Thread by @DefiledGod

Throughout the MB, bhagavAn adopted tactics to help the pANDavAs that would be perceived as adharma generally, but were confirmed to be dharma.

Throughout the rAmAyaNa, bhagavAn’s devotees adopted questionable tactics to attain bhagavAn, but which were again dharma only+

Some examples. First is jAbAli, dasharatha’s minister. Wanting bhagavAn to become King, jAbAli tried to convince bhagavAn to stay using chArvAka philosophy as below

स न अस्ति परम् इत्य् एव कुरु बुद्धिम् महा मते | प्रत्यक्षम् यत् तद् आतिष्ठ परोक्षम् पृष्ठतः कुरु (~Ayodhya kANDa)+

[rAma, who have a very broad-mind towards your devotees!  You, who are devoted to obeying your father, arrive at the understanding that there is nothing higher than this perceptible world. Give importance to this perceptible princely enjoyment & reject the imperceptible dharmas]+

jAbAli is using chArvAka philosophy to convince rAma that imperceptible dharmas like shAstra, pitruvAkya paripAlana etc are to be rejected & only perceptible comforts are important. “महा मते” – You who are generous-minded to your devotees may even adopt chArvAka for their sake!+

Is chArvAka adharma? Yes. But is it adharma when it is used as a means to persuade bhagavAn to stay and also is for the ultimate happiness of bhagavAn (becoming King)? No.

Whatever is used as a means to attain him, becomes dharma+

jAbAli explains his chArvAka philosophy

न नास्तिकानां वचनम् ब्रवीम्यहं | न नास्तिकोऽहं न च नास्ति किंचन | समीक्ष्य कालं पुनरास्तिकोऽभवं | भवेय काले पुनरेव नास्तिकः+

[jAbAli: I have not spoken words of nAstikAs. I am not a nAstika. Nor is it that nothing superior to paraloka does not exist. Perceiving the right time, I have again become an Astika. When the time comes, I will again be a nAstika]+

न नास्तिकानां वचनम् ब्रवीम्यहं . न नास्तिकोऽहं - “Since I spoke chArvAka due to my love for you, these are not words of veda-bAhyAs (nAstikAs). I am not a nAstika - one who has no conviction in the Veda since I have love for you who are the goal of the Veda.”+

न च नास्ति किंचन  - “Nor is it true that there is nothing superior to paraloka. When you are here in front of me, is it not right to enjoy what is perceptible and ignore the imperceptible supreme abode? So I was right when I said there is nothing higher than perceptible things”+

समीक्ष्य कालं पुनरास्तिकोऽभवं - “As your mind is made up, I am again Astika for now – As I cannot see you in Ayodhya, I will have conviction in the imperceptible --- to abide by your unfathomable will even if I don’t like it, as my nature is to obey you.”+

भवेय काले पुनरेव नास्तिकः - “When you come back and take the throne, I will again become a nAstika – not believing that the bliss of the supreme abode exists as superior to the bliss of seeing you as King of Ayodhya.”+

jAbAli says, “मया नास्तिकवागुदीरिता . निवर्तनार्थं तव राम कारणात्” – “I spoke nAstika words to make you return to Ayodhya for your sake”

“नास्तिकवाग” - Nampillai interprets thus- "When you come back, wipe Bharata’s tears away & rule Ayodhya, see me change from nAstika to Astika+

Though jAbAli's words were Astika, bhagavAn couldn't accept them, as if he did, he wouldn't be able to go to exile. So he unfairly labelled them as nAstika.

But since our duty is to accept his will whatever it is, jAbAli called his words "नास्तिकवाग" even when they were not so+

Thus vAlmiki hails jAbAli as “जाबालिर् ब्राह्मण उत्तमः” – “jAbAli, that foremost of brAhmaNAs” (~ Ayodhya kANDa).

Nampillai says that shAstra hails a brAhmaNa as one who has a relationship with Brahman –“ब्रह्म सम्बन्धि ब्राह्मण”+

By saying jAbAli is the highest brAhmaNa, vAlmiki implies that unlike other brAhmaNAs who only have sambandha with bhagavAn by yaj~nopavIta, jAbAli is truly having a special relationship with rAma.

He had defeated rAma in debate. It was bhagavAn whose arguments were flawed!+

Next, is the example of Hanuman. When he was tasked to go scout for sIta in Lanka, he initially could not find her. He became very upset that despite having the anugraha of rAma, he was not finding success in his mission. Hence, the following thought occurs to his mind+

रामाय उपहरिष्यामि पशुम् पशु पतेः इव। (~ sundara kANDa)

[If I cannot find sIta, I will bind and take rAvaNa to rAma like an animal to Agni devata (paShupati)]+

Now, rAma had vowed to kill rAvaNa. Thus, if a bhakta resolves to capture rAvaNa before bhagavAn himself did the act, it would be adharma, since he is going against the resolve of rAma to personally subdue rAvaNa. Why did Hanuman think like this then?+

Hanuman's reason for thinking thus - when a bhakta is unable to fulfill a service to BhagavAn, his extreme bhakti makes him undergo an agitation of sorts. Their intense yearning for bhagavAn has made them desperate to attain him, that they make threats+

Hanuman is saying here - "If you, by your will, don't enable me to find sIta for you, I will capture rAvaNa & break your vow of going to Lanka and rescuing her”

He was threatening disobedience as a means to scare bhagavAn ("my bhakta can never perish") into favoring him+

The third example:

न द्रक्ष्यामि यदि त्वां तु प्रवेक्ष्यामि हुताशनम् (~ Ayodhya kANDa)

[Bharata: If I do not see you, rAma, after the 14th year, I will enter fire]

Suicide is adharma. But Bharata adopted it as a means to attain bhagavAn & so it was fully in line with dharma.+

In the MB, bhagavAn performed acts that superficially resembled adharma to defeat foes of his bhaktAs.

In VR, jAbAli defeated rAma in debate, Hanuman scared rAma by threat of disobedience & Bharata attained rAma by threat of suicide. They defeated bhagavAn himself!+

The conclusion here is that – what bhagavAn likes determines dharma and what he dislikes determines adharma. Dharma and adharma are not independent of him.