Krishna Leela
If Rama followed the path of destiny, making choices rooted unwaveringly in Dharma, does that make Krishna wrong for taking a more strategic, even seemingly unfair, approach in the Mahabharata? Was Krishna justified in orchestrating the deaths of Drona, Jayadratha, Karna, and Bhishma through unconventional means? Was he, in fact, being a hypocrite about Dharma?
The difference lies in how each upheld Dharma in their respective yugas.
Rama lived by Dharma — he walked within its established boundaries. He was Dharma personified, choosing personal suffering over deviation from righteous conduct. But Krishna did not simply follow Dharma — he manifested it. He stood in a time when Dharma was fractured and had to be re-established. He wasn’t just a participant in destiny — he was its architect.
In the Ramayana, Rama lives in the background of a mostly Dharmic world. In contrast, the Mahabharata unfolds in a decaying moral order, where Krishna must create the very backdrop in which Dharma can survive.
The Mahabharata is not just Krishna's story — it is a story of a civilization on the brink. His role is not merely to abide by Dharma, but to ensure its continuity.
In the Udyoga Parva, during pre-war negotiations, Krishna meets Karna privately and reveals to him his true lineage — that he is Kunti’s son and the rightful eldest of the Pandavas. Krishna pleads with him to join the side of Dharma. But Karna replies:
"Viditam me Hrishikesa, yato dharmah tato jayah"
“I know, O Krishna, that victory always sides with Dharma.”
“Yet I cannot abandon my loyalty.”
Karna knowingly chooses loyalty over righteousness. He acknowledges the inevitability of defeat — because he stands with Adharma — yet stays with Duryodhana out of personal gratitude and friendship.
This is not a stand for or against Dharma, but a testament to Karna’s personal morality and Swadharma even if it meant standing against the cosmic order.
The same is true of Bhishma and Drona. They were bound by Swadharma — their personal or social duties — but not necessarily aligned with the larger Dharma, the universal order. In clinging to their vows and obligations, they upheld personal codes - their Swadharma - and rightly so. When the Swadharma of the mighty and righteous was not aligned to Dharma, Krishna and His deeds were essential to protect the greater good.
In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna reveals these very truths. His actions are better understood if we understand the layered meaning of these Slokas. He tells Arjuna:
“These warriors are already slain by Me.”
“You are but an instrument, O Arjuna.” (11.33)
He had also said -
“Whenever Dharma declines... I manifest Myself.”
(4.7–4.8 Sambhavami Yuge Yuge)
Also, Arjuna's description of the Viswaroopam (11.26-11.27) where he clearly sees all the Kaurava Maharathis being swallowed by Krishna's Viswaroopam.
This is not merely the Godhead offering comfort — it is the Jagadguru, the teacher of the world, revealing a metaphysical truth:
That destiny has already passed judgment in favor of Dharma, and Krishna’s role is to enforce it through human agents like Arjuna.
In this light, Krishna’s actions ( beautifully termed as Leela) — even those that appear questionable — are not contradictions of Dharma, but tools of Dharma’s restoration and continuity. He steps beyond moral binaries to rebuild the Dharmic fabric of a decadent world.
Rama is the ideal man, a realized soul who lived Dharma.
Krishna is the manifestation of the Supreme Consciousness itself, who reshaped destiny to ensure Dharmas continuity. And Dharma is needed so people can have a universal purpose to realize themselves as the Supreme Consciousness. Today we live to understand and appreciate Dharma because Krishna protected it!
Rama embodied Dharma; Krishna engineered it. Both stood by Dharma — but in different ways, for different times.
Comments