To the Yaksha he said the same thing. When the Yaksha asked Yudhishthira, ‘What is the path – kah panthah?’ he replied – ‘Argument leads to no certain conclusion, the Srutis are different from one another; there is not even one Rishi whose opinion can be accepted by all; the truth about Dharma and duty is hid in caves: therefore, that alone is the path along which the great have trod – mahaajano jeno gatah sa panthah.’
After the war, he has a discourse with Bhisma on Dharma. He explains why he has settled on ‘ziSTair.aacaritam.dharmam’ as true Dharma.
It appears from his conversation with Bhisma, he is in search of a universal Dharma. It seems he is confused at the variegated form of Dharma and its application, at the relativity of Dharma that apparently defeats possibility of universality -‘Duty and its reverse, therefore, cannot be ascertained, O Bharata, by study of the scriptures alone……what is meant by conduct of the good remains unsettled…. No such conduct, therefore, is to be seen (as observed by any man), which is fraught with universal benevolence.’
The contradictions in Scriptural authorities confuse him; the subjection of Dharma to the conditional bound of Time-Space-‘paatraveda’ confuses him –
‘…the ordinances of the Vedas disappear gradually in every successive age. ….all the declarations in the Vedas do not apply equally to all the ages, the saying that the declarations of the Vedas are true is only a popular form of speech indulged in for popular satisfaction. … When, however, the Srutis and the Smritis contradict each other, how can either be authoritative? (CE-12.252.7-9)’
If ‘present’ experience leaves him confused, the only option left to him is to hold on to a strong pole, which would be his ‘secure’ base. Like Sri Ramakrishna’s sea-bird perching on the mast of a ship surrounded on all sides by sea with land nowhere in sight, he would fly over the sea only to return safely to the mast of the ship- ‘It seems, therefore, that only that which the learned of ancient times called righteousness is righteousness to this day: and through that course of conduct (which the learned so settled) the distinctions and limitations (that govern the world) have become eternal. (CE-12.252.20)'
Thus Yudhishthira is a follower of conduct of great men.
In Gita, Krishna says –
yadyadaacharati shreshhThastattadevetaro janaH .
sa yatpramaaNaM kurute lokastadanuvartate -
‘Because, whatever noble persons do, others follow. Whatever standard they set up, the world follows. (Gita-3.21)’
What ‘shreshhTha’ does, is followed by ‘itaro janaH’, in other words, we may tentatively translate it as ‘what extra-ordinary minds do’, ‘ordinary mentality follows.’
Yudhishthira’s Dharma being Manava-Dharma, the Dharma of humbleness, he wants to follow, not lead; he is content being ‘itaro janaH’, and shows no aspiration to be ‘shreshhTha’!
The problem that an ordinary mind faces in comprehending Krishna’s Dharma is that, the boundary between ‘shreshhTha’ and ‘itaro janaH’ is never clear, nor the distinction absolute. And what we see in today’s world, ‘itaro janaH’ often assumes the garb of ‘shreshhTha’ with immunity! To use a phrase of Mr. T. S. Eliot - the ‘overwhelming question’ is how to discriminate?
The problem with Yudhishthira’s Dharma is, similarly, that the identification of ‘mahaajano’ can never be absolute or universal, and is always relative. In both cases thus, one’s individual judgment and conscience (‘Viveka-Buddhi’ in Sri Ramakrishna’s words), i.e. Yudhishthira’s ‘yathaa.prajnam’ becomes all important.
Apparently, Krishna’s ‘Svadharma’ is more liberal, having faith in one’s own self, and not dependant on what others - even Yudhishthira’s great men (mahaajana) - say. It is the responsibility of the Self to liberate the Self. In Gita he says –
‘uddharedaatmanaatmaanaM naatmaanamavasaadayet.h.
aatmaiva hyaatmano bandhuraatmaiva ripuraatmanaH -
One must elevate, not degrade, oneself by one's own "mind". The mind alone is one's friend as well as one's enemy. (Gita-6.05)
It is comparable to what Buddha says later in Dhammapada –
‘attaa hi attano naatho ko naatho paro siyaa
attanaa hi sudantena naathaM labhati dullabhaM –
One is one's own guardian. What other guardian could one have? With oneself well disciplined one obtains a rare guardian indeed. (160)’
Is Yudhishthira’s Dharma based entirely on imitation? Is it just a theory he follows?
Vashishtha Dharmashashtra defines ‘ziSTa’ as –
‘te ziSTaas^braahmaNaas^jJeyaas^zruti.pratyakSa.hetavas-
Those Brâhmanas……who are able to adduce proofs perceptible by the senses from the revealed texts, must be known to be Sishtas. (Va.6.43 )'
So, Yudhishthira follows those, who could translate their Dharma into ‘pratyakSa.hetavas’. But how could he really differentiate a true ‘ziSTa’ from a sham one?
When Yaksha asked, 'By what doth one become learned? - kena.svit.zrotriyo.bhavati’ Yudhishthira answered, 'It is by the (study of the) Srutis that a person becometh learned - zrutena.zrotriyo.bhavati’; and when Yaksha asks, 'What constituteth the divinity of the Brahmanas?- kim.braahmaNaanaam.devatvam’ Yudhishthira answered, ' svaadhyaaya;eSaam.devatvam’.
Now, Nilkantha notes ‘svaadhyaaya’ as study of the Vedas’. Most translators translate the sloka as ‘The study of the Vedas’ constitutes their divinity.’
Are ‘svaadhyaaya’ and ‘study of the Vedas’ the same thing?
Sva means “self” and adhyaya means “investigation, inquiry, or education.” ‘The study of sacred texts’ can only be a part of that self-enquiry.
Yudhishthira makes distinction between ‘learned’ and ‘Brahmana’. One studying Shruti can be ‘learned’ not a ‘Brahmana’. Again, all Brahmanas cannot be ‘devataa’, for that self-enquiry is necessary.
The Taittriya Upanishad (Chapter 1; Sikshaavalli Section 9), the meaning of ‘svaadhyaaya’ becomes clear, when with the refrain – ‘svaadhyaayapravachane cha’ is applied with wider and as diverse contexts as ‘Rta’, ‘Satya’, ‘Tapah’ and ‘prajaa’ (begetting children), ‘prajanashcha’ (procreation) and ‘Prajaatishcha’(raising grandchildren). The Rishis have an integrated vision that one can learn from everything and every activity of life.
Kautilya defines ‘vidyaan’ as an ‘aatmavattaa’ - ‘For from hearing (sutra) ensues knowledge; from knowledge steady application (yoga) is possible; and from application self-possession (atmavatta) is possible. This is what is meant by efficiency of learning (vidhyasamarthyam)-
- zrutaadd hi prajJaa^upajaayate prajJaayaa yogo yogaad aatmavattaa^iti vidyaanaaM saamarthyam (Arthashashtra-1.5.16)’
Yudhishthira admits, ‘Dharma depends upon delicate considerations, that is indicated by the conduct of those that are called good, that it is fraught with restraints (from numerous acts), and that its indications are also contained in the Vedas.’ He thinks, – ‘It seems to me, however, that I have a certain inward light in consequence of which I can discriminate between right and wrong by inferences (CE-12.252.1)’
The importance Yudhishthira ascribes to ‘anumaanatah’ brings Yudhishthira’s Dharma close to Krishna’s.
Yudhishthira is yet to learn that such absolute statement about oneself is the nourishment to life’s ironic drama, only aids the irony of life flourish!
It is clear, Yudhishthira has been searching with his ‘svaadhyaaya’; he is ever on the path – ‘maargayiSyaami.kevalam’ like Mudgala - all his life the meaning of Dharma.
The only ‘danger’ of Yudhishthira’s Dharma is that, unknowingly it creates a ‘mindset’ or ‘preconceived notion’; unawares, ‘tamah’ might creep in and look like ‘sattva’. Yudhishthira’s wrath on seeing Duryodhana in Svarga is the exposition of that mindset.