Rama vs Krishna: Is it Ethics vs Morality?

%बी %डी %वाई, 6 मिनट पढ़ने का समय

Rama vs Krishna: Is it Ethics vs Morality?

One of the favorite pastimes of people interested in Indian epics Ramayana and Mahabharata, is to compare Rama with Krishna, specially to take actions performed by Rama and speculate on how Krishna would have handled the situation.

While both are incarnations of Lord Vishnu, their approaches to life, dharma, and challenges are markedly different. This contrast often leads us to a deeper philosophical debate: Was Rama a symbol of ethics while Krishna a symbol of Morality? Is it fair to say that in the spectrum of right and wrong, Rama followed the ethical code to the letter whereas Krishna molded morality to fit the larger purpose?

Rama and Krishna were two different personalities. Their times, their characters, their outlook to life, their circumstances were all different. Hence normally comparison is very difficult.

But even if we have set forth on this endeavor, the methodology used for comparison here should be set out the same with respect to various human characteristics or personality traits. We can use the events in their lives to substantiate the comparison and to understand further we need to see if there is any veracity to such comparisons.

Rama is known as the torchbearer of Ethics

Rama, the protagonist of Ramayana, is often held up as the ideal man (Maryada Purushottam) who is an embodiment of virtue, honour, and unwavering duty. His life was governed by strict adherence to rules and codes, even when it meant personal suffering. When Rama was exiled to the forest for 14 years, he accepted it without question, despite being unjustly deprived of his rightful throne.

He upheld his father’s word as sacred. Later, when he defeated Ravana and brought Sita back, the mere question of public opinion regarding Sita’s chastity led him to make the heart wrenching decision to send her away, even though he personally believed in her purity.

Many people look upon Rama’s life as a reflection of ethics (a systematic framework of principles rooted in duty, which is also known as dharma), law and social responsibility. He placed societal expectations above personal desires and emotions. For him, what is right was absolute regardless of the context or consequences.

Therefore, Rama is considered as the paragon of ethical rigidity. His adherence to his father’s word, even when it leads to immense suffering clearly underscores his commitment to Raj Dharma (a king’s duty) and Putra Dharma (a son’s duty). Sita’s Agni Pariksha substantiates his adherence to strict moral code. He prioritizes duty over conventional notions of fairness.

But herein lies the dilemma. Can ethical correctness justify emotional abandonment/ can the righteousness of duty trump the need for compassion? These are questions that continue to stir debates among scholars and devotees.

On the contrary Krishna is considered as the master of morality

Krishna’s story, especially as depicted in the Mahabharata, paints a different picture. Krishna is often portrayed as strategic, enigmatic, and morally flexible yet always rooted in the greater good. Unlike Rama, Krishna doesn’t confine himself within the rigid boundaries of conventional ethics.

He manipulates, bends rules, and even resorts to deception when needed. For instance, during the Kuruskshetra war, Krishna advises Arjuna to kill Karna when he is unarmed and stuck, and later encourages Yudhishthira to lie about Ashwatthama’s death. On the surface, these actions appear to violate ethical norms but Krishna justifies them for the sake of dharma’s ultimate victory.

Krishna represents morality in a more contextual and situational form. He understands the gray areas of life like the idea that sometimes to preserve the truth, one might have to adopt unconventional methods. For Krishna, the ends justifies the means provided the end upheld justice and righteousness.

Therefore, Krishna’s famous advice to Arjuna, ‘Do not worry about killing, for the soul is eternal” reflects a deeper moral philosophy where intent and consequence matter more than rigid adherence to codes. He believes that each act is justified as necessary to restore dharma, even if the methods are morally ambiguous.

But again, this raises a compelling question: If everyone starts justifying wrong means for right ends, where do we draw the line? Krishna’s choices provoke us to think beyond black and white and accept that life often dwells in the gray.

To answer both the questions related to Rama and Krishna and to compare the two figures further, it is very essential for us to understand a clear difference between ethics and morality.

Ethics are the rules provided by an external source, such as societal norms, laws or codes of conduct. Ethics are often subjective, system driven and uniform in its approach. Rama’s ethics are following prescribed duties (varnashrama dharma), valuing societal order over personal happiness and taking actions by adhering to tradition.

Whereas, morality is more personal and internal. It is shaped by individual conscience, culture, upbringing and context. Morality is often subjective and fluid. Krishna’s morality is focusing on the spirit of dharma rather than the letter, adapting means to serve higher justice and emphasizing inner righteousness over external validation.

This distinction helps us understand that Rama symbolizes ethics and is dutiful, consistent and uncompromising whereas Krishna represents morality which is fluid, adaptable and deeply intuitive.

The different approaches of Rama and Krishna represent two faces of dharma in front of us. As both of them were upholding dharma, but they walked different paths. Rama’s dharma was institutional, including upholding societal and familial duties and maintaining order.

Krishna’s dharma was transformational as he challenged the status quo, revealed higher truths and redefined righteousness. In some sense, they reflect the yin and yang of dharma. One teaches us how to live within a system; the other, how to change the system when it becomes unjust.

Therefore, the comparison between Rama and Krishna is unfair to both since their situations, characters and times were all different. The Ramayana and Mahabharata are vastly different. Hence the comparison may seem dubious and the debate is not about who is better but about which approach is more applicable in different scenarios.

Rama and Krishna are not opposites but complementary forces as Rama’s unwavering ethics set the standard for an ideal life, while Krishna’s adaptable morality provides solutions when those very ethics become impractical. Together, they represent the balance between structure and flexibility and both are essential for individual growth and societal harmony.

This article is written by our Content Writer and intern, Nikita, who is a promising and budding new writer with so many new things to learn on a daily basis. Shout out dear for the new and fresh perspective you bring to the team.

If you want to add to this, write to us at info@rudrakshahub.com or wa.me/918542929702 and we shall be happy to try and accomodate your request if possible. Until then, keep reading wih Rudraksha Hub..!!