The cultures of India and South Asia as a whole draw greatly from two great epics of Hindu tradition, Valmiki’s The Ramayana and Vyasa’s The Mahabharata. As Steven Weisman writes in the New York Times, “even the most impoverished and illiterate Indian villagers know [these] stories” and the works can simultaneously be considered both entertainment and education. In fact, he continues, “the popularity of the epics and the ability of people to tell the stories obliterate the Western impression that illiteracy is the equivalent of ignorance.”
The Ramayana revolves around a righteous prince who is exiled by his father, the king of Ayodhya. The Mahabharata, a work of a later era, tells of a conflict which develops into a war of massive proportion between the five sons of Pandu and their cousins, the Kauravas,. Each of these two works contains, at or near the center of their respective stories, an avatar of Vishnu, one of the three main Gods in the Hindu pantheon. The Ramayana contains Rama, the titular hero, and The Mahabharata contains Krishna, a mentor figure for the protagonists. Both Rama and Krishna are considered defenders of dharma and are born on Earth to defeat the forces of evil when victory would otherwise be impossible. Thus, each are revered in their own right from India to Indonesia. However, the two represent differing forms of ethics, as Rama’s deontological actions reflect the defense of dharma in every action while Krishna’s teleological actions reflect the defense of dharma as the end goal.
Before delving into a discussion of Rama’s and Krishna’s actions, a framework for comparison must first be established. For Rama, dharma is the basis of his actions. For Krishna, dharma is the end goal. Rama’s defense of dharma can best be associated with deontological ethics while Krishna’s defense of dharma can be considered teleological ethics. Deontological ethics can also be referred to as rule-based ethics and refers to a “perspective based on duty and obligation.” Actions are evaluated based on their “inherent rightness and wrongness rather than goodness or a primary consideration of consequences.” Some actions are considered morally obligatory, regardless of the results that they produce. Conversely, teleological or consequentialist ethics weighs the outcomes of an action more heavily than the quality of the actual action. This describes a “perspective that the rightness or wrongness of actions is based solely on the goodness or badness of their consequences.” The common phrase “the ends justify the means” concisely sums up the ideas of teleological ethics.
The differing approaches that Krishna and Rama take with regards to ethics can be seen as the reflection of the respective ages in which The Ramayana and The Mahabharata take place as dharma and time are intertwined entities. As Professor Goldman noted in lecture, time in Hindu tradition is split into cycles, each of which has four eras or yugas: Satya Yuga, Treta Yuga, Dvapara Yuga, and Kali Yuga. Author and photographer Priya Hemenway writes that dharma has four pillars and is frequently represented as a bull with a leg for each of the pillars. After each yuga, the bull loses a leg as moral and spiritual deterioration takes place. The Ramayana, the earlier work, takes place in the Treta Yuga while The Mahabharata takes place in the Dvapara Yuga. Thus, the Dvapara Yuga is a more morally degenerate age as compared to the preceding Treta Yuga, which affects the manners in which Rama and Krishna act. There are several possible reasons that the moral conditions of the era surrounding these two avatars could affect the actions that they take. For one, the fact that the environment and its characters are more morally corrupt can justify more adharmic actions for the end goal of dharma. It is not necessarily possible for Krishna to have purely dharmic actions when dharma as a concept is being threatened. On the other hand, as Rama is living in an age with a higher level of morality, dharma as a whole is not as much in danger, so each individual action that he takes has more weight. On another note, one can say that the degree of moral degeneracy of the era affects even the morality of divine beings, especially when they are on Earth.
Rama has several different dharmas that he has to uphold throughout The Ramayana. He has to act properly as a son, a husband, a warrior, and a ruler. Rama frequently casts aside his own personal gain to act in accordance to dharma. One such example is when Dasaratha exiles Rama at the behest of his wife Kaikeyi. Rama’s father, king Dasaratha, had three wives, Kausalya, Rama’s mother, Kaikeyi, and Sumitra. During a fierce battle, Kaikeyi, acting as Dasaratha’s charioteer, saves Dasaratha and nurses him back to health. As a result, he gives her two boons, but she chooses to ask for these boons later. When Rama is about to ascend to the throne, Kaikeyi decides to use her boons after the manipulation of her maid, Manthara, to help her son Bharata rise to the throne instead. The two boons are to put Bharata on the throne and send Rama into exile. Despite the heartache of sending his eldest son away, Dasaratha fulfills his dharma as a husband and forces Rama to leave, which Rama does with no question and no resistance. Additionally, Rama continues to respect Kaikeyi, despite her boons being the direct cause of his exile. Sumitra, explains in The Ramayana with regards to the situation, “It’s a universal principle among good people that the younger should be subject to the will of the elder…” It would have been against dharma for Rama to behave out of line with the requests set forth by his elders or question their judgment in anyway. Even though Rama’s departure ultimately leads to the death of his father, he upholds his duty as a son.
Rama’s dharmic behavior continues throughout his time in exile. When Bharata comes to Rama, appealing to him to return and reclaim the throne, Rama refuses, explaining in The Ramayana, “Please show regard for the duties of kings, which are in line with our family tradition…and accede to your mother’s and my entreaty.” Despite the fact that the kingdom would be in better condition under his command, Rama thinks it is necessary to continue to honor his father’s dharma, as the husband of Kaikeyi, and his own dharma, as a son. His conduct is deontological, with his obligation and dharma as the priorities rather than the outcomes of this behavior.
Rama also continues to fulfill his dharma as a warrior and a prince during his time in exile, even though he is supposed to take on the role of a mendicant. In fact, Sita, Rama’s wife, says, “Only because I love and respect you am I reminding you—not teaching you—that on no account should you take up your bow and, unprovoked, turn your thoughts to killing the rakshasas of Dandaka.” In response, Rama asserts that it is his duty to protect the sages at the Dandaka forest and keep the promise he made to them after they complained about the rakshasas. Despite the obvious risks and the reservations of his wife, Rama seeks to keep the promise of protection made to the sages and his dharma as a Kshatriya and a prince. Instead of thinking about the consequences of his actions, Rama focuses on the continuous fulfillment of his dharma.
Rama also fulfill his dharma as a husband after Ravana, a demon king, abducts Sita. This happens after Rama and Lakshmana reject and maim Surpanakha, Ravana’s sister. To lure Rama and Lakshmana away, Ravana’s uncle Maricha takes on the form of a golden deer. The deer intrigues and excited Sita, who sends Rama and Lakshmana to catch the deer. With Rama and Lakshmana away, Ravana takes on the form of a beggar, tricks Sita into leaving the safety of the hut, and abducts her. Rama is eventually able to defeat Ravana and rescue Sita, fulfilling his dharma as a husband to protect his wife. After reuniting with Sita, he explains that he saved her to defend the name of his family and defend his own honor as a husband. This explanation is despite Rama’s deep expressions to Lakshmana of his love for Sita such as, “With my separation from her as the coals and my thoughts of her as the shimmering flames, the fire of my love consumes my body day and night!” Instead of showing his true feelings and happiness as a husband, Rama chooses to act in accordance with dharmic tradition and not express his love. He continually to act deontologically, making sure every action he takes is dharmic.
Moreover, one can see Rama as an upholder of dharma as a concept in his defeat of Ravana. Rama’s conflict with Ravana, which at surface level is over the abduction of Sita, is actually the result of Ravana’s disruption of the cosmic balance. Ravana, emboldened by his blessings from Brahma, “persecutes the god themselves…persecutes the humans and terrorizes nature.” Ravana’s ultimate defeat secures two goals, the rescue of Sita and the restoration of dharma, which was the reason for Vishnu’s incarnation on Earth as Rama. While this restoration of dharma seems to reflect a more outcome-based source of ethics, the consequences of Rama’s actions are not necessarily intended. Unlike Krishna, Rama is not fully aware of his divine identity and does not immediately know the reason for his manifestation on Earth. Thus, the actions that Rama to defeat Ravana takes cannot truly be seen as representative of teleological ethics, especially since Rama acts dharmically throughout.
Some may argue that Rama’s actions toward the end of The Ramayana with respect to Sita are not reflective of deontological ethics. These actions have disturbed many Hindus for centuries and many choose to ignore them, as they seem to disprove and act in contrast to Rama’s common depiction and consideration as an ideal being in every regard. On three separate occasions, Rama disrespects Sita. First, Rama puts Sita through an agni parīksha in which, in order to prove her faithfulness to Rama during her time trapped by Ravana, she is required to throw herself into a blazing fire. The second time is when Rama, because rumors about Sita’s chastity are spreading among the kingdom, decides to banish a pregnant Sita from the kingdom, even though he knows that she has done nothing adharmic. The final time is after Sita has lived for years in the forest and Rama asks her to perform another agni parīksha before coming back with him to Ayodhya. While these actions may be seen as morally indefensible, especially when we look at the work from a modern lens, they in fact provide a greater support to the idea that Rama’s actions are guided by deontological ethics. Rama’s duties to his kingdom supersede all his other duties, including those as a husband, because as a king, the greatest number of people are affected by his actions. He cannot allow there to be any rumors or doubts from the populace to affect his ability to rule. Thus, Rama questions Sita’s chastity several times in order to act in accordance to his dharma or duty as a king, not his dharma as a husband. Rama’s actions are best classified as deontological as he is more concerned with his daily duties than the consequences of his actions, especially with regards to his treatment of Sita.
Krishna, unlike Rama in The Ramayana, is not the protagonist of The Mahabharata. Krishna acts more in an advisory or supervisory role in The Mahabharata, shifting the playing field as necessary to help the Pandavas achieve victory, and in turn, protect dharma. Krishna, unlike Rama, is far more aware of his divine nature, and as a result his actions are far more teleological and consequentialist, with the big picture of dharma in mind, regarding the totality of cosmic order, rather than the righteousness and minutia of every action.
At the time of The Mahabharata, demons had reincarnated themselves as the Kauravas, leading to cosmic imbalance. As a result, some actions had to be taken, regardless of how adharmic they were, to help win the war. In the pursuit of dharma, the Pandavas frequently act adharmically with the authorization and encouragement of Krishna. One such example is the killing of Drona. Drona, the military master and guru to both the Pandavas and Kauravas, could not be killed unless he gave up arms voluntarily. This would only happen with the loss of his son Asvatthama. As a result, Krishna concocted a plan to kill an elephant with the same name and convince Drona that his son was dead. The plan worked and Drona, in grief over the loss of his son, lays down his arms, leaving him vulnerable to attack and is soon killed.
Another example of Krishna acting adharmically is his interference in the battle between Karna and Arjuna. Karna, the secret elder brother of the Pandavas who was fighting on the Kaurava side, and Arjuna, one of the five Pandava brothers, were equally matched in skill. Due to a curse, which he received from a Brahmin after accidentally a killing cow, Karna’s chariot wheel becomes trapped in the mud and Karna becomes vulnerable to Arjuna’s attack. Karna gets down to free his chariot wheel and according to the rules of war, the fight is supposed to pause. However, Krishna, who recognizes that this may be Arjuna’s only opportunity to kill Karna, encourages Arjuna to forsake dharma and the rules of war. Consequently, Arjuna attacks Karna and eventually, as the several curses Karna has been given begin to work in unison, Arjuna is able to kill Karna.
These Pandava crimes were so egregious that “voices from heaven confirmed that the Pandavas…killed Bhisma, Karna, and others by adharmic means.” Krishna defends these actions, arguing “If I had not adopted such deceitful ways in battle, victory would never have been yours… The gods themselves, in slaying the [demons], have trod the same way.” While both Karna and Drona act dharmically throughout The Mahabharata, ultimately, for the greater good of society, the Pandavas needed means by which they could kill them, even if it meant a subversion of the rules of war. Krishna, in his justification, is using the outcome to justify the manner in which it was achieved and is therefore operating under a teleological brand of ethics.
Some may argue that Krishna’s moral viewpoint is actually deontological, looking specifically at The Bhagavad Gita, the most famous part of The Mahabharata. In The Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna is conflicted as whether he should fight as he sees his relatives and mentors on the other side of the battlefield and is worried about the consequences of fighting. Arjuna can either act in accordance to his dharma as a warrior and fight or look at the consequences of fighting and choose not to fight, which seems, at first sight, to be an internal conflict between deontological and teleological ethics. Thus, when Krishna advocates that Arjuna fights without preoccupying himself with the consequences of his actions, it seems to show Krishna’s defense of deontological ethics. However, while Krishna may advocate for others to act in accordance to dharma, he certainly does not act dharmically at all times. Throughout the rest of The Mahabharata, as stated earlier, Krishna frequently subverts dharma to help the Pandavas. Krishna can be seen as a figure who sacrifices his own dharma to “maximize the dharmic behavior of others.” Thus, Krishna acts adharmically to help the Pandavas win the war, and thus protect dharma itself. If the Pandavas lost the war, then adharma would proliferate in the world. Moreover, Arjuna’s consideration of the consequences of his actions was flawed as he, unlike Krishna, is unable to see the total degradation of the social order that would happen as a result of a Kaurava victory. While the outcome of the war would be bad regardless of the victor, the aftermath of a Kaurava victory would be far worse than the aftermath of a Pandava victory. Thus, Krishna’s advice to Arjuna, while wrapped in a deontological framework, is actually aligned with the possible consequences of the war. Therefore, Krishna’s actions can be regarded as teleological as they have the end goal of protecting dharma in mind.
Rama and Krishna, over the course of their respective epics, The Ramayana and The Mahabharata, defend dharma in many different ways, but take two different approaches. Rama, the deontologist, behaves dharmically throughout, while Krishna, the teleologist, defends the end goal of dharma through some adharmic action. Each of these avatars of Vishnu are greatly venerated and many Hindus, regardless of background, around the world look to them as guides to moral behavior. For one, Rama deals with personal and internal ethics, while Krishna deals with ethics on the external level. Additionally, Rama represents dharmic behavior on a day-to-day basis while Krishna represents the defense of dharma in more complicated situations. Lastly, devotees can see Rama as the ideal while Krishna represents the realistic, in which sometimes adharmic conduct is necessary for the greater and eventual good. While these two figures seem to represent opposing perspectives, they should be considered two parts of a complete perspective. The ethics of Rama and Krishna together reveal frameworks for action that people can follow in a variety of different situations and environments.