for a crown."
The boy said, "He has no use for ambition or crowns conferred by men. Rama was king before Ravana was born; Rama was king while Ravana lived; Rama was king after Ravana's defeat. Rama was always king; but only after Ravana fell dead were the people able to recognize the king always in their midst. Only after you have put aside worldly desires will you see His face. Until then, there is only the Hanuman of prayer and hope. Though Hanuman may sometimes shrink to the size of a mouse, he may yet expand to fill the sky. Though Hanuman may be concealed in the trees, or be bound in ropes, he may yet set fire to the illusion that is the world. Be careful that if Hanuman burns down the world before your eyes you not hurry to rebuild it as Ravana did."
Aurangzeb said, "You do not answer me, so let me be more direct. I know the story of Vali. Rama and Lakshmana came upon Sugriva and Hanuman in the forest. Sugriva was Vali's brother, and Vali was the king of Kishkinda. But Vali had exiled Sugriva for usurping his throne. For whatever reason, Rama chooses to make Sugriva his ally and called upon the monkey exile to challenge Vali, to fight for the crown Sugriva desired. Now Sugriva knew that Vali possessed incredible strength. He knew also that Vali could not be defeated in a fair fight. Rama said, 'Don't worry. I will hide in the trees and when the time is right, while you and Vali are fighting, I will strike Vali dead with an arrow. Sugriva knew that such an ambush might succeed and accepted Rama's shameful offer of assistance. The rest is as you know. Rama hid himself and, while Vali fought his brother, Rama killed the king of Kishkinda, fulfilling his terrible promise to Sugriva. Yet why? Surely Vali would have been Rama's ally if Rama had come to him instead of his outlaw brother. What crime did Vali commit against Rama? How could any man think Rama was good or decent, let alone a messenger of God?"
The boy said, "When Rama's arrow pierced Vali's flesh, Vali fell to the earth, paralyzed. A moment before he was unmatched among mortals; no man or beast could contend with him; no deva or demon could subdue him. He was the undisputed king of Kishkinda, invulnerable and unconquered until he was struck by Rama's arrow. In a moment, all his strength fled his body and he was powerless. In anguish he cried out, 'The devas promised me invincibility. How is it possible that I am dying from a single arrow?'
"Rama stepped forward and said, 'What devas may give, I may rescind at will and at any moment.'
"Vali realized that Rama was Vishnu and was the face of God on Earth and that nothing could withstand his power. But, as his life ebbed, Vali asked Rama why he had struck him down. Vali said, 'My quarrel was with my brother. He betrayed me and attempted to take my throne. Why have you interceded? I was the wronged one, not Sugriva.'
"Rama said, 'You imagine you know the truth of the matter, but you are wrong. I see inside all hearts and know all truth. Sugriva was crowned, at the insistence of the ministers who served you and the people who sought guidance, after you were absent for a year. All presumed you dead. Only Sugriva held out hope, because he loved you and was the most loyal of your people. But, when you remained missing after a battle with a terrible enemy, even he conceded that you had perished. Only then did he accept the throne; and even this he accepted with tears in his eyes. Yet when you returned, belatedly and tardy to your duties, you accused Sugriva of betrayal and treason and cast him out. You forced his wife to become your own. This is worse than that Sugriva took your throne. He did so not knowing that you were alive. You acted purposefully to harm your brother. And you would have killed him today had I not preserved him from your power. So, when I found Sugriva in his forest exile, I told him to confront you. I know you are stubborn and that you would attack your brother on sight. I told Sugriva that I would remain hidden from you, so that your heart would be revealed to him. And, as your heart was unchanged, I tipped it with an arrow. You wrongly exiled your brother and stole his wife, yet you imagine that you were the wronged one.'
"Vali continued to argue, 'This all may
be true, but I am not subject to the laws of your people, Rama. We are a primitive tribe and we have no such laws of marriage.'
"Rama said, 'Do not quibble with me about my law. My word is the touchstone of right and wrong. To disagree with me about what is right is to abandon what is right. It is not for us to debate, but for you to obey. Do not say your customs differ from my law lest you be put outside of my law; mine is the highest and no custom however hallowed by time and usage supersedes that law. Though I have come before by other names with laws, even these are not now legitimate, except that I invest them again with legitimacy. When I come again by other names with laws, you are obliged to obey them accordingly, not by tying your neck to tradition but by submitting to me in every age and at all times. You are grown; do not wear a child's clothes. You are dying; put aside your armor and don the shroud. You and your people are intelligent and sensitive and civilized; do not hide behind the lie that you have no moral code or that taking Sugriva's wife was lawful. I alone am the judge of what is and what is not lawful.'
"Vali said, 'This is right and what you say is right. This arrow is my reward for attacking my brother and usurping what was his and for accusing him when he was innocent. By your power I've cast off my ignorance. I was foolish; your arrow enlightens me. I renounce all things in this world and submit.'
"Rama said, 'This punishment is the only punishment you must suffer, Vali. Return to me. You were created as my sign. I made you and have prepared a place for you near my side.'"
Aurangzeb said, "You are Rama's partisan and will rationalize such an act. But what of Surpanakha? She fell in love with Rama and approached him demanding he take her as his wife. But Rama and Lakshmana taunted her for her ugliness and mutilated her, cutting off her nose and ears."
The boy said, "Let me recount that story and you will see how this action was right and just. Surpanakha was not an ordinary woman, but a demon. Lustful desire for Rama's looks drove her. She had no interest in Rama's heart. She was a devourer of men, an eater of human flesh, a murderer of sages, and her lust for Rama was no penance on her part. She took on the appearance of a beautiful woman, for demons, like the monkeys serving Rama, may take the shape of any creature. So she concealed her monstrous appearance with the veil of deceit and demanded that Rama take her as his wife. Lakshmana could not see her true physical form, but both he and Rama at once recognized the monstrous disfigurement of her heart and her base motives. It was not Rama's love that she sought, but his physical person and she would permit no one to live who might stand between her and the object of her base desire. When Sita appeared, Surpanakha rushed forward to kill her, and to tear her flesh from her bones. But Lakshmana intervened and cut off Surpanakha's nose and her ears, just as you said. But to reveal Surpanakha's true form was not mutilation at Lakshmana's hands, but the outward revelation of the disfigurement Surpanakha had concealed. Rama knew Surpanakha's true appearance and Lakshmana's dagger made this hidden knowledge evident to all who had eyes to see. I doubt that Moses or Muhammad would have acted differently. When the earth opened up and swallowed Korah and his sons, the Hebrews marveled. But Aaron said, 'This is but the outward sign. Korah's enslavement to things of this world, like Pharaoh's drowning, was hidden. God has merely revealed their true state to you.'"
Aurangzeb said, "You are a good defender of Rama. But how will you defend Krishna, whose wrongdoing was more evident still? If Krishna is the knower of right and wrong, if he is the exemplar of divine justice, why his dalliances, his lies, his dissimulation? I think only for a moment upon the women with whom he surrounded himself, many who were married to other men, and I can imagine no defense for him. What of the story that Krishna stole the clothing of the women of Vraj as they bathed in the waters of a lake? If Rama was violent, cruel, and foolish, he was at least not an adulterer, a keeper of whores, who sought nothing in his worthless youth than to indulge his worthless desires."
The boy said, "Your slanders resound only with the uninitiated. Such weeds take root only in barren ground. These stories of Krishna are not as you portray them, nor as you imagine them. Consider only the Song of Songs, and recollect the stories of Solomon and Balamah; yet would you accuse Solomon of adultery, or Balamah of whorishness?
"When Krishna was still young, the daughters of Vraj fell in love with him. Each girl desired that Krishna would become her husband. So they undertook a vow to the goddess Katyayani to obtain what they desired. At the banks of the river Kalindi, where every morning they bathed, they fashioned an image of the goddess in the sand, decorating her with red dye. Each morning, naked before they entered the water, the girls made obeisance to the idol, and repeated their vow. For a month they performed this vow every morning, setting aside their clothes, praying to the idol, then bathing in the river Kalindi where they swam and sported and sang of Krishna.
"One day Krishna came upon the girls while they splashed in the river. By the riverbank he saw the idol and understood their petition as they sang of him. Yet they were oblivious to his presence. Stealthily he gathered up their clothes and climbed a tall tree. As they sang and played, he called down to them and said, 'O ladies. I have heard your vow and understand the meaning of your idol in the sand. But I am here among you, and you have no need for idols. Come out to see me.'
"The girls were startled by Krishna's voice out of darkness, but were overjoyed that he was with them, though he had their clothes and was in the tree above them, out of their reach. As Krishna called for them to come out of the river, the girls shrank deeper into the water to conceal their nakedness. Krishna called out, 'Why do you hesitate? I am here, as you wished. Come out and let me see you.'
"The girls laughed and called back, 'Please don't joke with us. We can't come out. Where are our clothes?'
"Krishna smiled and said, 'I have your clothes. Come out and take them back from me.'
"The girls scolded Krishna, saying, 'This is shameful. We love you and are devoted to you and yet you mock us with your teasing. Return our clothes to us, beloved, for you know the way of dharma.'
"Krishna said, 'You say that you love me and are devoted to me and that I know the way of dharma, but this is not true. I am myself the way of dharma, yet you do not obey me. Come out and I will forgive you and will return your clothes to you.'
"The girls relented and emerged from the water, modestly covering themselves with their hands and arms. They were smiling, but were bashful and embarrassed. With their clothes over his shoulder, Krishna climbed down from the tree and watched them as they shivered in the cold air. They called out to him to keep his promise and give them their clothes. But Krishna said, 'You undertook a vow to attain my presence, but you violated that vow by bathing naked. Fold your hands upon your heads and offer obeisance to me. If you do not, your rites and devotions will come to nothing. I am the remover of imperfection. Obey me and attain what I desire for you.'
"Without hesitation they forgot themselves and obeyed Krishna without shame. When they made obeisance Krishna returned their clothes to them. He said, 'To attain me, don't worship idols in the sand. Don't call on Katyayani or Indra, or any of the devas. Yet I am patient with you. If men worship even devas with humility performing rites to obtain what they seek, they may acquire what they seek, but whatever they attain comes from my hand alone.'"
The boy said, "There are many meanings to this story. The literal meaning is the least of them. Krishna represents God, the girls His devotees. They have worshipped improperly to attain His presence, but He forgives them and removes their imperfections. Abasing themselves to the idol in the sand to obtain Him, He appears to them and reveals to them a way to approach Him, though they did not see that simply by His presence He had already granted to them what they sought. Once they obeyed Him, following His dharma, forgetting themselves, their rites were fulfilled and their vows accomplished. In this there are lessons not for young girls who are in love, but for the wise."
Aurangzeb said, "In other tales of these girls of Vraj as they grew
into womanhood they abandoned their husbands and children, even newborns, to be near Krishna. They put aside all marital obligations; they gave no thought to domestic life, to pleasing husbands, sons, fathers, and brothers. How is it worship to disobey God in order to serve God? Explain this contradiction."
The boy said, "The women of Vraj turned away from woman's dharma; they threw down social order. They broke the wheel of samsara.
"The tears of those who loved them did not move their hearts. The harsh words of those who censured them did not cause them shame. How is this right? But consider the difference. Hanuman was Sugriva's servant. Yet when Rama appeared, Hanuman left Sugriva's service without a word and became Rama's servant instead. Sugriva gave this no thought and himself became the servant of Rama.
"To the fettered heart, the gopis acted as harlots. What shame Sita might have called down upon herself had she accepted Ravana's advances. But Ravana was not Rama. If Sita had been married to Ravana, and Rama had abducted her, then dharma would have been served even by adultery. How is this right?
"Krishna stole the gopis away and drew them to his side and did not reject them. He did this because Krishna, and not tradition nor any moral law, was the touchstone of right and wrong. Though it was not right for the gopis to transgress social order and abandon their duties as wives, they exchanged this dharma for a greater dharma, which is utter devotion to God. This devotion, which Krishna tested, made their actions laudable and worthy. Consider how Dasaratha might have been spared. To fulfill his promise to Kaikeyi, Dasaratha had to exile his favorite son. By becoming a prisoner to dharma, he also became a prisoner to the whims of his favorite wife, a prisoner to her error and envy. He begged Rama to overthrow him, that his exile could not come to pass, and that he could not fulfill Kaikeyi's wish, as this would spare him from willfully abandoning his duty. How often do men adhere to dharma, forgetting the One for Whom dharma exists, the One who establishes dharma and Who may lift it up as surely as He may throw it down? Dasaratha might have been spared his son's exile had he turned to Rama, and said simply, 'Release me from this dharma, for your way exceeds dharma.' God does not bow down to dharma nor is He in service to it.
"No form of worldly restraint restrains Him. No obstacle blocks His way. No law binds Him. No truth encompasses Him. No, He is Himself the source of restraint and the open road, the fountain of law and the wellspring of truth. Before Sugriva fled from his powerful brother, Vali, who could oppose Vali? But Sugriva believed in Rama and when Rama told Sugriva to challenge Vali, Sugriva did not hesitate because all things were within Rama's power and no creature could challenge him. Rama was exiled; only by his consent could he be exiled. Only if such an exile were consistent with Vishnu's purpose in the world could it even be conceivable.
"Likewise, Ravana erred not simply by pursuing his lusts, but also by failing to recognize who Rama was. Had he never touched Sita, he was still in error by not recognizing Rama. Had he recognized Rama, he would have never touched Sita, or had this recognition come too late, he would have returned Sita to Rama and immolated himself in Rama's honor. Rama's friendship is worth more than all kingdoms, more than all treasures of all worlds. Krishna's love is worth more than all husbands, all children, all duties and obligations. When Sita returned to Rama's side, when she sat upon a throne beside her husband, she said, 'Separation from you was Hell. Nearness to you is Heaven. Even had you been my captor and Ravana my rightful husband, Hell is Heaven with you, Heaven Hell without you.'
"Yet God is not obliged to accept you, even if you are in complete submission. Your submission is desired, but His grace is necessary. When Bharata pursued Rama in the forest, he submitted himself entirely to his brother, offering Rama the kingdom of Ayodhya. Bharata said, 'My mother, Kaikeyi would crown me king if she could. She caused our father to exile you to make me king in your place. But there is none in your place. A crow cannot mimic a swan; an ass cannot imitate a horse. The lantern is not the sun, nor is the face of the moon as lovely as the Beloved. I desire only service to you.' But Rama was not yet ready for Bharata's submission. He said, 'You are my brother and I love you. But I cannot do as you ask. Return to Ayodhya and rule as my regent and, when my exile is ended, I will return to you and accept your offering, but I will not accept it today.' Others, who did not seek Rama's grace, received it without asking. Consider this, if you are wise.
"For Sita, as for Radha and the gopis, there is no congress that quenches thirst, or that calms passion. No union is sufficient except that she becomes indistinguishable from Him and that He becomes indistinguishable from her. She lets loose the bonds of all desire, she lets the reins slip from her grasp. The horses of her chariot, her senses, do not drive her to distraction. The chariot is empty. The horses are stabled. She breaks the wheel of samsara; she is armed with the sword of moksha. She wraps her black hair around her slender neck and hangs herself with it from the rosewood tree in Ravana's grove. She steps into fire; her pride, her earthly concerns, her love for herself turn to ash. She opens her throat with the sword of moksha; she joyously becomes a fountain at the gates of His palace, the mansion of her Beloved. Drink from that font of blood that you may become intoxicated. His glance falls upon her and He transforms her blood into the wine of His love and offers it in the cup of His unity.
"When Krishna danced with the gopis, the wives and daughters of the cowherds of Vraj, he danced with every one, though each was blinded to any other except Krishna. They say that Krishna only loved Radha among the gopis; but he loved them all. Yet only Radha was entirely devoted to Krishna. Learn a little of your station from this. Vishnu loves all, not any one less than any other, but only those who love Vishnu, by His grace, are permitted union with Him.
"The story of Krishna and the gopis are parables. Only the literalist sees Krishna's actions as blameworthy. Only the literalist calls the gopis whores. The literalist does not see, perhaps he is not capable of seeing, that, just as Krishna represents God, so do the gopis represent those who break the wheel of samsara, attain moksha, and by their devotion, and through His grace, attain union with God."
Aurangzeb said, "Even if I allow that all this is true, that the stories of Krishna and the women of Vraj are but parables and not literally true, how do you explain Krishna's actions in later life, as an ally to the Pandava? During the battle between the Pandava and their cousins, both sides accepted rules of warfare, hallowed by tradition, blessed by the wise, upheld by righteous men. No warrior should strike another in the legs; no warrior should strike another who is unarmed. Yet Krishna advised Bhima to strike Duryodhana in the thigh and Krishna advised Arjuna to kill Karna when Karna was unarmed. What do you say to this? Krishna ignored the rules that did not suit him.
"Of course I know that the Kaurava, the enemies of the Pandava and of Krishna, also violated the rules of war. On the battlefield passions overwhelm even the best of men. So I do not denounce Bhima or his brother, Arjuna. Overcome with emotion, they did what soldiers do, disregarding the conventions and niceties of war. Their actions may be reprehensible, they are at least not chivalrous, but I understand their ardor; they are only men. Yet Krishna, who you claim is God on Earth, or His incarnation, or whatever you call it, urged Bhima and Arjuna to abandon the rules of war to which all had agreed. This is shameful. Krishna must be held to a higher standard; he himself must be ruled and guided, more than any other man, by morality and justice. What use has dharma if he himself does not follow it?"
The boy said, "In his time Krishna's standard was the highest; that is your answer. He himself was dharma, that is your answer. You have it all backwards. Dharma and right-acting, morality and justice, men must serve them; but God does not serve them; they exist to serve Him. He is the arbiter of right and wrong. Rules agreed upon by men are not morality; the paths they jointly choose to follow are not dharma. He is in Himself sufficient, and dharma means nothing if not to adhere to His way. Moral laws fashioned by men are not the standard. Upon what are they based? They are founded
upon men's pride, their fear, their expectation of morality. But their expectations of a moral code, their definitions of justice and dharma, they are fallible like your own. These expectations often lead away from God's path, from God's messengers, and from dharma, which is obedience to His law, acceptance of His will, and adherence to His unity in every age. Imagine if Muhammad were to appear before you today. So long as he adhered to your expectations of him, you would honor him. But should he deviate from those expectations, even to the extent of a fennel seed, you would at once denounce him and reject him. Consider the Meccans, when Muhammad arose among them. He told them that their moral code, which included the veneration of idols, was odious and was at variance with God's will. They answered, 'Should we abandon the gods worshipped by our fathers and their fathers before them? This would be contrary to what is right. You are the one at variance!' He did not meet their expectations; is this not the very reason Muhammad was rejected even by his kinsmen, and Jesus was rejected by the Jews? Remember the story that on the Sabbath Jesus formed a sculpture of a bird from clay. The people accused him of breaking the Sabbath. Jesus then breathed life into the clay bird and it flew away. The people were amazed, and Jesus said to them, 'I am the law made flesh. I am the source of law and I transcend it.' Only after the believers put aside their expectations of Him, were they counted among the obedient. Yet your expectations of Krishna and Rama carry the field and leave you wandering in the wilderness of samsara.
"Krishna was the restorer of true dharma, he was its maintainer, and he was its destroyer. Before the war between the Pandava and their cousins, Duryodhana, the chief of the Kaurava, usurped the lands and the birthright of the Pandava. Krishna went as an emissary to speak with Duryodhana. He said, 'O Duryodhana, your cousins have returned from their exile at the appointed time. You know this. Yet you deny them their rights and keep for yourself what is not yours. Be wise and reasonable befitting your birth and your learning. Allow them to claim the land that is theirs and you will earn their friendship and mine.' But Duryodhana was stubborn and would not listen. Krishna's words angered him and Duryodhana threatened him with imprisonment. Krishna said, 'I will not allow it. If in past or future lives I have been exiled or in prison, it was only because it suited My purpose. But today this threat does not suit My purpose.' Krishna then shared with Duryodhana and those in their presence a glimpse of his multi-armed form, and all fell away, terrified and adoring. All fell away except Duryodhana who mocked Krishna, saying, 'I have heard you are God. If this is so, you might give the Pandava a thousand times the lands I possess! Why trifle with my puny kingdom, O Lord of the worlds?' Krishna bore this mocking patiently and said, 'What you say is true. But I am not concerned with men's desires; you should be more concerned with mine. Grant them their rights and be my friend, for my friendship is worth more than your kingdom, or any other, or all kingdoms together. This is dharma.'"
Aurangzeb smiled and said, "Well spoken, boy. Beautifully done. You're an artist with stories. And yet you never answer me directly. If I were to strike you with an arrow, even as you held the shaft in your hand and as blood poured out of you, you would tell me that I had missed and you would tell me this so beautifully that I would, for a moment, believe you. I understand you, so no need to repeat it. You say Rama and Krishna transcend the rules made by men. But why the lies and misdirection? Why the cheating? Why did Krishna advise Bhima and Arjuna to act without honor? Why did he advise Yudishtira to lie to Drona? Why did he allow this war at all?"
The boy said, "Why did Krishna lie to Drona? Drona had lied about his past. He was born a brahmin, but became a kshatriya instead, all to extract a petty vengeance. Why did Krishna allow Bhima to kill Duryodhana shamefully, by striking Duryodhana on the thigh? Remember that years before the battle Duryodhana had exposed his thigh to Draupadi and said, 'You are a whore; see that I am strong and will pay you well if you choose me.' Even Karna was struck down for his faults. See now that Krishna, in seeming deceit, in truth visited each of these men with the punishments owed them for their actions."
Aurangzeb said, "Duryodhana was wicked, and Drona a liar, but what of Karna? Kunti, the mother of the Pandava, abandoned Karna as an infant. He did not know who he was or who his brothers were. This was a misfortune, not a sin. Yet he is punished, as though the accident of his birth was a sufficient sin."
The boy said, "After Arjuna killed Karna, Kunti revealed Karna's identity to the Pandava, that he was their eldest brother. This news broke Arjuna's heart and he regretted what he had done, but Krishna said, 'I am sorry that you have lost a brother, but in truth, Karna lost himself first.' Immediately Arjuna's spirits were restored and he smiled, clasping a hand on Krishna's shoulder.
"Draupadi, who saw this, spoke privately with Arjuna one evening. She said, 'What did Krishna mean when he said that Karna lost himself? You killed Karna in self-defense, I know. But my heart is troubled by his death, by the manner in which you killed him, and by the revelation that he was your brother. When you first heard the news, I saw in your eyes a terrible uncertainty. But with a few words, Krishna erased that uncertainty. What did he say to you and what did it mean?'
"Arjuna said, 'Before I fought, as Krishna spoke to me between the two armies when I would not give the signal to begin the battle, he said, "All these warriors arrayed against you will die. Arise and fight! You will defeat them because, through their karma, because of what they have done, Drona and Bhishma, Duryodhana and Karna, will die. For what they have done, all these warriors will die. Fight! I have chosen you as the instrument to perform My will and to do My justice!"'
"Draupadi said, 'What was Karna's offense?'
"Arjuna said, 'You must know something of Karna. He was innocent when my mother abandoned him. He was innocent as a boy raised by a husband and wife who were not his parents. He lacked self-knowledge, but, as he grew into manhood, he stood at the doorstep of self-awareness, and willfully turned away. He took the road of self-absorption. He chose to hate me and the Pandava. He chose hatred over dharma. He chose to be silent when Duryodhana cheated Yudishtira; Karna joined the mocking chorus when you were humiliated, dragged by the hair, and called a whore. Even when he discovered his identity, that he was the eldest brother to the Pandava, he did not accept this and join us, his brothers. He was too fascinated by his dream of killing me, his own brother! Before he knew that I shared his blood, he was in error and might have been excused. But when he knew the truth, after Krishna and Kunti, our mother, both told him, he refused to accept himself, to accept who he really was, and settled to be something less than that. He hid his true self not merely from me and his other brothers, but from himself.'
"Draupadi said, 'But why did he hate us and want to destroy us? What was our offense? Why did he embrace Duryodhana, our enemy, and remain in that embrace after he learned he was brother to the Pandava?'
"Arjuna said, 'Remember the contest for your hand. Before I won you as my wife by a show of skill, Karna stepped forward to gain you, but you rejected him and Karna stepped back, never having competed. Yet, if Karna, after learning who he truly was, had accepted his place as the eldest of the six brothers, we would have honored him and you would have loved him and been his wife, too. Even knowing himself, Karna was not himself. Karna was rejected because he rejected himself. Only until he became himself, could he gain you. Instead, he blamed your rejection of him on me and my brothers, rather than on himself, where the blame truly belongs. In truth, Karna's hatred was for himself and he willingly allowed Duryodhana's destruction to encompass him.'
"Draupadi said, 'Yes, but Karna befriended Duryodhana before he knew his own true identity. And Karna wouldn't betray that friendship by joining his brothers, who were Duryodhana's enemies.'
"Arjuna said, 'Duryodhana was friend only to Duryodhana. If Karna had joined us, Duryodhana would not have fought and he would have kept his half of the kingdom and Karna, as our eldest brother, would have possessed the other half. Karna would have been a better friend to Duryodhan
a, even if Duryodhana wouldn't at first have understood.'
"Draupadi said, 'Still, Karna is not responsible. Your brothers still mourn him. He was abandoned by his own mother. Did he deserve destruction for this?'
"Arjuna said, 'Karna deserves sympathy, yes. However, his fate was tied to his choices, to his own karma. He fashioned his own destruction, just as Duryodhana did. Krishna told me to strike Karna down. Karna cried out for mercy and argued that this death was unfair. But where was Karna's mercy or fairness when you needed aid or when Yudishtira was cheated and exiled? Where was Karna's adherence to the rules when he murdered my beautiful son after disarming him? These were clear violations of the rules of warfare. Karna cared for and called upon the rules only when it suited him. He ignored them when it did not. The same was true of Duryodhana. Duryodhana refused to give us our kingdom, and kept what was not his as his own. He mocked you and exposed his thigh to you, treating you like a whore. At Krishna's word, Bhima broke that thigh. The apparent passage of time is not by itself expiation, but merely reprieve, which Duryodhana squandered with plotting and scheming against us. When Duryodhana was dying and called Krishna a cheater, Krishna was clear, "I have lied to the liars. I have cheated the cheaters. The world is maya and I have created it. I am the origin of deception and the deliverer from deception."'
"Because Kunti abandoned him, Karna was injured. But when he discovered himself, when Krishna and Kunti revealed it to him, when the medicine to mend his injury rested in his hand, he refused to accept it. At that point his abandonment by his mother was no longer his misfortune, but he himself became his misfortune. He had before him a choice between dharma and adharma, between a loving family and worthless friends bent on self-destruction. Look what he chose, knowing the consequences of his choices. Kunti failed him, but his destruction came at his own hands!"
Aurangzeb said, "Say what you like. I will not accept that God employs deceit and trickery. His standard is surely higher than that."
The boy paused, deep in thought, and then said, "You cannot tie the hands of God. What did Muhammad say? The unbelievers plot and deceive, but God is the best of deceivers. You tighten the noose of expectation around your neck, even as you lose your footing."
Aurangzeb laughed and said, "What pretty stories you tell. But you will not tip my heart as easily as Rama tipped Vali's. And what would it matter if it were true that Rama or Krishna was a knower of right from wrong or perceived men's hearts and went among the people to teach them. Am I not doing the same? By your judgment, Rama and Krishna have no more claim to prophethood than I do; were I to claim such a station you would be right to denounce me and the people would be right to overthrow me and put me to death. But I lay no such claim, and if others lay that claim on my behalf, I would certainly denounce and imprison them. Are Rama and Krishna messengers merely because they claim to be or because others believe them to be? Such claims and beliefs do not make one a prophet."
The boy said, "Rama rarely spoke of this claim. Krishna spoke of it only among those who knew it in their hearts already. What is Vishnu's nature? It is unknowable. But see in Sita's test a glimpse of Vishnu in the person of Rama. Rama knew the truth of Sita's innocence and Sita knew her own innocence. When Rama rejected her, he said to her, 'You did not let Ravana persuade you with baubles and trinkets, which are the trappings of the world. You did not succumb to his threats and his persuasions. But you were with Ravana and, although I am aware of the truth of all things, the people have no such knowledge and they will gossip among themselves and cavil against you and slander you with terrible accusations. And if I take you back, won't they mock me as the cuckold? And if I overlook their accusations, won't they call me blind?' Sita was broken-hearted at Rama's words, but she said, 'I am innocent of any accusation. Let these accusers stay but a moment in Ravana's court and they will betray all things, even themselves. I myself would have succumbed, but I was preserved by my love for you. Those who know nothing of love and accuse me, accuse only themselves; they don't love you as I love you.' Sita then told Lakshmana, Rama's brother, to build a fire and she threw herself upon the pyre, saying, 'Since you have allowed the fires of hell to consume my soul, let this fire immolate my body.' But the fire did not consume her and at this sight the people were satisfied with Sita's innocence. Rama said to the people, 'I did not put Sita to the test; but you put me to the test. Be afraid that I might test you so mercilessly, for that fire would consume the world and all things in it. I alone would be unscathed, unchanged as I am changeless.' All creatures are put to the test. One must pass through fire to be called Vishnu's friend, his companion, his true lover."
Aurangzeb said, "You speak of Ravana as though he were born to sin, but who made him so powerful? Was his invulnerability not a gift from Brahma, a boon granted to him for his many sacrifices and austerities? If Brahma is a name for God, this God lacks perception and offers a terrible power to a terrible creature. What kind of God offers such a boon to a monster? This is not the God of Islam!"
The boy said, "I see nothing peculiar about this boon. God grants us all life, and yet many of us abuse this gift, or steal it from others, or oppress men, or commit sin, or abjure God's command and exceed the limits of dharma, becoming eager practitioners of adharma. Ravana, by his many austerities, gained God's favor. Later, even as he abused this power and waged war against the devas, humiliating and humbling saints and righteous kings, Ravana was not punished. This is likewise true of countless tyrants who have arisen and have lived and died and passed tyranny as inheritance to their tyrannical children. But when Ravana stole Rama's wife and kept her prisoner in the asoka grove in Lanka, Rama arose to destroy him.
"These truths are plain. There is no mystery. Those given great power or wealth by God, by their own folly, by overweening pride, by their own excesses they conjure their downfall and destruction. Did you offer me, O king, this boon to speak openly with you to encourage my impudence, or to find cause to punish me? Yet you know the outcome as surely as God knew Ravana's outcome."
Aurangzeb said, "Still, your stories of Rama and Krishna do not satisfy me; your interpretations are stretched beyond credulity. The literal meaning of these stories is too repugnant to forget; you can caress them all you like to make something indecent seem decent, but I am a Muslim, and my faith is sufficient antidote to your poisonous persuasions."
The boy said, "You think only of the inessential and reject what is essential. Why must you focus on stories, imagining they are not more than literally true? Must a tortoise and a hare actually run a foot race? Many ordinary stories are literally true, but is there Truth in things simply factual? Within the hearts of those who read only the literal, there is but desert. Krishna said of them, In flowery words undiscerning men take refuge. They know only the letter of the Vedas, and say, There is nothing more! Driven by selfish desire, their heaven is a selfish desire. They perform rites to attain their desires, but they do not attain liberation. Yet in the hearts of those who see within these stories, there is paradise. When a man points toward the horizon, you look only upon his finger. The world is revealed through a window of glass; yet you see only the glass and give no thought to what shines through. This is worse than blindness; it is willful ignorance and open blasphemy; it is Iblis' error. It is God's test of you to determine if you love Him, or only yourself."
Aurangzeb said, "When Kaikeyi sent Rama into exile, she wanted to be rid of his person; if Rama had believed that this exile was merely figurative and he simply stayed indoors, in prayer or meditation, he would not have fulfilled his father's promise. When Moses demanded that Pharaoh set the Israelites free, there was no meaning here of anything but physical freedom from Egypt. These stories have within them plain evidence that the literal meaning is what is important, not any pretended symbolism."
The boy replied, "This is true; Rama did not necessarily act nor did Moses necessarily act according to symbolism but according to the exigencies of their time and place. Yet God is master here. He has p
reserved these stories in scripture, and through them imparts something beyond obvious and apparent meaning. Why else were they preserved? Rama performed his exile and returned home and Moses freed the Hebrews. But much of the symbolism concealed in these acts becomes plain and evident to those who see in these stories a key to liberation for themselves and for those they love."
Aurangzeb said, "What of moral law? Were the commandments Moses received and which he imparted to the Hebrews intended only symbolically? No, in fact, had the Israelites imagined they might interpret away the literal meaning of these commandments, they surely would have. They are a clever people, but wicked, and would have availed themselves of any imagined immunity from God's law and God's punishment."
The boy said, "I have spoken only of stories, of parables and analogies. The parables of Jesus were not intended to be understood as literally true. Yet the laws of the Torah and the Gospel are not stories, nor are they parables and this is evident even to a child. Only those clinging to pride and desire or 'wickedness' think otherwise, and act according to their desire, obeying what suits them, disobeying as it pleases them. Like lawyers they quibble on insignificant matters. But their arguments will not avail them. Such laws as God reveals are to be obeyed exactly as they are without deviation. You are not permitted to interpret away the laws of God."
Aurangzeb said, "The unity of God is not served by this distinction, between His law and His parables. You speak of tawhid, of union with God, of the unity of God and His messengers, yet you busily draw distinctions between this lesson and that, between this messenger and the other and another still."
The boy said, "Your argument is facetious. Even you do not believe it. We must concede, as human beings, the apparent divisions of the world of creation; we are small and mortal and have tied ourselves to these divisions and distinctions. Yet the one who sees all things in Him, and the one who sees Him in all things are both correct. On the road of distinction, you may reach the city of singleness. In the city you may find the palace of distinction. Within the palace stands a throne of singleness. Upon the throne sits the King, in His hand the scepter of distinction. He is the One from Whom all things issue; to Whom all things return."
