Ekalavya and Arjuna

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura

Many people consider Ekalavya’s 'guru-bhakti' to

be ideal, but there is a unique deliberation
concerning this topic.

King Hiranyadhanu's son was named Ekalavya.

Ekalavya was, by caste, a nisadha (candala). In
order to learn astra-vidya, Prince Ekalavya
approached Dronacarya. Because Ekalavya
possessed a low class mentality, the acarya
refused to initiate him in the teachings of the
Dhanur-Veda. However, Ekalavya was
determined to learn the martial arts from
Dronacarya and went off into the forest. There
he constructed an idol of Dronacarya made of
clay and by continuously practicing in front of
that artificial guru he became very expert in
astra-vidya.

Arjuna was Dronacarya's most beloved disciple.

The acarya had told Arjuna that none of
Dronacarya's disciples would ever be able to
excel Arjuna in skill.

One day Dronacarya instructed the Kauravas and

the Pandavas to leave the royal capital and go to
the forest for hunting. As they made their way
through the forest, they saw a dog whose mouth
had been blocked with seven arrows. Seeing this,
they were most astonished. Whoever had shot
these arrows was far more expert than the
Pandavas. Realizing this, they went in search of
that person. Gradually they understood that it
was Ekalavya, the son of Hiranyadhanu, who had
tested his archery skills on the dog's mouth.
The Pandavas returned to the capital and,
approaching Dronacarya, submitted this unusual
story to him. With a mood of humility, Arjuna
told Dronacarya that it seemed that he had
another disciple who was more expert in archery
than Arjuna. Dronacarya listened to these words
and was surprised. He went with Arjuna into the
forest and there they saw Ekalavya continuously
shooting arrows like rain, fully absorbed in the
science of archery.

Taking the opportunity Dronacarya came

forward and approached Ekalavya, and seeing
the acarya, Ekalavya immediately offered his
prayers at his feet, and with folded hands he
introduced himself as his disciple and remained
standing. Dronacarya told Ekalavya, "You must
give guru-daksina."
Ekalavya replied, "Please tell me – whatever it is,
I am ready to give it!"

Then Dronacarya told Ekalavya to cut off his

thumb and give him that as his guru-daksina.
Ekalavya executed the order of his Gurudeva.
Ekalavya did not protest in any way and
unhesitatingly executed his guru's instruction.

Initially Ekalavya's guru rejected him because he

considered him to be born of a low caste, yet
due to his faith in Dronacarya, he established a
clay deity of him and became invincible – thus his
guru-bhakti was established as ideal. On the
other hand, Arjuna was envious towards
Ekalavya, because by his perseverance, Ekalavya
had become expert; therefore Ekalavya was
ruined by Dronacarya – this is the common
opinion.

But this is not the opinion of the devotees, nor is

it a true conception. Everything about Bhagavan
is supremely true, everything about the
principles of devotion are supremely true and
everything in relation to the devotee is
supremely true. These are the three truths –
Bhagavan, bhakti and bhakta. Everything a
devotee does is good; everything a non-devotee
does is not very good. The non-devotee has
many bad qualities because he is not engaged in
satisfying the senses of Bhagavan. Those that
think that mundane laws are greater than
Bhagavan cannot accommodate those words
regarding the supreme truth. Such persons are
nirvisesavadis (impersonalists) which is to say
that they cannot accept the non-differentiated
specialty of Bhagavan, bhakti and bhakta.
What was Ekalavya’s fault? This analysis is
essential. He wore the mask of guru-bhakti, yet
he was actually inimical towards his guru.
Whether his guru actually considered Ekalavya to
be disqualified by his low-birth, or was simply
testing him — whatever the reason may be,
when his Gurudeva did not wish to teach him the
science of warfare, it was Ekalavya’s duty to
accept his guru's instruction upon his head; but
Ekalavya did not accept that. He had the
aspiration to become great.

Externally, without a guru, his practices would

not have been considered lawful, or he would
not be in a favorable position to become great
without accepting a guru. To this end, Ekalavya
concocted a clay form of his 'guru'. He only did
this to attain greatness by learning the Dhanur-
veda. In this way, his main intention was to
satisfy his own senses. He did not offer himself
as a sacrifice to his guru's desire and his own
intentions were not sincere. Some may say that
ultimately Ekalavya happily accepted the
heartless order of his guru without protest, but if
we consider this topic deeply and with keen
discernment, we can observe that Ekalavya
considered mundane morality to be superior to
transcendental devotion. When the guru
requests something to be given as daksina, then
one must offer it to him – it was that sense of
morality that inspired him to cut off his thumb.
Ekalavya did not offer it with spontaneous
devotion. The very nature of bhakti is that it is
spontaneous and simple.

If Ekalavya had unmotivated and natural

devotion within his heart towards Hari, Guru and
Vaisnava, then the guru, Dronacarya, the best of
Vaisnavas, Arjuna, and Bhagavan Sri Krsna,
would not have been displeased with his
behavior. Ekalavya’s attempt to learn the
Dhanur-veda and his hankering to become great
were not accepted by his Gurudeva. Deep within
Ekalavya’s heart, he desired to try and become
greater than Arjuna, the best of Vaisnavas. The
aspiration to become greater than the Vaisnavas
is not devotion – it is anti-devotional and it is the
dharma of the Ativadis (1). According to worldly
considerations, the desire to become great is
regarded as good. But the effort to take a
subordinate position behind a Vaisnava and the
attempt to take shelter of a Vaisnava – that is
bhakti.

Ekalavya wanted his expertise to be greater than

that which could be acquired by learning Vedic
sciences directly from a mahanta-guru – Arjuna
notified Dronacarya of this. If Arjuna had not
mercifully pointed this out, then the victory of
impersonalism would have been proclaimed
extensively. People would not have approached
a mahanta-guru to accept any type of
knowledge; they would have desired to create
their own contradictory, concocted, clay, lifeless
gurus in order to learn various sciences or
devotional teachings. In this way, atheistic
theories would have been established.
Therefore, Arjuna had no envy towards Ekalavya;
it was actually his causeless compassion towards
Ekalavya and the world.

If Ekalavya had been an honest devotee of his

guru, then Krsna would not have killed such a
guru-bhakta – He always protects His devotees.
But finally Ekalavya was killed by the hand of
Krsna. This is how Ekalavya finally met his end
(2).
Sri Caitanyadeva has said that we cannot judge
devotion simply on the basis of external
austerities. The asuras perform penances that
even the demigods cannot perform (3). Against
the wishes of his guru, Ekalavya wanted to
become greater than the Vaisnava. Therefore he
was killed by Krsna and attained impersonal
liberation. Asuras are always killed by Krsna and
the devotees of the Lord are protected by Krsna
(4). The proof of this is Hiranyakasipu and
Prahlada. Thus we should never attempt to
become greater than the Vaisnavas. If we do not
wear a mask of guru-bhakti, we will never
become impersonalists. This is what the pure
devotees have taught in relation to the narrative
of Ekalavya. Expertise in performing mundane
activities is not guru-bhakti. Taking shelter of the
Vaisnavas is actually true devotion.

(From Upakhyane Upadesa, Vol. 2)

FOOTNOTES:

(1) The Ativadis are an apasampradaya that

originated in Orissa under one Jagannatha Dasa
during the time of Mahaprabhu. The word
'ativadi' means 'one who thinks he is very
inteligent' (ati – very, vadi – intelligent). For
more information, see Krsna Talk No.32
(http://gosai.com/writings/ativadi-apa-
sampradaya)

(2) Ekalavya’s demise is found in Chapter 48 of

the Udyoga-parva of Mahabharata wherein
Krsna kills him as He battles with Jarasandha’s
army.
(3) asure o tapa kare, ki haya tahara
vine mora sarana laile nahi para (Cb. Madhya
23.46)

(4) Madhvacarya, in his Mahabharata Tataparya

Nirnaya has commented that Ekalavya was the
amsa of the demon Manimanta.

yuddhva ciram rana mukhe bhagavat sutah asau

cakre nirayudham amum sthiram ekalavyam
amsena yo bhuvam agat maniman iti sma
sa krodha tantraka ganesu adhipo nisadah

Fighting for a long time with Ekalavya, who was

steadfast in battlefield, Pradyumna rendered him
weaponless. Previously there was a group of
demons known as the Krodha-tantra-ganas,
amongst whom there was a prominent demon
named Manimanta. Ekalavya is the amsa of that
Manimanta. (MTN 14.40)