.
This paper is about how violence is discussed, debated, and experienced in the Mahabharata. Much of the Mahabharata is a meditation nonviolence, as the central event in the story is a massively destructive civil war in which 1,660,020,000 combatants are killed and only 8 people survive. While it is impossible for us to separate history from myth concerning the facts of the war, or whether the war ever actually happened sometime in India’s distant past, the Mahabharata, nonetheless, offers a thoroughgoing interrogation of violence, from a wide range of perspectives, as different characters contemplate the tragic costs of the war, the religious and philosophical explanations for how such a horrifying event could take place, the possible alternatives there might have been, whether violence can ever be avoided or is a core aspect of human nature, the implicit harm that is caused by seemingly peaceful practices, and a wide range of emotional responses to nviolence, including feelings of loss, grief, and remorse. In this paper I hope to highlight the many layers of perspectives through which the Mahabharata explores the problem of violence
One of the central themes of the Mahābhārata (Mbh) focuses on ahiṁsā (non-violence), and its relevance for kṣatriyas (warrior kings). An often quoted verse from the war epic is ahimso paro dharma (Non-violence is the supreme dharma) (Mbh 3.198.69). Yet, the story culminates in a devastating war, that is overseen by God himself. The epic presents various perspectives of ahiṁsā and hiṁsā (violence) which are articulated by different characters. In this paper, I explore how the Mahābhārata frames these diverse worldviews in conversation with one another with a special focus on how Yudhiṣṭhira dealt with the problem of violence that was ubiquitous in his life. I will show that despite the multivalent views in the Mbh on ahiṁsā, it is possible to extract a coherent understanding through its sequential narrative of Yudhiṣṭhira’s lifestory.
In key episodes of the Mahābhārata and well known verses of the Bhagavad-gītā, Kṛṣṇa offers an apparent criticism of grieving, often presenting "grief" as weakness, distraction, or pitfall, and chiding his interlocutors--and, ostensibly, devotees reading the texts--to rise above it. Taken at face value, these references might lead one to assume that Hinduism adopts a categorically anti-grief stance. But is this an accurate or complete understanding? In this paper, I seek to interrogate that assumption in three ways. First, I draw on theologies of pastoral care which position grief as a healthy and important, if not indispensable, part of the healing process. I seek to question whether the type of grief spoken of by these theologies is indeed the same as the śoka (शोक) being criticized in the Mahābhārata and Gītā, or whether something might be getting lost in translation. Second, I hope to reframe the Mahābhārata references as contextual, situational, and pedagogical-- part of a strategy that is carefully deployed to stir one out of complacency or lethargy when action is warranted.