Indian epic Mahabharata and Homers The Odyssey Comparison - Essay Example

Fate or destiny and karma are two varying concept that feature prominently both in the Indian epic “Mahabharata” and Homer’s “The Odyssey”. One of the overriding principles in the epic Mahabharata is karma, which literary means “acts,” basically referring to the principle of cause-effect governing all life. This principle is premised on the idea that our actions determine our future. It therefore follows that if we sow goodness then we can be sure to reap goodness, which also applies to sowing evil as well. However, an important feature to note about karma is that we might as well reap what was planted by others behind us or even sow something that will be reaped by future generations. This therefore demonstrates the difference between karma and fate. A fundamental concept in the Hindu religions that is thought to be as old as the Hindu religion itself, Karma basically say that our actions in this life are determined by actions in a previous life that we might be related to in one way or the other. This is a theory that manifests itself in the Mahabharata and in a smaller extent “The Odyssey”. While the idea that human history is solely governed by external forces is quiet evident in both the Odyssey and the Mahabharata, the two epics also carry the message to the effect that the lives of people, may and ought to be changed for better by individual efforts. We might have ideas on our freedom and self-determination, but these two epics reveal the bitter truth that we are not at all free but instead trapped in a cycle of birth and death that can only be broken by realizing that our ego-self together with its sense of agency is only in the mind but nothing factual. From the two epics there is no doubt that we enjoy a bit of freedom in our daily enterprise which has been disguised as fate, wyrd, karma or destiny. That said, we compare how these ideas function in the Mahabharata and The Odyssey. Looked at careful, karma on one side and fate, destiny, wyrd, providence on the other hand, are two different views of life. While the Odyssey is consistent with its treatment of life, the Mahabharata fails to offer a consistent treatment of life. In this regard, the Homeric’ Odyssey treatment of life is that fate, providence, destiny, wyrd or god determines the route your life takes based purely on nothing but their unfettered power and discretion but not any previous action or deed from a past life or action. Mahabharata view on the same is somehow inconsistent if a number of events in this epic are anything to go by. For instance, we are told that the cause of the Great War is due to mother earth’s desire to have her burden lifted. This is obvious after complaining to god to have the human population reduced because they are too much to her. It is therefore assumed that the Devas and the Danavas taking of birth is in heeding that calls from god after empathizing with mother earth. From the above, it is obvious that no previous action or karma has triggered the massive destruction and deaths that follow the war, which we are made to believe is god’s way of lifting mother earth burden. Another instance that deviates from karma is the sudden decapitation of Arjuna towards the end of the epic to a point where he cannot defend Krishna’s wives from bandits attack. This has nothing to do with precious karma but something that is more or less fateful. However, we cannot still refers to it as fate or destiny as there are no evidence to suggest that it was premeditated or engineered by the gods. If anything it has been precipitated by mother earth’s desire to offload a section of the population in order to reduce the burden that has been emanating from the population. We also see the Pandavas attending Draupadi’s swayamvara, a ceremony where she is expected to choose a husband from a group of suitors. In this ceremony the suitors are subjected to a contest of archery from where the winner is to be chosen by Draupadi as her future husband. Arjuna easily wins the contest after which he is accordingly chosen by Draupadi. Arjuna is beyond himself following this feat at which point he rushes to his mother to share with her the good news. He is however taken aback by her mother proposition to the effect that he is to share the ‘prize’ of his victory with his brothers. Unknown to the mother the ‘prize’ of his victory is a woman, which explains Arjuna shock in the suggestion to share the prize. However, the mother is bound by her word and cannot retract them and therefore Arjuna has no other option by to share Draupadi with his brothers. One thing that stand out in this unusual marriage is that it fulfills karma, for in her previous life, Draupadi had asked Shiva to give her a husband a total of five times, and therefore his marriage to five husbands is more or less a reward for her devotion in the previous life. The second theory that also manifests in the two epics is the theory of Kala, or the theory that time, destiny, fate, or god is unaccountable to anybody or anything and according to his free will or discretion, decide our fortunes. Unlike in the case of Karma, fate, destiny, wyrd, providence or fate are more evident in Homeric’ The Odyssey. Homer view of life is that our share of good and bad occurences is solely determined by the gods without any influence of our past actions or karma. This is a view that was shared by majority of Greeks and ancient Aryans at the time The Odyssey was penned. Almost all occurrences in the Odyssey and almost all Greek mythologies can only be attributed to fate or destiny. In fact, not a single one appears consistent with Karma. This can be attributed to the important that fate had on the Greek world which was not the case with the India where Mahabharata came from. It is however important to note that fate in the Greek world was not just the occurrence of thing as they occur, but as they were engineered by gods though pure discretion and without any influenced by past occurrences or acts. In the Odyssey, almost all occurrences appear to fall in place according to the wishes of a higher authority. For instance, the gods are responsible for Odysseus capture that lasted for almost decade (Homer, 267). This can be explained by the fact that he could have decided to stays but as fate would have it, decided not to. He also appears to be conscious of this fact if his statement to the effect that “this is my fate” is anything to go by. The god interference, as fate can be looked on as, can also be seen at that point when Athena goes to Ithaka to request Odysseus’ son to call a community meeting whose purpose is to rally the community behind him in opposing Penelope various suitors. It is important to note that Penelope had waited quiet long for Odysseus to return until she gave up before deciding to let suitors come around (Homer, 423). It is at this point that Athena decided to involve the community in restraining her from allowing suitors around, which coincidentally was still the time when Odysseus was finding his way home. From the turn of events in this particular instance, one can see god’s hand in shaping events. For instance, was the interference of the community not meant to delay the suitors while giving Odysseus ample time to come back before it was too late, A purpose that it perfectly fulfilled. We can conclude that the gods desired a particular outcome which they actively worked towards achieving. Just as I have noted, the Mahabharata is not faithful to karma as the ideal view of life. This is because it also shows several occurrences that cannot be explained through the lens of karma but more appropriately through the eyes of fate, destiny, wyrd, or providence. For instance, after assuming the throne, Dhritarashtra, arguably the weakness ruler ever in this epic perfects the use of fate as an excuse for his failure. By allowing physical blindness as an excuse to face reality and make hard decision, he is perpetually caught blaming fate. He is overheard several times excusing his failure with words like; “destiny must be very powerful (Brown 69)”, “what could I have done under such circumstances (Brown 69),” “who could have halted it from happening (Brown 69),” and “irrevocable were these things that have happened (Brown 69).” However in almost all this instances when he is issuing these and similar statements, his advisors are always at hand to remind him of the role of karma. For instance, in one such instance, we hear his advisor reminding him of the role of karma in their life with the words “O King, for sure a man who encounters a calamity emanating from his/her acts ought not blame the destiny, gods or anything else, each one of us receive the just results of our acts (Brown 538). Another manifestation of fate that can be found in the Mahabharata is the so-called “supreme and inevitable” fate that befalls a person who defies god warning against something. A good example of such fate can be found in Yudhishthira and Dhritarashtra ignorance of Vidura’s warning on avoiding the game of dice. As a consequence which can be construed to be the “supreme and inevitable” fate that they have been warned against, we see Yudhishthira losing his kingdom, brother, his wife Draupadi and basically all his possession including himself. Work Cited: Brown, Larry, A. Mahabharata: The Great Epic of India. (2010). Retrieved on 16th April 2012, from http://larryavisbrown.homestead.com/files/xeno.mahabsynop.htm Homer. “The Odyssey.” The Norton Anthology of World masterpieces, 1999. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. 209-514. Read More