Buddha's Middle Way vs. Krishna's Nishkam Karma

Now first let me make something clear before you read this blog, it is not about Buddhism vs Hinduism or who is greater & holier, Buddha or Krishna? This blog entry is more about pacifism vs activism, escapism vs realism, withdrawal vs participation & duty vs desires, interested?

And if you have decided to read on, read if you have some rudimentary understanding of Vedanta & Buddhist teachings.

So let's ask ourselves is it wise to take an absolute standpoint at a very critical juncture in our lives? By absolute I mean Brahm point of view (or Shunyata point of view in Buddhism). For records, Brahm of Vedanta ≠ Buddhist Shunyata. However, Upanishads have had a very profound influence on Buddha's teachings & it is clearly apparent. Also Brahm is usually misspelt as Brahman & it is NOT a Hindu God or something!! God is an assumption of Abrahamic religions.

The world is not a Shangri-la or the city of San Angeles from the movie Demolition Man, the world has its share of good guys & bad guys, some have high IQ & some have lower. Every individual is born with different vaasana & sanskaar, we have to recognize this reality, no individual is perfect. This is where Vedanta scores a point over Buddhism in understanding this empirical reality that every individual is different from the other, & thoughts of everyone has to be recognized. The Buddhist approach is, looking at an empirical (Samsara) issue from a Utopian perspective. In Vedanta both the empirical reality (Maya) and the absolute reality have their place in respective contexts. Again Maya in Vedanta ≠ Buddhist Samsara.

Gautam Buddh no doubt was an ideal man who lived an exemplary life, but even he believed in one solution for all problems which in a practical world is just not possible. I mean I don't think Buddha would have ever agreed on use of violence but than isn't it too Utopian to think every terrorist, or an armed burglar or a psychopathic murderer can be persuaded to abandon their unlawful activities just like Angulimala? 

According to the Law of Dependent Origination (Pratītyasamutpāda), in order to end suffering, we must stop its causes. That is, when you don't have the desire (cause) there won't be any suffering (effect). But is desire the cause of every situation? Does every desire leads to suffering? 

Lets try to understand this by assuming a scenario, lets say we had a 'Buddha Gita', lets see what Gautam Buddha would have possibly advised Arjun in the Mahabharat war.

First, a brief introduction to The Bhagavad Gita. The Mahabharat is about the story of a war fought by the Kauravs and Paandavs over succession to the kingdom of Kurukshetra. The Bhagavad Gita is a conversation between Arjun and Krishna, his charioteer. The Gita begins with Arjun's reluctance to fight the battle before him. He even says he would much rather take a beggar's bowl than engage in any battle that will have dire consequences. So the Gita starts with defeatism and ends in victory.

Now Gautam Buddha's primary concern would be that war would only cause more dukkha to Arjun, so a war with Duryodhan was not an option (even otherwise war was never an option for an transcendental idealist like Buddha). Buddha would start by coaxing Arjun into giving up any desire for a kingdom in the first place. Desire is the root cause of sorrow. He would reaffirm Arjun's decision to put down weapons & give up everything he held. He would have possibly adviced him that there's no point in holding on to material benefits & killing so many people. Even you or any of your brother could get killed in this war. You won't gain much even if you win this war, "the real kingdom is within."
There's no fear for one whose mind is not filled with desires - The Buddha (verse 39, Dhammapada) Buddha would then try to convince Duryodhan as well about giving the Paandav bros. their share. But the question is why should Duryodhan agree with Buddha? So after several sessions of MRT (Moral Reconation Therapy®) & a 100 virtuous & inspirational Dhammapada verses, Buddha finally realised that this dope Duryodhan is not interested in Nirvana (since he had no dukkha) & won't budge from his position, Buddha now takes the path of least resistance & praises Arjun's decision to let Duryodhan have the kingdom. He tries to console Arjun with a warm pat on the shoulder & a litany of soothing talks, "Yes there's no need to stoop to his level. Don't worry, we will organize a support Arjun candle-light march or a signature campaign, we will flood social media with memes & hashtags, meanwhile you can sit on hunger-strike outside Duryodhan's palace. Don't forget you have TRUTH on your side, the gift of Truth conquers all gifts. The taste of Truth conquers all sweetness. The joy of Truth conquers all pleasures. The loss of desires conquers all sorrows, so renunciation is also not a bad idea, the path for renunciation is not for cowards like Duryodhan."

Woah! Arjun almost fainted with ecstasy. It appears Buddha allowed Duryodhan to dictate terms, so what? Buddha with his "Middle Way" averted a bloodshed. Now everyone is happy, Buddha is happy for having saved Arjun from loads of "dukkha", the peaceniks are happy the bloodshed is averted, the Nobel prize committee is happy to have their Peace prize winner, Duryodhan is happy coz now he can have the entire kingdom all to himself, & Arjuna ....erm, I'm sure is happy with his new Tibetan bhikshu bowl, a gift from Buddha.

Both Buddha & Arjun have completely ignored the consequences of allowing Duryodhan to have his way. Now who would stop greedy Duryodhan from committing more adharma? of course he now believes he has done nothing wrong and would continue to do whatever he wants, unchecked & unchallenged, in the future.

Now lets see how Krishna handled this ethically complex situation. Krishna's primary concern was dharma, so he on the other hand asked Arjun to fight with Duryodhan. Now that doesn't sound idealistic or noble-minded, does it? The liberal Cassandras would be even astonished at Krishna's antipathy towards political correctness. How could Krishna encourage anyone to fight against his own cousins? And more important what if Arjun gets killed in this war, his victory is not guaranteed. What will the Paandav brothers gain by dying or killing? Anyone who's so inclined to such drastic violence over something as petty as a "property dispute", knows s/he couldn't win the battle of ideas.

"Simmer down ladies", says Krishna affably, "it's more than a property rights issue, it's about stoppin Duryodhan from committing adharma. As a soldier, Arjun's first duty is to put himself in harm's way to protect dharma."

It is a far more practical & pragmatic advice anyone could have given to Arjun under those circumstances. What should of been Arjun's duty as a soldier? to fight or to give up everything, shave his head & become a monk? You have to accept the situation you are in & act accordingly, you just cannot run away from your duty.

Now, to fully comprehend what is Nishkam Karma we will have to first understand the unique Vedic concept of "Nimitta" (not to be confused with the Buddhist Nimitta). Nimitta in Vedic sense means an instrument in the entire Karmic design (collective Prarabdha). This means that Arjun found himself in this situation where he is at war with his cousins is actually a Karmic design & not because of Arjun's desire. So this was all predetermined? No! there's nothing predetermined in the Vedic process. The grand Karmic scheme of things I'm talking about is result of collective Karma of all those who were on the Kaurav side & not just the Paandav bros alone, so Arjun was wrongfully blaming himself & the rest of the Paandavs for this situation. 

So if Arjun or the rest of the Paandav bros are not solely responsible for the situation, or in other words, the Paandav bros were only half of the cause, how could by addressing just one half of the cause, can we expect the effect to cease entirely? The issue here is not Arjun's dukkha, but the larger issue here is Duryodhan & the Kaurav's adharma, so Arjun's withdrawal from the battlefield was no solution.

Of course Arjun had the free-will to walk away from this situation, but Krishna reminded him of his duty.

Lemme illustrate with an example, a police officer is entrusted with the task (as duty) to stop a bank robbery, so now the officer has confronted the robber, so who put the officer in this situation? the law enforcement system, nothing personal here. The police officer is just an instrument (nimitta-matram) of the entire law enforcement system. In the event, if the officer ends up shooting the robber he is not indicted for doing his duty. This would be considered the officer's Nishkam Karma.

Of course greedy people may try to pass the buck & try to get away by saying, "oh! I'm just nimitta-matram", but their karma will catch up with them, sooner or later.

Now should a cop not arrest or take fire at someone for holding up a bank just because the robber is his brother?

Both Gautam Buddha & Krishna had a contrasting approach towards the use of power. In international relations the concept of Power is often divided up into the concepts of hard power (coercive tactics) and soft power (diplomacy). Contemporary political scientists have synthesized soft and hard power & formed a 3rd concept called "Smart Power", which means combination of both hard power and soft power strategies. You can read more about Power in International Relations (IR) here: Hard, Soft, and Smart power But the concept of smart power has much earlier roots in the history of Vedic civilization as clear from Mahabharat to Chanakya's famous sutra "Saam, Daam, Dand, Bhed". So from the modern perspective, Gautam Buddha advocated soft power, where as Krishna advocated smart power. But could Gautam Buddha solve the issue by using the diplomatic channel & soft power alone? I guess not. The war in Mahabharat was the last recourse as anyone who has read the epic would know that an entire section, the Udyog Parva (The Book of Effort) of the epic Mahabharat describes the vigorous efforts of the Paandav brothers to avoid war. Even after the war, the longest section of the Mahabharat called the Shanti Parva (The Book of Peace) describes elaborate guidelines for the King to rule justly and thereby do everything possible to maintain peace. [Will non-violent resistance ever work against communism?] Bhagavad Gita is the first & finest example of Smart Power (Joseph Nye can take a hike) that does not generate a single strand of thought about war or peace, but competing ideas that metamorphose under different circumstances. No wonder The Bhagavad Gita has inspired both Gandhi & Julius Robert Oppenheimer (father of the atomic bomb). Just imagine if all the world armies were to give up their weapons & become monks than who would fight ISIS & Al-Qaida? Don't forget even ISIS & Al-Qaida etc. are equally resolute about their jihad & establishing a global Caliphate & no amount of diplomacy would persuade them to give up their jihad. Non-violence or soft power itself cannot succeed against those of Asuric (evil) temperament, a determined Kshatriya (warrior) spirit is necessary. Jihad has a long history in Islam & Muslim invaders from Saladin to Muhammad Bin Qasim to Mughals have all fought under its banner for centuries to establish a global caliphate. In a last-ditch effort to avoid bloodshed, Krishna as a peace messenger offers Duryodhan a proposal of giving at least 5 small villages (one each to the Paandav brothers) & Duryodhan in return can have the entire mighty kingdom of Hastinapur all to himself, but Duryodhan was too resolute on not giving the Paandav brothers even an inch of land. The Paandav brothers now were left with only two choices- either to turn away from the reality of the situation, give up everything, apply for asylum & stay as refugees elsewhere or face the reality & fight for their right.

Now if Krishna was trying to establish dharma why did he use deceit against the Kauravs? Each of the great Kaurav warrior was killed deceitfully, isn't it adharma? Well, from Greeks like Alexander "the great" & his father Philip II of Macedon to Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu all believed "deception is at the very heart of war." They all talked & made an excellent use of battlefield deception, so tis all fair in love & war I guess. Second thing is, Krishna in Mahabharat says: “What they are doing is adharma, what we are doing is also adharma, but we are doing it with an intention of establishing dharma. They are doing it with the intention of establishing adharma.” Of the many aspects of Krishna in Mahabharata, one of the most confusing is his use of deceit during the war.

Now anyone who thinks living life as a refugee is much better option than fighting (for your rights), than please tell me how many nights hippies like John Lennon has spent in a refugee camp? Google search (its free) life in refugee camps & Syrian refugee crisis & go through some of the articles your search returns with. Afghanistan was once a Buddhist majority region, but the Buddhists there couldn't defend themselves with non-violence (soft power) against the invading Muslim jihadis. Dalai Lama himself had to flee from his home in Tibet & seek refuge in India, he has even proposed "The Middle Way" approach for peaceful resolution of the Tibet issue but....... the Maoist China has shown him "The Middle Finger." Tibetan leader calls on China to end 'repressive policies' 

As the saying goes, "Speak softly and carry a big stick". If violence is not the solution for everything, non-violence is definitely not the solution for everything.

Before the final battle (Gada-Yudh) between Bheem & Duryodhan, Duryodhan himself said he would give away the Kingdom of Hastinapur to the Paandav brothers after fighting the final battle & winning it (which he eventually lost), since none of his brothers & friends were now alive to see him being crowned as the King. At last Duryodhan finally realised (but it was too late) that he had already paid a heavy price for his misdeeds.This is what the Mahabharat is all about, to raise the costs of Adharma for the likes of Duryodhans.

So what do we understand so far? in a sense, Nishkam Karma is, when it comes to upholding dharma or righteousness one should not be averse to take an extreme position, an extreme stand. The motif should be dharma & not a win-win. For Krishna it is clear, dharma is above sukkha & dukkha. If Buddha's Middle Path is the easier way out, Krishna's Nishkam Karma ensures you have taken the right way out.

Both Gautam Buddha & Krishna also had a contrasting approach towards the phenomenal world & the absolute reality. Gautam Buddha would probably ask Arjun to become a selfless bhikshu, where as Krishna asked Arjun to see himself as a selfless soldier at that juncture. You can renounce your desires but you cannot renounce your duty, your responsibility.

Krishna in Gita categorized renunciation into three types: Tamasic renunciation (out of ignorance), Rajasic renunciation (out of fear) & Sattvic renunciation (out of responsibility). By properly utilizing power, authority and incentives and by fulfilling leadership responsibilities without selfish desires, one can serve as a true and an effective leader. 

But in today's era in order to be usable in practice, any solution or approach should also have applications to everyday situations, isn't it? One of the most feared dukkha any individual has is the dukkha of losing. We always want to win, if we don't it causes us immense dukkha, so how can one benefit from Nishkam Karma here? The idea behind Nishkam Karma is, your only rightful concern should be participation & not the outcome. Favourable results should not be your motivation. A lot of people burden themselves with high expectations before taking up a task, but we forget that favourable results are not in our hands, but participation is. So participate & focus on your performance, give your best & (try to) remain indifferent towards whatever the outcome is (even if it is favourable), if you can't, accept any adverse outcome as your Karma.

Withdrawal, non-participation, non-performance, no effort means no results of any kind obviously. Poor performance likely will give poor results. But participation and concentrated and whole-hearted effort also doesn't translate into favourable results for instance, in the Olympic 100 mts. sprint final, all contestants make an equal effort & perform well, but only one walks away with the gold medal. Your past actions & decisions will also have a say here, meaning, the outcome will depend on your effort (purushaarth) plus your past karma (prarabdha), deal with it. 

In the ancient times, duties & responsibilities were fixed by the Varna system, in today's era we have courts to adjudicate legal disputes and to convict those guilty of crimes, we have police force to maintain social order. Any adharma has to be fought strictly through constitutional remedies and legal means. But a nation that doesn't feel the need to have an effective foreign policy and armed forces and thinks any conflict can be resolved through non-violence and fasting and self-immolation is bound to be doomed.