Krishna versus Shiva

Mohan R. Limaye

2013

“Which Hindu deity do you prefer: Shiva or Krishna?” 

 I’ve been asked this question many a time by some of my friends and relatives.  Most of you will agree that it’s not a hypothetical or purely an academic issue: All over India there are temples dedicated to these two gods.  So it makes sense to ask and respond to such a question (even if one is an atheist or believes strictly in Brahman as the sole reality).

Though there are several reasons for my preference for Shiva, I’ll restrict myself to only a few of them (I’m aware that this argument/dialogue can be held on a more nuanced and complex level, but I want to keep it simple).

(Incidentally, this is not a research paper.  These are my personal views, preferences, and knee-jerk reactions.) 

Shiva, one has to confess, was (is?) a violent god; however, he had a sense of shame; he was capable of regretting his actions and felt genuine remorse for the cruel deeds he thoughtlessly committed during his fits of rage.  As one instance, he cut off the head of his son Ganesh/Ganapati, although without knowing that the boy was his son (Of course, we mortals would have inquired about the little boy who dared to bar our entry before taking any drastic action.  We don’t believe in “Shoot first and then ask questions”, do we?). 

What is even more important is that Shiv made ample amends for his cruelty: He stuck a cute baby elephant’s head on this boy.  Anybody who like me has had the good fortune of witnessing the cutest baby-Ganesh idols (muurtis) created by Indian artists will agree with me that Shiva perhaps made more than full reparations for his impetuous misdeed.  This was his way of apologizing for his cruelty.  To boot, in the bargain, he gave us a god of wisdom who also wards off obstacles.  What more do we want? 

Another example comes to mind: At one point, Shiva opened his third eye and reduced the god of love (Kaamadev) to ashes because his meditation and austerities (tapasyaa) were being disturbed by “Cupid’s mischief”.  Paradoxically, however, Shiva soon surrendered, a kind of apologizing, by falling passionately in love with Parvathi, also known as Uma and married her.  He thus indirectly sought forgiveness of Cupid.  The god of love continued to live on in a bodiless form (anunga) and, as we know, works his magic even today. 

As the myth goes, when the Primordial Ocean, being churned by gods and demons, put out a fiery poison (called “halaahal”) that had begun burning everything in sight, it was Shiva who stepped forth and volunteered to swallow it and held it in his throat in suspension, saving the universe.  Incidentally, it is reported that the poison has made his throat look black and blue earning him the epithet “neelakuntha.” This myth also proves that the traditional division of roles among the trinity – Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh/Shiva – is not watertight; the roles overlap.  Shiva thus sometimes is a protector, a savior, not always a destroyer.  

Also, not to forget, Shiv is a deity of dance and drama (nateshwar): Traditionally, he was invoked in a salutation (naandee) at the start of every (Sanskrit) play.  His epithet, “ardha-naari-nateshwar”=half man-half woman, attests to his Wholeness (unlike Krishna’s “Cowboy” personality).  

And, to crown it all, he gave us a son – Ganapati – in my view, the most adorable deity in the entire Hindu pantheon. 

Now, look at this other picture: We have a god – Krishna -- who is/was so arrogant that he never apologized for his misacts (Apparently, though, he took Gandhari’s curse with equanimity).  He killed whomever he pleased.  However, being very cunning and intelligent, he took care to first denounce them as sinful or wicked, and to demonize them.  As we know, this is the standard way any country acts that wants to go to war.  Similarly, like despots and emperors everywhere, he was the sole decider of who deserved punishment.   Mind you, Krishna combined in himself the functions of the accuser, the judge, and the executor (Sounds familiar?  I bet the US is a disciple of Krishna and takes inspiration from him).   

Here is one example: He’d promised that he would forgive one hundred crimes (“shumbhar apraadh potaat ghaaleen”in Marathi) of Jaraasundha –or, was it Shishupaal? --after which he would kill him.  Then Krishna decided by/for himself which ones of the deeds of Jaraasundha counted as crimes.  When they measured to one hundred in his estimate, Krishna killed him. 

His argument (in the Geeta) that only bodies will be killed in war and that souls are indestructible and, hence, there was no need to vex oneself would not have put me at ease, if I were Arjun.  The enemy (the Kauravs) could have made the same argument (and probably did) when engaging the Paandavas in battle. 

Krishna also had the audacity to brag that he incarnates himself in various epochs to rid the earth of wicked people, without ever a thought crossing his mind that he himself might be one of those “wicked” guys.  Such self-questionings, such introspection and such humility are meant for us mortals and for the reflective and meditative gods like Shiva. 

We need to create a new narrative, a non-conventional, non-standard critique, of Krishna.  I’m aware that some Hindus will be upset with me because of my sharp criticism of Krishna.  They will say I’m depending on “unauthorized” or non-canonical texts or that Krishna is too complex for my limited brain power. 

However, I’m convinced that what Krishna does, through his example, is to give his blessings, a license, to all selfish people to act (whichever way they want to) under the cloak of self-righteousness.  He allows himself and others – his followers or devotees -- to be the arbiters of justice and to absolve themselves of any moral responsibility and accountability for their (merciless) actions. 

I’d rather have a god that admits errors, is trusting, and even rather too simple (bhoLaa Saamb) than one totally pleased with himself and is somewhat untrustworthy (dhoorta, kaavebaaz and kuptee).    

“Tumhaa to Shankar sukhakar ho!” (Marathi)  

“Paatu wo Neelkanthaha”(Sanskrit)

May Shiva protect you (English)

Reactions and comments are very welcome and eagerly awaited.  

P.S.

(1) The second part will talk about Krishna’s admirable characteristics – like his name Mohan (I’m kidding) – and his total charm for the ladies (There never was a milk maid/gopee that didn’t love him).  He enchanted everybody by playing on his flute and by being everything to everybody, “a man for all seasons.”  He also has inspired throughout India a great deal of art, music and poetry over the last many centuries, vastly enriching India’s culture.  And we don’t want to lose that invaluable continuing heritage.   

(2) You may agree that such a dialogue/conversation (sumvaaD) is possible only among those who are polytheists – like the Hindus or, maybe, Buddhists but not among those who are monotheists (Jews, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, etc.) because – am I right? -- they are not allowed the freedom to postulate or even entertain the possibility of more than one deity (and the One they have, they can’t question or challenge or raise doubts about.  Remember what happened to the Archangel who dared to rebel -- Satan?).  The monotheists just have to live with that One.

I love such conversations.