Devdutt patnaik’s nonsense –“Forest and Field” and Sanatan Dharma

Comment: If the author is saying Veda classified them into two categories, he is mistaken as no such classification is found in Sam Veda per Dr. Tulsi Ram. If he knows there is no such classification stemming out of Vedas and still writes about it then he is misleading the reader. Misquoting or misleading both are intellectual dishonesty. At best, it is safe to conclude that it is “half-knowledge”, common also among those who insist on propagating myths like Aryan Invasion Theory and Aryan- Dravidian divide in India both colonial ideas now adopted by neocolonialists of the US in collusion with Evangelists, Muslim Theorists and Marxist Hindu haters.

People living in forests sang songs in ancient times as they do today. Labourers in villages also sang while working in paddy fields as they still do today. The great Telugu composer Tyagaraja of nineteenth century composed ragas from the field and forest songs. He also used wind sounds, water sounds, chirping of birds, animal sounds, sky sounds, sounds from the swaying of rice plants, in short, any nature sound. Thus, this classification has no Vedic reference but certainly has social and natural basis.

2. This divide plays a key role in the understanding of dharma. Forest is the default state of nature. In the forest, there are no rules. The fit survive and the unfit die. The stronger, or the smarter, have access to food. The rest starve. There is no law, no authority, and no regulation.

Comment: It is wrong to say there are no rules in the forest. That is western view and not Hindu view. The western view is founded in the Bible which says nature was created for the use of humans. Clearly the author subscribes to western point of view.

In Chapter nine, verse 10 of Bhagavat Geeta it is clearly stated that Nature created life. Thus, Christian view is opposite to Dharmic view.
मयाध्यक्षेण प्रकृतिः सूयते सचारचरम्
हेतुनानेन कौन्तेय जगद्विपरिवर्तते |
श्री अरोबिन्दो : Sri Arobindo Translation: Under My presiding control, Nature gives birth to all existences, moving and unmoving; and because of this , O Kaunteya, the world proceeds in cycles. (page 319, 2006).

That the cosmos cannot be without rules is also borne out by Big Bang Theory from the formation of fundamental particles to the formation of galaxies. Biology explains that animal kingdom follows rules to promote good of the forest. Every action in nature like wind action, water action, glaciers, growing plants, land erosion, mountain building, plate tectonics, ocean formation, evolution of life all follow rules. The trophic levels also follow rules of interconnectedness and interdependence the key to sustainability being diversity. Where the author got the idea that the Hindu thought favoured anarchy in forest is any body’s guess.

However, in one case sustainability is thrown out of the window. The intervention of humans into Nature created imbalances resulting in the extinction of some species never to be replaced. Carbon positive environment is a consequence of human activities though the religious types and corporations do not accept it. Using paleontology Thomas Henry Huxley applied Darwin’s ideas to humans and concluded that humans and apes shared a common ancestry. This implied that humans did not have a special place in the universe which bothered many Christians brought up in the Biblical tradition. They coined a new phrase “survival of the fittest” and created social Darwinism though they never accepted the scientific theory itself. In financial world, a big company swallows a small company but in a forest a lion at the top of the trophic levels eats a deer only when hunger prompts, unlike in business world.

The smaller company is extinct but deer is not at least not because of being lion’s food. There is no comparison between the two. Nature is much more compassionate and intelligent than humans facilitating the survival of all – weak and strong. In human societies, even in the so called cultured and civilized ones, only strong survive and rule. That is why there is concentration of wealth in the hands of 1% of the population.

In any ecosystem, there are rules obeyed by the members. No more violence is permitted than is necessary for satiating hunger. No unnecessary killing occurs as does in human settlements of cultured men and women.

3. This is called ‘matsya nyaya’ or law of the fishes, the Vedic equivalent of the law of the jungle. This is prakriti, visualised as Kali, the wild goddess who runs naked with unbound hair, of the puranas.

Comment: In the Maurya period, Kautilya in his Arthasastra expounded the theory of matsya nyaya, that “just as big fish eat small fish in a dried-up lake in periods of drought the strong devour the weak in the absence of a ruler”. Thus , the need for a ruler was absolute. The “matsya nyaya” cannot be attributed to Vedas as done by the author. This jump from Vedas to Arthasastra is totally unwarranted. In the absence of a ruler chaos occurs. Matsya nyaya applies only in periods of droughts. The author extrapolates its occurrence to all times. These generalizations without evidence make his arguments very weak.
In the Vedic times the great Indo-Gangetic plain in the north and Godavari, Krishna and Kaveri basins in the south were depositaries of lush vegetation and crop growth. There were effective Kings with laws to ensure the security of people who inhabited in the various kingdoms. It was not like Europe where only one crop was cultivated per year or in deserts where paucity of food round the year was a norm. The abundance of food all year round in river basins where civilizations flourished or forests remained pristine precluded the conditions that prevailed in Europe and in deserts.

In Mahabharata in Adiparva a story of Shakuntala and Dushyant is described. Dushyant king of Hastinapur on a hunting trip in a forest became hungry and thirsty. He went in search of food and water and soon he came across a serene and bountiful place in forest. Realizing he was close to an ashram of a muni he set out to explore further. True enough he came to the ashram of Kanva Maharshi. There he saw elephants and lions, cats and rats, peacocks and snakes – natural enemies playing together as they listened to Sam Gaanam recited by parrots. When he saw this his hunger and thirst were quenched. He was surprised how in the forest the muni managed this harmony between enemies rarely found in Hastinapur the big metropolis.
Thus, contrary to the author’s description of an unruly forest we see a peaceful one where harmony among animals was established.
Naimisharanyam was another forest where thousands of rishis lived establishing peace and harmony.

The forests are described in many Sanskrit kavyas. One is the birth of Swarochisha Manu. There are beautiful, peaceful and harmonious vana devatas as a norm even in the presence of lions and tigers. No kavya mentions a naked Kali in any forest. Neither in Ramayana nor in Mahabharata a vicious Kali is written about. This author knows something Valmiki and Vyasa didn’t.

4. Humans domesticate the forest to turn the forest into fields and villages for human settlement. Here, everything is tamed: plants, animals, even humans, bound by niti, rules; riti, tradition; codes of conduct, duties and rights. Here, there is an attempt to take care of the weak and unfit. This is the hallmark of sanskriti or civilization, visualised as Gauri, the docile goddess who is draped in a green sari, and whose hair is tied with flowers, who takes care of the household.

Comment: This description of a human settlement is so naïve and so untrue. There were crimes such as petty thefts and killings in settlements. As late as nineteenth century, dacoits prevailed in forests in India because of incompetent rulers. Dushyanta the king mentioned above compares the peaceful life in forest to the tumultuous life in Hastinapur. It is a well-known fact that harmony and peace are found more in forest, less in rural areas and least in urban areas. This metaphor of Gauri with cities needs to be referenced. In Mriccakatika that takes place in Ujjain a famous city Sudraka tells a story full of petty crimes, conspiracies to kill, false accusations, murder and attempted wrongful conviction – all instances destroying the utopia of this author. This took place in 5th century BCE.
5. The Ramayana tells the story of Rama who moves from Ayodhya, the settlement of humans, the realm of Gauri, into the forest, the realm of Kali. The Mahabharata tells the story of the Pandavas who are born in the forest, then come to Hastinapur, and then return to the forest as refugees, and then once again return to build Indraprastha, then yet again return to the forest as exiles, and finally, after the victory at war, and a successful reign, they return to the forest following retirement.

Comment: Rama visits many ashrams more peaceful than Ayodhya at the time a web of conspiracies hatched by Mandhara, a devastated king Dasharatha, an unhappy queen Kausalya, a happy queen Kaikeyee, a disappointed citizenry bent on following Rama to forests. Compare this to Guha the loyal boatman on Sarayu and the ashrams serene and peaceful where Veda classes were being conducted, Sama Vedam was recited and where less was more. The final return of Pandavas to forest was to get away from the tumult of the city to the calmness of the forest which per the author does not exist.

6. As children, we are trained to live in society – that is brahmacharya. Then we contribute to society as householders — grihastha. Later we are expected to leave for the forest — vanaprastha, and then comes the hermit life or sanyasa, when we seek the world beyond the forest.

7. According to the Buddhist Sarvastivàdin commentary, Abhidharma-mahavibhàsa-sàstra, forest or vana, is one of the many etymologies of the word ‘nirvana’, the end of identity, prescribed by Buddhist scriptures, which is the goal of dhamma, the Buddhist way.

Comment: What does it prove? As you grow old you seek tranquility and peace that are absent in towns but are plenty in forest. This is not might is right forest model the author wants.

8. Rama lives in a city, and so does Ravana. But Rama follows rules. Ravana does not care for rules. In other words, Ravana follows matsya nyaya though he is a city-dweller, a nagara-vasi. That is adharma. If Ravana uses force to get his way, Duryodhana uses his cunning, also focusing on the self rather than the other. This is adharma. Dharma is when we function for the benefit of others. It has nothing to do with rules. Which is why Krishna, the rule-breaker, is also upholding dharma, for he cares for the other.

Comment: The author must clarify if Rama following rules in city was dharma or not. His theory that all settlements are peaceful places breaks down in the case of Ravana. The author betrays himself when he says Ravana not following rules was adharma, establishing a link between the two. Corollary of this is following rules is dharma. Inadvertently the author admits a link between dharma and rules against his favourite theory that dharma has nothing to do with rules. Matysa nyaya occurs only in droughts as per Kautilya the framer of the phrase. Before using this phrase the author must prove there was a drought in Lanka at the time. Ravana was a great king for his people as per Valmiki. The country was rich, food was abundant, they did not suffer- meaning no matsya nyaya. He also used cunning to kidnap Sita when Rama and Lakshmana were away a circumstance created by Mareecha a relative of Ravana, following a plan hatched by both rakshasas. The author in another article wrote Duryodhan followed rules – here he says entirely opposite contradicting himself. As postulated by the author Dharma has nothing to do with rules- please cite a Vedic hymn, mantra or phrase as evidence here. The author is at his best – full of contradictions, not citing evidence, highly opinionated, twisting the phrases, quoting the phrases out of context, attributing to Vedas ideas propounded by the author of Arthasastra written many centuries later. The author must specify which rules Krishna broke.

9. In the forest, everyone is driven by self-preservation. Only humans have the wherewithal to enable and empower others to survive, and thrive. To do so is dharma. It has nothing to do with rules or tradition. It is about being sensitive to, and caring for, the other. We can do this whether we are in the forest, or in the city. And so, it is in the vana or forest, that Krishna dances with the gopikas, making them feel safe even though they are out of their comfort zone.

Comment: The reader is completely lost here. This is a model that does not follow the reality as in city also everyone is driven by self-preservation. The author destroys his own theory when he says dharma can occur in forest. Gopikas were in Dwaraka a city and not in vana. Gopikas were also in Gokul a village and not a forest.

10. Without appreciating the forest and the field, Kali and Gauri — the animal instinct and human capability — any discussion of dharma will be incomplete.

Comment: An authoritative reference must be given for this metaphor of forest and field as Kali and Gauri. In the absence of that no intelligent discussion on dharma can be carried out. “Dharma has nothing to do with rules” is an assertion not evidence based. The author contradicts himself on this point in case of Ravana as explained above.
Conclusions:

This article contains many a contradiction. On the main proposal that dharma has nothing to do with rules the author says Ravana not following rules is adharma but he is not clear if Rama following rules is dharma. The author’s another pet theory that there are no rules in forest is a figment of imagination not supported by evidence and its companion thesis that human settlements promote helping others because they have rules is also not borne by evidence. To confound the reader the author says dharma can be attained in forest where as he asserts there are no rules, reversing his earlier suggestion that there can be no dharma in forest. He does not explain why Ravana living in a city follows adharma contrary to his thesis. Kali running naked in forest and Gauri maintaining peace in city is also a figment of author’s imagination. In Sanskrit kavyas, one does not come across this metaphor. Samaveda did not divide the two kinds of melodies as asserted here. The village tunes and the tribal tunes have been known to exist for a very long period and were used in developing classical tunes by Tyagaraja who used many natural sounds of forest as well for this purpose. There are other comments made in the text above that need to be addressed if the author wants the readers to take him seriously. I wonder did the author ever read Panchatantra??