In a recent lecture from Shri Gaur Gopal Das ji, he refers to Bhima's aggression against Nārāyaṇāstra from Ashvatthama. He narrates thus:
Enraged with the unfair method of killing his father, Ashvatthama releases the Nārāyaṇāstra on the Pandava Army. There is no escape from that astra, other than bowing down to it. Krishna orders everyone to bow to it. Bhima does not, despite Arjuna cautioning him otherwise. Bhima declares that he will fight it. He shows his ego. He says 'I am not a coward like you folks, I am a Kshatriya'. Krishna hits Bhima and he falls down. The astra, which was heading towards him, retreats and goes back.
The speaker employed this incident to illustrate how we should pick our battles wisely. Bhima chose a wrong battle, as can be seen from Krishna's correction. One should know when to fight and when to bow down. However we often do the opposite. And the speaker suggests 'we turn the lights of wisdom on' in choosing our battles.
The moral of the story - one should be wise in picking one's battles - is an acceptable one in general. But using this event to drive that moral is flawed on many counts, as we will see further.
This event is narrated in the chapters towards the end of Drona Parva of Mahabharata (BORI Edn: 7.170, 171 chapters; TR Krishnacharya edn: 7.200, 201 chapters).
The gist is as follows:
Soon after Ashvatthama releases the Nārāyaṇāstra, it starts its destructive journey. Yudhishthira is depressed (जगाम परमं त्रासं धर्मपुत्रो युधिष्ठिरः), he suggests the allies (Dhrishtadyumna, Satyaki etc.) run away from the field, along with their armies and that he and his brothers will face death.
Krishna then instructs the Pandava army that they should discard their weapons and dismount from their vehicles, and that is the only yoga (upaaya: trick or solution) to save themselves from the astra. Bhima advises everyone including Arjuna not to discard their weapons and says he will fight the astra.
In Dakṣiṇātya pATha: southern rescension of Mahabharata, at this point, Arjuna says that it is his vow not to use Gāṇḍīva against Nārāyaṇāstra, cows, Brahamanas etc.भीम नारायणास्त्रे मे गोषु च ब्राह्मणेषु च । एतेषु गाण्डिवं न्यस्यमेतद्धि व्रतमुत्तमम्). Bhima then surges against Ashvatthama and starts showering arrows on him. Ashvatthama too retorts.
Given that other 'enemies' (of Ashvatthama) have withdrawn from fighting, the Nārāyaṇāstra attacks Bhima 'directly on his head' (तदस्त्रवीर्यं विपुलं भीममूर्धन्यथापतत्). Others are devastated seeing that. Arjuna releases vAruNAstra to quell the fires, but that has no significant impact as it only covers from outside, whereas Bhima, his chariot, charioteer and the horses are all engulfed in that fire emanated by the astra.
The similes to describe this fight are thrilling and, more importantly, instructive: It is like fire falling on fire: अग्नौ अग्निरिव न्यस्तः. Another one: The fires at the time of world-destruction destroy everything and enter the Lord's mouth (from where agni originally emanated), or the way fires enter the sun or sun enters the fire (सूर्यमग्निः प्रविष्टः स्याद्यथा चाग्निं दिवाकरः), the same way this astra collided with Bhima. The second example is Shri Vedavyasa's way of strongly hinting that the abhimaani of that astra is Vayu (Bhima) himself (while the devataa is Narayana himself).
The Dakṣiṇātya pATha tells that the collision between the astra and Bhima happened multiple times; every time he does humkaara (roar of an elephant), the astra separates from him and again attacks him, and separates again because of his humkaara : तदस्त्रं भीम-हुङ्कारादपयाति पुनःपुनः । पुनः पुनस्तं आयाति हुङ्कारात्तं विमुञ्चति). The Gods etc. watching this are amazed at Bhima.
Then Arjuna and Krishna run into Bhima's chariot. They are not harmed by the astra because Arjuna has already released the Vāruṇāstra (which is on the outer ring), because they are Nara-Narayana (Nara is shesha's amsha with Vayu's avesha), because they were themselves without any weapons.
Krishna tells Bhima that he too should withdraw from the fight, and forces Bhima and his weapons to the ground, down from the chariot. The astra retreats. Bhima gets up, as naturally, as the sun rises after the night (बभौ भीमो निशापाये धीमान्सूर्य इवोदितः).
We can now see the factual errors in the lecture: The speaker says (i) Arjuna cautions Bhima to withdraw and (ii) the astra which was heading towards Bhima retracted after he was put to ground by Krishna. On the other hand, Mahabharata says - Arjuna did not caution Bhima. Bhima 'fought' with the astra successfully; nothing happened to him. Bhima does not criticize others as cowards, nor does he declare his Kṣatriya-svabhāva in continuing the fight (though that was the reason).
Ethically too, there is an error:
As Krishna himself says in Gita (18.43), a Kshatriya's dharma is to not run away from a battle (युद्धे चाप्यपलायनम्). Seeking refuge under the enemy or enemy's weapon is equivalent to escaping from the battlefield, which is avoiding the enemy. By refusing to do so, Bhima was just following his Kshatriya dharma.
This was no one-time flash occurrence. He follows this even when Karna releases the unparalleled Bhārgavāstra the next day. There is no counter-weapon to Bhārgavāstra; the only possible solution for the opponents is to retreat from the battle. Every one, including Arjuna, does that (निवर्तय रथं कृष्ण जीवन्भद्राणि पश्यति - Please retract the chariot, Oh Krishna; after all, only when alive, there is a possibility of seeing some good out of this war). Arjuna uses that opportunity to check Yudhisthira’s well-being. On the other hand, only Bhima continues to fight, as is evident from the fact that he promises to fight shamsaptakas and all other enemies put together.
So running away from conflict or battle is not acceptable in general. Furthermore, for a Kshatriya. And furthermore, when in the battlefield. It is understandable if Kshatriyas devise other strategies (like marital alliances or military alliances) to seek peace. But when an unavoidable battle is on and when on the battle field, a Kshatriya should not run away with excuses like 'I will pick my battles wisely'. By his very birth, he has signed up for potential death in a battle. That's why the scriptures glorify such death (but only after the fullest fight one can offer) (हतो वा प्रप्यसि स्वर्गं), the destination of which is reached eventually by sannyasins after a lot of struggle. Even Duryodhana got to some svarga! But leaving the field by taking refuge under the enemy or the enemy's astra is a lapse in Kshatriya dharma. That's why Bhima advises his people including Arjuna not to discard their arms. As Shrimad Anandatirtha Bhagavatpadacharya puts it, स्वधर्महानौ मित्राणां कर्तव्यं यन्निषेधनम् । अतः सोऽन्यानपि प्राह मा गमध्वमिति स्वयम् (It is one's duty to stop friends from non-observance of sva-dharma; hence Bhima stopped others from lapses in their Kshatriya dharma). If that is the definition of friend, Bhima is the 'best friend' one can possess.
Greater good might justify such minor lapses - as Arjuna tells Krishna in the case of Bhargavaastra. But still, the lapse is a lapse. Even if the greater good is obtained, it does not count as perfect observance of dharma.
But aren't Bhima's words and actions (in case of Nārāyaṇāstra) a direct contradiction to Krishna's words? What use is Kshatriya dharma or any dharma if it contradicts the Supreme Being's words? After all, we vaidikas hold that our ethics and morals are not an end in themselves but are means to an end i.e. begetting the Supreme Being's grace. Truthfulness, compassion etc. are virtues because developing those gets Vishnu's grace. All right or wrong is determined, not by some imagined universal set of values, but by the sole criterion of utility: does the act get's Vishnu's grace? If yes, it is right. If not, it is wrong. Ofcourse, virtuous behavior without any mind on Vishnu's grace may get some plaudits or peace to oneself, but its final and maximum benefit is only obtained only with that Vaiṣhṇava mindset.
And Vishnu's words are the Highest dharma, even higher than what is told in scripture. Why, the same Bhima did not hesitate to declare Ashvatthama's death, just because Shri Krishna ordered him to do so. The same Bhima did not hesitate to marry prior to his elder brother, just because Shri Vedavyasa ordered him to do so. So why did Bhima say and act against Krishna's words in case of Nārāyaṇāstra?
This objection forgets that all scriptural commandments, such as that a Kshatriya must never retreat from a battle, have their source in Krishna. Not just in Gita, but in general, the stance is that all injunctions and prohibitions found in the shAstras are commandments of Bhagavan Hari (Śhrutismṛtī harerājñā). So the question now is: how do we reconcile these conflicting words of Krishna (or Vishnu or Narayana)? Should something like युद्धे चाप्यपलायनम् be more important than the command to discard all weapons and surrender to Nārāyaṇāstra?
To resolve that, let's look at Krishna's words carefully. When Yudhishthira exasperates seeing the effects of Nārāyaṇāstra, Krishna tells the only solution: येऽञ्जलिं कुर्वते वीर नमस्ति च विवाहनाः । तान्नैतदस्त्रं सङ्ग्रामे निहनिष्यति मानवान् | ये तु एतत् प्रतियोत्स्यन्ति मनसाऽपीह केचन । निहनिष्यति तान् सर्वान् रसातलगतानपि that whoever bows to it will be spared, and whoever fights it, even in their minds, will not be spared wherever they be. This solution is told to those who have the problem. That is, this is a command to a person who is in distress i.e. one who cannot fight Nārāyaṇāstra and is interested in staying alive. Scriptures specify such injunctions which are applicable only in times of distress. It is called Apad-dharma: dispensation in times of distress. Some relaxation to the original injunction is allowed. The scriptures specify Apad-dharma for a variety of acts and scenarios. For example, a Brahmana can indulge in a Kshatriya-occupation in times of distress. Or some substances, generally unacceptable for consumption, become acceptable in a medical condition.
This Apad-dharma has to be followed by those who consider themselves to be truly in Apat i.e. distress. The case of Ushasti Chakrayana from Chandogya Upanishat may be recollected. He accepts food, unfit for his consumption, to avoid starving to death. But immediately thereafter, he refuses unfit water from the same source because he is out of that emergency.
The Nārāyaṇāstra posed a critical threat to the Pandava army. Shri Krishna revealed the only available solution to alleviate that distress. This remedy was specifically aimed at those who were experiencing distress. Notably, Bhima remained unaffected by the distress and therefore opted not to adhere to the emergency measures (Apad-dharma). Conversely, those who were distressed resorted to following Apad-dharma and submitted to the power of the Nārāyaṇāstra.
But there is another question to be addressed. Before Krishna puts Bhima to the ground, he says the following: "किमिदं पाण्डुनन्दन । वार्यमाणोऽपि कौन्तेय यद्युधान्न निवर्तसे (What is this, O son of Pandu, that you do not withdraw from the war despite being asked to stop it)? If these Kauravas were to be won over by a fight, we - all of us including these kings - would have continued to fight. But all warriors have dismounted from their vehicles. You too should do the same".
The answer lies in the interpretation of 'वार्यमाणोऽपि'. But let's see the problems in this seemingly direct interpretation. In here, it appears that Krishna expected Bhima also to withdraw from fighting the astra. Yet, Bhima did not withdraw. Did Bhima not know Krishna's intentions? Or did he know but he intentionally violated Krishna's command, because he disagreed with Krishna's assessment that withdrawal is the best tactic? Whatever it is, it seems to portray a discord between Bhima and Krishna.
There is a bigger problem: did Krishna, the all-knowing Supreme Lord, not expect Bhima to successfully fight for so long? If he did expect, why would he stop Bhima from following his dharma? If he did not, how can He be Omniscient?
Further, why did Krishna keep quiet for so long? As soon as Krishna spelled the solution to the Astra, Bhima declared he would fight it. Why did Krishna wait for Bhima to take the astra head-on? He could have just told him immediately and specifically not to fight it.
Finally, it appears that the astra lacks strength. Why did it disappear almost immediately after Bhima was put down? Recollect Krishna's words - whoever fights it even in their head will be killed (ये तु एतत् प्रतियोत्स्यन्ति मनसाऽपीह). While all other warriors bowed to the astra, Bhima did not do that. He and his weapons were just put away from the chariot and to the ground. His appearance is described to be akin to a hissing angry snake. So why did the astra just vanish, as if it was desperate for a single moment of non-opposition?
The only way to resolve these questions is to accept the following:
Bhima, despite his angry look, ended his fight both mentally and physically, after Krishna asked him to do so and also put him to the ground. The Astra retreated only then. Therefore, it is not weak.
Bhima ended his fight only because Krishna told him specifically to do so.
It is not that Bhima learnt his lesson the hard way and receded. His condition after being subdued is likened to the effortless and natural rising of the sun at the dawn's break. This is one of the factors that prompts Duryodhana to request Ashvatthama for a repeat-use of the astra. Hardly a description of one realizing one's mistake!
The only plausible explanation for Bhima to end his fight is Krishna's specific instruction to Bhima - you too get down from your chariot तस्मात्त्वमपि कौन्तेय रथात्तूर्णमपाक्रम.
Krishna did not include Bhima in the first instance when he revealed the method to handle Narayanastra without loss of life. He gave a generic solution as applicable to anybody who considers this an emergency. He did not include Bhima when he suggested not fighting. He did expect Bhima to fight for that much time. This explains Krishna's inaction or lack of response to Bhima's response that he will fight with the astra.
So, if Krishna excluded Bhima from the set of people who were asked to abandon their weapons, what to make of his words that even Bhima was dissuaded - वार्यमाणोऽपि कौन्तेय? All of above problems appear if it were taken that Krishna dissuaded (वार्यमाण) Bhima. But there is an alternative: the वार्यमाणः line can be interpreted as 'अस्त्रेण वार्यमाणोऽपि' or ‘अन्यैः वार्यमाणोऽपि’. That is, Krishna's lines would be 'what is this, O Son of Pandu, that you don't withdraw from the fight despite the astra blocking you (or others asking you not to do so)? Rest of the passage fits with this interpretation too.
But then why did Krishna rush to Bhima’s chariot? After all, he seems to be doing fine. Krishna rushed to resolve the two highest forces in opposition: One is his own astra and the other is the invincible Bhimasena, the incarnation of the presiding deity of his own astra, Vayu.
So the conclusion is that Krishna's solution to Nārāyaṇāstra, i.e. to bow to it to avoid destruction is Apad-dharma. It applied to all, who considered themselves in distress, except Bhima. Bhima did not take recourse to Apad-dharma and is hence greater to those who took that recourse. Bhima fought the astra successfully till Krishna stopped him specifically from doing further. Krishna's words are the Highest dharma; hence Bhima withdrew from the fight later. In the case of Bhargavaastra - which has a similar solution, while everybody receded, Bhima continued his fight. When he offers Arjuna to take on his enemies too (while Arjuna and Krishna go to check on Yudhishthira), Krishna appreciates him saying - it is not all surprising given your capabilities (नैतच्चित्रं तव कर्माद्य भीम).
In challenging situations such as facing the Nārāyaṇāstra and Bhārgavāstra, upholding Dharma demands effort, time, and mental fortitude. In the Pandavas army, only Bhima consistently maintains his commitment to Dharma across all levels and at all times.
It is indeed nice to see popular speakers extract valuable morals from our itihāsa and purāṇas. But one has to be careful when it comes to Mahābhārata and particularly Bhīmasena. A thorough analysis, which is careful not to deny Krishna's omniscience or omnipotence, of Vedavyasa's Mahabharata will lead to the conclusion that the popular image of Bhima as a hungry, angry, strong man, who does not have his rage and other emotions in check, or as a person who is not given to wisdom and knowledge is plain wrong.
Shrīmad Anandatīrtha Bhagavatpādāchārya's Mahābhārata-Tatparyanirṇaya is very helpful in avoiding these pitfalls. He mentions many interesting points related to this incident, which helps some more pieces fit in:
If bowing down was the only option to handle Nārāyaṇāstra, why did Arjuna release Vāruṇāstra? Out of extreme affection for his elder brother, says Acharya.
Though the astra, which has the special presence of Narayana, is venerable, one should not bow down in the hope that it will spare his life. For, it was released by the enemy and hence Bhima did not bow down. Ofcourse, he showered, in his mind, respect on Narayana (again without a specific prayer that it should spare his life). But according to the Kshatriya dharma, he did not bow down physically.
For Nārāyaṇāstra, Narayana is the deva and Vayu is the presiding deity. That is, Vayu carries out the act as directed by Narayana. That explains the descriptions such as ‘fire entering fire’.
श्री मध्वेशकृष्णार्पणमस्तु