VIDUR NEETI - PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE

VIDUR  NEETI  -   PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE

 

 

         

VIDUR NEETI is a wise spiritual counsel given to a tyrant by one who manages to maintain friendships despite a hostile situation. 

Vidur Neeti is found in the "Udyoga Parva" of the Hindu epic Mahabharata.  The Kauravas wanted to negotiate with the Pandavas to avoid an imminent war.  It was sure if a war occurred Pandavas would destroy the illustrious Kuru clan and Dhritarashtra would see extreme suffering in the end.  

Dhritarashtra is unable to stop his son so asks for Vidur's counsel.  Vidur plays the devil's advocate to maintain friendship and good relationships despite a very hostile situation.  

 

In common language, the phrase 'playing devil's advocate' describes a situation where someone, given a certain point of view, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further using valid reasoning that both disagrees with the subject at hand and proves their own point valid.

 

Vidura was born through Niyoga between the sage Vyasa and Parishrami, a handmaiden to the queens Ambika and Ambalika.

 

He is described as the prime minister of the Kuru kingdom and is the paternal uncle of both the Pandavas and the Kauravas.

Vidur was known for his wisdom, moral integrity, and unwavering devotion to righteousness (dharma).

 

Many do not know that Vidur was the reincarnation of Yama, the God of Death. There are some interesting stories about Vidur.

 

The rishi Mandavya cursed Yama that he would be born as a maid's son for getting him impaled without a valid reason. He was born in the mortal world as Vidura.

Vidur Neeti is a set of about 600 verses, split into eight chapters in Udyoga Parva of the Mahabharata.

 

Vidur-neeti seems like a confused collection of platitudes on polity, governance, conduct, and spirituality.  However, it does seem to have a logical flow over eight chapters.  First, it lists qualities of intelligence and stupidity.  Then it speaks of the value of controlling the senses and the tongue.  Then it speaks of the value of rising above jealousy.  Then it speaks of how great families lose their greatness by quarreling with kinsmen.  Then it explains why we live shorter lives as we do not value the harsh words of well-meaning counselors and staff.  Then it explains how the purpose of kingship is to protect and grow its kingdom's fortune (artha).  Then it speaks of the value of compromise.  Finally, it speaks of the importance of being responsible towards others (dharma) rather than indulging the self (karma).  None of this convinces the king of course, who is obsessed with his son, and so Vidur advises the king to speak of Sanatsujata who will explain to him the importance of outgrowing such relationships addiction and being free (moksha).  

 

                                       

   

 

In the course of listing many platitudes, Vidur slips in unpalatable good advice. He says Kauravas are like the forest, and Pandavas are like the tiger and just as the forest cannot exist without the tiger and the tiger cannot exist without the forest.  The two have to work together for the betterment of the kingdom.  He compares the Kauravas to jackals, and Pandavas to lions.  He compares Kauravas to crows and Pandavas to peacocks.  These are ways of saying that Pandavas have better qualities and so will make better rulers.

 

Vidur tells Dhritarashtra  the story of the good father Prahalad, who admonishes his son Virochan and tries to make him see the error of his ways when he tries to compete with the educated and refined Sudhanva.  That Sudhanva is a Brahmin and this story can be seen as yet another Brahmin attempt to position Brahmins over the kings, by writers of the  Mahabharata, is another matter.  The point here is that Vidur tells the Kaurava king that one must not side with one's son all the time, and choose justice over parental obsession.   

 

Vidur is able to say all this, without facing any reprisals, because he is in an intimate relationship with the king.  He is technically the king's half-brother.  They share a common father the sage Vyas, who happens to be the author of the epic Mahabharat.  While Dhritarashtra's  mother was a widowed childless queen, Vidur's mother was the royal maid.  And so, they share different fates.  Dhritarashtra has privileges that are denied to Vidur:  Hindus who praise Vidur-neeti are also slyly endorsing the caste system and traditional notions of the hierarchy boundaries and privilege.  Vidur clearly says he cannot explain moksha because he is Shudra, not Brahmin.

 

Vidur is said to be Yama reborn.  Yama is the god of death who never discriminates, hence called the embodiment of dharma, hence a model for kings.  In Mahabharat, Yudhishtira is considered the biological son of Yama.  Cynical scholars speculate that perhaps this was code to suggest Yudhishtira is Vidur's biological son, born to Kunti, through the practice of levirate (niyoga), which is why Vidur sides with Pandavas.  That Vidur-neeti has nothing to do with dharma.

 

The epic also states that Yama was cursed by Rishi Mandavya to be born as Vidur to experience the horrors of karma.  For Mandavya was impaled by a king, punished despite being innocent, as karmic repercussion for tormenting insects when he was but a child.  Likewise, Vidur needs to know what it feels like to suffer privileged fools when one is wise but denied power or status on account of being lowborn.  Such is the fate of many in the world today.   

 

Vidura tried to stop Yudhishthira from playing the game of dice, but his efforts were of no use. Except the prince Vikarna, Vidura was the only one who protested against the humiliation of Draupadi in the Kaurava court. In that moment, Duryodhana viciously rebuked Vidura, calling him ungrateful. Dhritarashtra moved to rebuke Duryodhana for insulting their uncle, but, remembering Vidura saying that a blind man cannot be king, holds his tongue, and instead reprimanded Duryodhana for insulting the prime minister.  It is that incident that Vidura brought up years later when he severed ties with the Kurus and sided with the Pandavas at the onset of the Kurukshetra war. Unlike Bhishma, Dronacharya, Kripacharya, and Karna, Vidura did not have an obligation to Hastinapura or Duryodhana, but to his family. Hearing Dhritarashtra not acknowledge that relationship, Vidura felt compelled to side with dharma and the Pandavas.

 

                  

                                                               *****************