Impressions of Mahabharata and Ramayana
Like many people in the world I have been fascinated by Krishna avatar more that the Rama avatar. Krishna has always been a mysterious character, what you want to see is what you get. He can be likened to matter’s dual nature, sometime wave, sometime particle. Changing its nature based on what the observer wants to see. Rama, on the other hand is quite plain.
Similar comparisons can be made between Mahabharata and Ramayana. Ramayana over emphasises the Divine nature of Rama, as opposed to his human nature. Rama, Lakshmana, Sita, Ravana , Vibhishan etc…, were very black and white characters. Rama’s divinity overshadows their stories. Mahabharata on the other hand highlights the human nature, their frailties, their weaknesses, strengths etc… And under emphasises the divine character of Krishna, except in the episode of Geetopadesh. Compared to Krishna, Rama is very boring, too righteous, and too good, he can never do any wrong. Rama is like Superman, politically correct, always the good student, first bencher, a good citizen of the country etc… Krishna can be likened to Batman, The city of Gotham is often unsure of whether he is the good guy or the bad guy; Batman is ready to be cast in a bad way to achieve a greater good.
I have heard many people talk about how they are more interested in Mahabharata because they can identify with it and with the characters in the epic. Doesn’t every family (extended) have shades of Duryodhan, Yudhishtir, Bheeshma etc…? They say Ramayana is too idealistic, Ram is Purushottam and he can do no wrong. Rama is a character very difficult to find in real life. Ramayana showcases Rama as if he is following a script (the Purushottam script) never does he assert himself; he seems to be playing by the book, following the rules laid out by someone in the past, by the Rishis and Munis. Krishna is charismatic, sometimes soft, sometimes firm. Krishna is almost dictatorial when he gives us the Bhagwath Geeta. “I am laying down the law of Dharma. This is how things are. And this is how the world works”. He is assertive. His statements cannot be questioned, they can only be interpreted. When all means of preventing the war are over, he proclaims “let there be dharma yudha”. Mahabharata encompasses the Bhagvat Geeta, the divine discourse and mother of all discourses. It is almost as if Krishna was writing down the law in a land where people had forgotten it.
Ramayan is utopian, the quest for a righteous world, the Ram Rajya. Mahabharata is pragmatic, What? it asks, will work in the given situation? Ramayana embraces the Truth, Mahabharata espouses Law. Truth is subjective; my truth can be different from yours. Law is objective; the same Law applies to you and me. It is Dharma Yuddh not Satya Yuddh.
I come from the land of Bollywood. How can I not love the masala filled life of Krishna. The cruel uncle… The separation from parents at birth … stealing of butter and other raas leelas …, much later …, the heroic kidnapping of Rukmini from an un-wanted marriage at her request…, his eight principal wives and total of 16,108 wives, brother like friendship and adventures with the Pandavas…, the war of kurukshetra and the Bhagavat Geeta… and finally, do not forget the sacrifices that Krishna made, he lost everything, people he revered, his whole Yadava community, he dies alone, bleeding to death and is cremated by Arjuna.
….is cremated by Arjuna”. Really? I thought it was Uddhava who did the honors. But, what a mouth-watering post. I am unfortunately tied up at work but am waiting to come back to post my thoughts. In essence, for me – the charm of Krishna has faded in parts before the simplicity of Rama. But, a bit like choosing between vanilla and strawberry. Both have a role, both have controversies (ok, Krishna more so) and both have their legions of fans. The last word, though – loved this post!
Great post Ajay. Your analysis is very true. As rightly said, Krishna’s role is very facinating. He truely enamours you, capivates you. He can be hailed as the greatest politicians who understand what the other guys wants and acts accordingly. He knows the inherant evil nature of Kauravas and does not allow anyone of take advantage of him, yet protects the righteous. He is also a very controversial character and uses guile when it suits him, very mischievious and does not mind flirting with other women.
You may be interested in the latest book written by Gurcharan Das titled, “The difficulty of Being Good” which analyses each of the complex characters of the Mahabharata in line with the subtle knack of “Dharma”.
@Ajay Nice Anlysis. I love Krishna too, may be for same reasons but I was (am) never clear why. But in my opinion, both had their own roles, depending on the Yuga Dharma. We find that we can relate more to Mahabharatha because it happened more recently during dwapara yuga and is much more like current kali yuga. As you rightly said that is why we are able to see Duryodhan and Dharamaraj in the same family if not in same person. We are not able to relate to Rama’s age because it was too far removed, more like a generation gap, here it is gap of two yugas. 🙂
Rama had to set example, a very subtle way of changing socila values and setting standards. Those kings who enjoyed polygamy before now had social pressure to be like Rama. Those kings who usurped power from one another had to ‘check’ their greediness because people expect them to be like one ideal they saw – Rama. Because people were easy to be influenced by ideals, that was Threta Yuga.
But in Dwapara, people needed dictatorship, they need God to tell them what to do. They need ‘consequences’ like death to be written all over before they turned towards goodness. Imagine the number of deaths in Kurukshethra.
And yet none of this is sufficient in this yuga. You and I may be influenced by Krishna, bhagavat and Mahabarat. But try these ideals on corrupt politicians. Try scaring them with Krishna figure. It just does not work. We have gone one step ahead in Adharma or as they say Dharma has lost one more foot. Today, we need a change from within a lot more difficult exersize than what Krishna and Rama accomplished.
Dear Sri Ajay ,SAIRAM.It was very nice reading your post.
I fully concur with Sri BVS Prathap’s views.
If you look at Shirdi Sai and Sathya Sai , SWAMI has said that in the Shirdi Sai Avatar ,SWAMI was like a mother who was busy in the kitchen cooking for HER beloved Children( Us). Any interruption during that time by HER Children will not be tolerated by the Divine Mother at that point of Time. But the Same Mother will serve the food to her children very lovingly later. That is what we are enjoying from our DIVINE MOTHER SATHYA SAI ,now.
I am unable to imagine how the role of PREMA SAI is going to be cast by SWAMI.
SAIRAM.
Sairam. I recollect Swami talking about Rama and Krishna. HE said:” Do what Rama did and do what Krishna said”.
Sairam. This is a fact pointed out by Prof. Anil Kumar Garu. He said, “When Swami talks about Lord Rama, HE address Rama as Ramulu. Whereas, HE address Krishna as Krishnudu. HE has a soft corner for Rama”. If we recall HIS Discourses, most of the time HE talks about Lord Rama and not Lord Krishna. I guess, Swami wants us to follow Lord Rama as an ideal while also following the teachings of Lord Krishna.
My take on this is that Swamy talks often about Rama because Krishna is a very misunderstood character. Rama on the other hand is non ambiguous and there is very little chance of misunderstanding Swamy when he mentions Rama. Please note the at no point of time can you say that Krishna went against Dharma and also remember that he was a full Avatar. It’s just that Krishna is so much more colourful.
@Arun I heard swami talk more of Gopis and Krishna. Now dont ask me how can I say more. Since I like krishna, it is possible that I remember more about these stories than those of Rama 🙂
@Ajay Absolutely fantastic comparison!
@Arun I was told by one of our senior brothers, Bhargav that Swami had said once that we need address Rama as Ramudu and not Ramavaru or anything of that sort! But, somehow like you all have said, Rama’s name brings reverence in our hearts, whereas Krishna’s name brings joy!
Nice post Bro . .
but if you look at Ramayana and Bhagawata (That talks about Krishnavatara more than Bharatha), both Rama and Krishna show only one trait: Sharanyathwa . . . they go to any extremes to save their sharanagathas!!! Neither of them is an exception to this . . .
Think about this: Rama went behind and killed Vali (and tried His best to justify this act) just because Sugriva fell at Rama’s feet and pleaded to save him . . . that Rama was prepared to take any amount of arguments and debates around this act simply proved that though Rama wanted to be just and correct, HE did not mind being called unjust if such an act would save his Bhaktha . . .
Even during the time when Rama prays to Samudra Raaja for building a bridge and the king of ocean does not oblige, Rama immediately takes His bow and wants to dry the entire ocean. The moment the ocean pleads for His mercy, HE changes the direction and shoots it North Westward instead of South eastward . . . Since Rama’s arrow has to leave His bow, He changes the direction . . .
So even Lord Rama did not actually see to what is right in “others'” purview when it came to protecting His people . . . or His devotees . . .this was a fact well demonstrated by Sugriva when he urged Rama to NOT ACCEPT Vibheeshana when he came after being chased away by Ravana . . . Sugriva knew well that Rama can destroy the world with a mere tip of his little finger but he also knew that Rama’s weakness was with people who fall at His feet . . .
So in this regard, I am not seeing much of a difference between Rama and Krishna (of course, Krishna avatara was more towards this as He was born as God Himself, while Rama had to restrict His divinity due to Ravana’s boon) . . .
As Swami rightly says, Follow Rama – Listen to Krishna . . . Rama did what was right . . .What Krishna did was right!!!
Also, Krishna couldnt have given us Geeta without Him actually practicing . . so He practiced during Ramavathara and preached during Krishna avathara . . . .
But have we ever thought about all the common similarites of all avatars???
@Brother Rajamani. Beautiful line: Rama did what was right . . .What Krishna did was right!!!
I am reminded of some instances from Ramayana that Swami has mentioned: When Vibheeshana came and sought the sharanam of Rama, HE readily agreed. Lord Rama said,”Once somebody has offered themselves to me, i shall protect them from any adversity”. Lord Rama even conferred the title of King of Lanka on Vibheeshana.
Somebody asked Lord Rama. ‘What if Ravana comes and seeks your Sharanam? Will you accept it? Then, having given away Lanka to Vibheeshana, what would you give Ravana?”
Lord Rama replied, “If Ravana surrenders to me, i shall accept and protect him as well. If he comes, then i shall make him the King of Ayodhya”.
Truly amazing.
Killing Vali while staying hidden has been a controversial act for the Lord. But, the boon granted to Vali was that if anyone challenges him and faces him in battle then the challenger would be drained of his energy. This fact was know to Lord Rama. I recollect Swami mentioning this. Moreover, Vali had forced Sugreeva’s wife to become his wife. This was unforgivable for Lord Rama.
Regarding Sharanagati, i recollect an incident from Parthi. It was after a drama on the Pandavas staged by one of the Sri Sathya Sai student groups. In the scene where Draupadi is about to be disrobed, she clings on to her Saree while calling out to Lord Krishna. After a while, she lets go of her saree and keeps repeating Lord Krishna’s name. Swami said, “The moment she let go of her saree, she had surrendered to Lord Krishna. HE immediately responded to her prayers.
I remember when I was in college, we had a 2 credit paper called ‘Awareness’, In the first year, second semester this paper was taught by Prof (of Philosophy) Kuppuswamy, In one of his lectures he spent a considerable amount of time on the Rama-Sugreeva-Vali incident. His explanation was the following…
Rama is the prince of Ayodhya and a khsatriya, Vali is a vanar in a Forrest who is creating disturbance in the Forrest and threatening the peace in the Forrest. A Prince is allowed to hunt down an animal that is creating this disturbance. Now, according to the rules of a hunt the hunter is allowed any means he/she deems necessary to bring the hunt to a conclusion. Considering these things in mind there is no controversy.
I have not been able to do justice to Professor Kuppuswamy’s lecture because it has been 19 years, but he presented his case in defence of Rama like he was addressing a Supreme court Judge. If you had been there you would have (as indeed I was) walked out of the class spellbound. I wonder if anyone from the batch that started graduation in the year 1991 (Parthi) remembers this.
Another comment talks about Krishna protecting Draupadi as soon as Draupadi lets go of her sari, I feel that is a more symbolic, figurative and pictorial in nature.
@Ajay, U have a wonderful memory to remember what Kuppuswamy sir discussed in class to date..
Ajay, wonderful post. Simply loved it…. others have eloquently expressed their appreciation, and I join them.
But as is my wont, I’ll pick some bal-ki-khaal.
You say, “Krishna has always been a mysterious character, what you want to see is what you get.”
Shouldn’t it be Rama, who is WYSIWYG? Krishna is quite the opposite “Love my uncertainty”.
Later you say, “Ramayana embraces the Truth, Mahabharata espouses Law. Truth is subjective; my truth can be different from yours. Law is objective; the same Law applies to you and me. It is Dharma Yuddh not Satya Yuddh.”
Well, you’ve packed a LOT in those sentences. Let’s see.
1. I think you meant ‘dharma’ instead of ‘Law’, although (and I know you know) they are not equivalent. E.g., Krishna broke several Laws (and guided others to break the Law), but always espoused the Dharma! He could NOT have done otherwise.
2. Truth is subjective, agreed, but to say ‘my truth is different from your truth’ is not appropriate.
Here’s my understanding on Truth (Satya) and Dharma: Truth is common to all and there exists only ONE truth (and hence, subjective, not objective). IMHO, when we speak of ‘my truth being different from your truth’, we are no longer speaking of _the_ Truth (that Rama followed), but contextual truth or better known as ‘Fact’.
Again, IMHO, dharma transforms Truth into a law, when it narrows down the conditions of space-time continuum (i.e., Fact).
3. It is always “Dharma Yudh”, because in Truth, there is NO war.
PS: I’m not trying to be esoteric or bombastic, but am going out on a limb here… Like anyone else, I am equally curious to understand the subtle differences. So, any comment is welcome and criticism genuinely appreciated.
Wonderful post and comments. Tagore opined that traditionally (and wrongly) a lot of emphasis has been placed on the super-natural aspects of the two epics instead of the “moral parables” contained in them.
On Krishna being dictatorial in giving Gita : On the contrary, i think GIta was a good solid conversation between Arjuna and Krishna where Arjuna is given enough room to raise questions. Amartya Sen, in the introduction to his “Argumentative Indian” cites Gita as the prime example of the argumentative and democratic nature of Indian tradition. It is not a sermon on the mount but a Q & A session with enough respect given to the questions.
@ Yogi – On that note, a surprising factoid from Swami about the Gita dialogue: Apparently, they (Krishna and Arjuna) spoke in Pisachi, the language of the demons. They chose that because it is very fast, He said – a lot is said in little. Later Vyaasa expanded their short dialogue into the Gita as we know it. Interesting, huh?
Incredible post and discussion thread. Kudos to Ajay for bringing these subjects to the table. I agree that Swami is quite uncompromising in His celebration of the Rama Avatar – He speaks often of the “Rama Rajya” utopia, and holds Rama as a sterling example of Dharma – but in my interpretation, I don’t think He does so at the cost of diminishing Krishna. I recall a discourse where He clearly delineated the difference between the two Avatars, and suggested that attempting to compare them is futile, i.e, apples and oranges. Swami said that in Rama’s time, virtue was abundant and evil was concentrated, and so Rama could openly challenge Ravana – walk into his front door, as it were, to vanquish evil. In the Dwapar Yuga, evil was much more insidious and secretive, hidden behind deceit and tricks (Shakuni, etc.). So the Lord had to Himself be tricky to vanquish evil. Swami gave the example of how a cop cannot catch a robber from the main road, he has to himself descend into the alleyways and gutters to catch him. So Lord Krishna took on the “dirty work” of trickery and cunning and the gray areas in order to reset the dharmic balance.
Having said that, I am curious to hear whether the Philosophy Professor that Ajay mentions ever discussed how Rama “mistreated” Sita – what was the justification for that – for example, putting her to the various tests of fire, banishing her to the forest because of what the dhobi said to his wife, etc. Those decisions always struck me personally as more dubious than the killing of Vali, because Vali after all had committed sins, and Sita was of course totally blameless and pure. Thoughts?
About truth, there are really no simple answers here.
Hindus believe that the cow is a holy animal and they do not eat it.
People of other religions believe that the cows were provided by God to man as food.
What is the truth? Truth is subjective?
Truth is common to all? I wonder if we take the common understanding/belief in a code of conduct (which I believe to be the meaning of the word Dharma) like, help you fellow brothers; do unto what you want them to do unto you, etc… To be truths
The earth was spherical even before we discovered the fact. That the Earth is spherical, is a fact. Yet people believed it to be flat. Truth/Fact?
On a lighter note without taking away the importance of the discussion, I remember a line from “Indiana Jones and the Raider of the lost Ark”, professor Jones in his lecture says,
“Archaeology is a search for Facts, if you are looking for the truth; Professor XYZ’s philosophy class is down the hall.”
I have said “what you WANT to see is what you get”, the emphasis is on WHAT YOU WANT. (“Love my uncertainty” is a variation, to a certain extent) and not “what you see is what you get” as your rightly said about Rama.
Glad to get these comments, sometimes I sit in the office and post these comments, this is irresistible. Keep them coming.
Aniruddha, While I was writting this blog, there we many ideas running through my mind, I decided to follow up on those in subsequent blogs, one of them was about Rama banishing sita.
I wonder if you have seen the movei ‘Lajja’, in which a character played by Madhuri Dixit, who is acting in a Ramayana play, as sita, refuses to take the agni pariksha.
First of all this very topic of Agni Pareeksha is being misquoted and misrepresented in all media and movies . . .may be to create an excitement . . . and over the years, it has become something of a topic for debate . . .
Rama followed Manu Dharma . . ..very straight and no questions asked . . . And Manu Dharma for a king is very very strict . . . . Manu Dharma for a Brahmin was very very very very strict . . for Kings it was as strict . . for other kshatriyas it was slightly . . . slightly lenient . . . As someone who was Manu’s descendent., Rama could not override Manu Dharma.
For Rama the individual and Rama the king., the dharma varied.
So in 2 occasions where this agni pareeksha comes in Ramayana, Rama occupies two different roles.
1 – Rama the individual: After the war, Vibheeshana and Hanuman bring Sita to Rama. Before coming, they ask her to be decked in jewels and royal attire. Sita was reluctant but still she comes dressed beautifully. Rama, however on seeing her thus, was angry as the period of exile is not over and how could she cross the line of orders laid by King Dasaratha?? So he refuses to accept her and on hearing this, Sita becomes angry and hence she decides to jump into fire. Fire god comes and asks Rama to accept her (And according to Manu Dharma, fire is the symbol of purity and when we offer something to fire, however dirty it is, it becomes purified . . So Rama had to accept as when Agni Deva says, you cant deny) . . So in this case, Rama did not doubt her chastity but was unhappy that she broke the rule . . . as said earlier, those days, they guarded words more than their lives . . . So in this case, the agni pareeksha is misrepresented.
2) Rama the King: Rama the king had to prove that Sita was lean to his subjects. Again, as an individual he knew she was mother Goddess herself. But the situations that led to her ouster were not great. And Rama himself did not ask her to leave. She couldnt bear that Rama carried a bad news to her and she decided to leave. Rama did not stop her. INstead, he sent Lakshmana to accompany her. SO contrary to what is depicted in most medias, Uttara Kaanda in Valmiki Ramayana did nt say that Rama sent her to exile. Instead she decided to go and Rama sent Lakshmana to dop her whereever she wished to go . . again when she comes back, she comes with 2 children. The entire world knew that they were Rama’s children. But to Rama, he could not accept a wife without his subjects accepting her. The levels and standards of integrity in those days were so high ( we are living in the 2G age when lineage helps in everything) but back in those days, they all went by the rule book. Therefore Rama did not want to accept a wife, who had returned with 2 kids. For mortals, he had gone back on his stature as a husband, but for a king, he was just!!!
^^ Cotd . . . .
If you look at how Rama promised in front of fire god during wedding that he would not leave her, again, the conflict between Saamaanya Dharma and Visesha Dharma comes her . . . the higher dharma prevails . . . Rama as a king had to follow the Dharma of Rama the king and not Rama the householder . . .
But well , , we would have slightly different version in Swami’s Ramakatha Rasavahini which was not in Valmiki Ramayana in both the cases and I have heard Swami giving explanations in length, justifying agni pareeksha. Valmiki did not justify this coz there was no Agni Pareeksha in any case . . . SIta decided to commit suicide. . . . .
So if i were sounding as though “valmiki is correct Swami is wrong” . . . I am not!!!!
As I told earlier, VALMIKI WROTE WHATEVER WAS THE TRUTH . . . BUT WHATEVER SWAMI SAYS IS THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sairam. I am reminded of an incident which i heard of. Apparently this wisdom is shared from one vice chancellor to another and is related to the Ramayana.
Swami had narrated this to a vice chancellor. Apparently the question that was posed to Swami was whether the vice chancelor should bring to Swami’s notice each and every incident that the VC faces (or) should the VC use his own discrimination while reporting to Swami.
Swami in response narrated an incident from the Ramayana which only HE would know.
Bharatha used to go on secret missions around Ayodhya and report the happenings to Lord Rama. It was during one of these missions (with minister Sumanthra, if i recollect) that Bharatha witnessed the washerman beating up his wife for spending the night outside. It was during this time that the washerman expressed doubts on Mother Sita who spent many months in Lanka.
There was a deliberation between Bharatha and the minister as to whether this should be informed to Lord Rama. The minister said No, but Bharatha thought otherwise. What happened after that is well known to all.
————————–
While on the subject of Ramayana, i recollect Swami mentioning about Mother Sita:” She was wearing a Yellow Sari when she was abducted. Hanuman was informed about the colour of the Sari while on His endeavour to discover Mother Sita. He looked everywhere but could not locate Her. Finally, He spotted a Lady who from her body posture under the tree reminded Him of Mother Sita. She was sitting under the tree with Her head bent over Her knees. Wondering whether this
Lady was indeed Mother Sita, Hanuman sang the praise of Lord Rama. Why was this doubt? Because Sita’s Sari was Black and not Yellow. As She heard the name of Lord Rama, She raised Her head. At that moment, Hanuman saw the folds of Sari that was underneath Her head. It was Yellow !! Poor thing, she had sat for months in the same posture crying for Her Lord to come. In sitting so, she was covered in dust and therefore Her Yellow Sari had turned Black.
Lovely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Swami had narrated this incident from the Mahabharatha once.
Once there was a confrontation between the Pandavas and the Kauravas in the presence of Lord Krishna. In his anger, Duryodhana threw a challenge to fight. The challenge was addressed to “Ka-Ja-Ja”. None of the Pandavas understood what it meant. They remained quite and did not respond to Duryodhana’s challenge.
Then, Lord Krishna signalled through His eyes to Bheema to stand up and accept the challenge. Bheema, though confused, stood up as advised by Lord Krishna. When Duryodhana saw Bheema standing up and accepting the challenge, he quietly withdrew.
Later, the Pandavas posed the question to Lord Krishna as to the meaning of the term. Lord Krishna replied, “He challenged ‘Ka-Ja-Ja’. ‘Ka’ is Aakasha. ‘Ja’ is ‘born of’. Therefore, ‘Ka-Ja’ means ‘born of Aakasha – Vayu’. ‘Ka-Ja-Ja’ means ‘born of Vayu – therefore Bheema’ (Vayu Puthra). The Pandavas understood and prayed to Lord Krishna in gratitude for the enlightenment.
There are two words in Sanskrit with apparently same meaning: Ritam and Satyam. Here’s my understanding of the two.
Ritam is in the realm of eternal unchanging, while satyam is in the realm of ever changing.
English does not have an equivalent word for Ritam. Satyam is usually represented as Truth. To further confound the matter, Truth is used to represents BOTH Ritam and Satyam in translation of the Vedic texts. Slowly the concept of Ritam has almost vanished.
In one discourse, Swami corrects translator Prof. Anil Kumar to use the word ‘Fact’ instead of ‘Truth’ to explain something. Now I forget the context and the exact discourse. Since then, in my personal ‘full-loss-suffer’ moments I use ‘Fact’ where the situation is contextually determined (i.e., almost ALL activities in the sensory world) and ‘Truth’ when referring to Ritam.
Hope this explains my previous comment.
Also, I missed the subtle use of ‘WANT’ to refer to Krishna. Good one!!
Nice reading this piece and the comments. On Sita’s agnipareeksha, Ramakatha Rasavahini sheds more light. Before Ravana abducts Sita, she deposits her Divine Nature with Fire God and becomes another women who had in the past vowed to destroy Ravana. Hence actually the “Sita” that Ravana abducts is not the real Sita. In the agnipareeksha, apart from setting Utopian standards, the Fire God does a switch and returns the Divine Sita to Rama.
Saint Thyagaraaja’s take on this topic.. Thyagaraaja says that “HE acted according to the manner that was right for the TIME.”.. samayaniki taagu maataladene.. The best part is ‘bodhinchina sanmaargamula bonku chesi taa battina pattu saadhinchene’ which i interpret as,
“Having broke the good ways he preached, he got done what he intended to do.” enjoy the song here.. 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSd3QO2u7KI
Great notes Ajay! The little I have delved on these, have a contextual background of the yugas woven in. While Rama seems to be an example for people and times that are mostly are fair, Krishna is an example for people and times that were equally fair and unfair. Krishna is less utopian and more more pragmatic. More believable like the other characters in the Mahabharata. Krishna's efforts are at restoring Dharma rather than Rama's efforts at showing the supremacy of Dharma. A sign of decay that we can easily agree with when we see our current yuga!
Thanks for sharing.