Śrī Śrīla Bhakti Siddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī Ṭhākura Prabhupāda
Ekalavyas devotion to his guru (described in Mahdbhdrata, Adi Parva 134.2-3) is widely considered an ideal for everyone, but it is necessary to consider a specific perspective on this matter.
King Hiranyadhanu had a son named Ekalavya, who belonged to the Nisada (candala) community. Prince Ekalavya approached Guru Dronacarya to receive training in weaponry (astra-vidya), but Dronacarya declined to teach him as Ekalavya came from a lower caste. Undeterred, Ekalavya made a solemn vow to learn archery from Dronacarya. So he went to the forest and made an idol of Guru Dronacarya from clay. Practising diligently before this idol, which was his guru only in his imagination, Ekalavya gradually achieved mastery in the art of archery.
Arjuna was Dronacarya’s favourite disciple, and Dronacarya once told him that none of his other students would receive more training than him.
One day, on the order of Dronacarya, the Pandavas and Kauravas entered a forest to catch a deer. While they were in the forest, they encountered a strange sight. A hunting dog, who was barking, suddenly became silent. His mouth had been filled by seven arrows at once without causing injury. They were all astonished and thought, “Whoever shot these arrows must be more powerful than the Pandavas.” Thinking in this way, they began to search for that skilled person. After some investigation, they discovered that it was Ekalavya, the son of King Hiranyadhanu, who had shot the arrows.
The Pandavas returned to the capital and narrated this amazing incident to Dronacarya. Arjuna humbly told his teacher, “There is another student of yours who is even more skilled than me in archery.”
Upon hearing this, Dronacarya was surprised. Accompanied by Arjuna, Dronacarya went to the forest and saw how Ekalavya was continuously raining arrows with great absorption. Dronacarya approached Ekalavya. Seeing Dronacarya suddenly appear before him, Ekalavya bowed down and introduced himself as his disciple. Dronacarya told Ekalavya, “Give me the guru-daksina (offering to the teacher).”
Ekalavya responded, “I will give whatever you order me to offer.” Then Dronacarya asked Ekalavya to cut off the thumb of his right hand and offer it as his guru-daksina. Ekalavya immediately followed his guru’s instruction without any argument.
Despite being neglected due to his low caste, Ekalavya kept his faith in Guru Dronacarya. He established the ideal of devotion to the guru by making a clay idol of him. The ordinary people of this world consider that Arjuna felt envious of Ekalavya for being a more skilled archer than himself, and therefore, he tried to destroy Ekalavya through his guru. But a devotee never entertains such a false notion. Bhagavan, the Supreme Lord, is the Ultimate Truth (param satyam). The Lord, devotion and the devotee (Bhagavan, bhakti and bhakta) are the three aspects of the one truth (trisatya). Everything about a devotee is good. The non-devotee has no good qualities. The apparent virtues of a nondevotee are actually faults because they are not engaged in satisfying the senses of Bhagavan. They consider worldly morality (prakrta niti) to be greater than God. They are unable to grasp this ultimate truth. Such persons are called impersonalists (nirvisesavadi). They do not accept Bhagavan, bhakti and bhakta.
What was Ekalavya’s fault? This subject is worthy of our deliberation. Did Guru Dronacarya refuse to provide Ekalavya with archery education because he perceived Ekalavya as belonging to a lower caste or was it for some other reason? It was Ekalavya’s duty to follow the guru’s order, but he did not do that. Rather, a desire to excel and become great awakened in Ekalavya.
It is true that without a guru’s guidance (guru-karana), a task is not accomplished. Therefore, Ekalavya made an idol of Guru Dronacarya. Whether his desire was to become great or to receive education in archery, his primary purpose was to satisfy his own senses (indriya-trpti). It was not his exclusive desire to sacrifice himself for his guru’s desire. Some may also argue that, in the end, Ekalavya complied with his guru’s request with a happy heart. However, on profound and subtle reflection, it is seen that Ekalavya considered social ethics (niti) greater than transcendental devotion (aprdkrta bhakti). Gurudeva can ask anything as a daksina and it is a disciple’s duty to comply. Following this principle, he offered the guru his thumb as daksina when requested. Ekalavya cut off his thumb to become great from the perspective of social ethics (nlti). In reality, Ekalavya did not make the offering out of natural devotion (svdbhavika-bhakti). The function of bhakti is natural (.svabhdvika) and simple (sarala), without an egotistic motive.
If there was any unmotivated (ahaituki) and spontaneous devotion {svdbhaviki bhakti) in Ekalavya’s heart towards Bhagavan, Sri Guru and the saints, then Guru Dronacarya, Arjuna, the best of devotees, and Sri Krsna would not have been angered by Ekalavya’s behaviour. Guru Dronacarya did not approve of Ekalavya’s ambition to become great or his desire to learn archery. Ekalavya endeavoured to fulfil his strong aspiration to become even greater than Arjuna, the best of the Lord’s devotees.
The desire to become greater than another devotee is not devotion. It is the tendency of the atibadi apasampradaya (deviant sects) and non-devotees. The endeavour to remain behind the vaisnavas and remain under their guidance is bhakti. However, instead of srota-vidya, that is, learning by hearing directly from the physically present teacher (mahanta-guru), Ekalavya wanted to become great on the strength of his own courage or heroism. This was the point that Arjuna conveyed to his guru. If Arjuna had not mercifully informed his guru about this, then impersonalism (nirvisesavada) would have become victorious. Then the living entities, instead of learning from a physically present teacher (mahanta-guru), would manufacture a lifeless idol of a guru against the guru’s wishes and, in accordance with their own whims, try to gain knowledge or devotion from the idol. This is how atheistic theories (nastika-mata) are established. Therefore, Arjuna has shown only causeless mercy both unto Ekalavya and unto the whole world.
If Ekalavya had been a sincere devotee of his guru, Sri Krsna would never have destroyed such a devoted disciple. Sri Krsna always protects His devotees. However, Ekalavya was killed by Sri Krsna Himself.
Lord Caitanya has said that true devotion cannot be judged merely by external austerities. Demons also perform such austerities that even the demigods cannot perform. In Ekalavya’s case, against his guru’s wishes, he desired to become greater than a vaisnava. Therefore, he was killed by Sri Krsna and attained an impersonal destination (nirvisesa-gati). The demons are killed by Sri Krsna and the devotees are protected by Sri Krsna. The demon Hiranyakasipu and the devotee Prahlada are evidence in this regard. Therefore, we should never try to become ‘greater’ than the vaisnavas by wearing a mask of guru-bhakti. Pure devotees must learn this lesson from the episode of Ekalavya and not become impersonalists. Being more skillful than everyone else in activities is not guru-bhakti. Bhakti entails remaining always under the guidance (anugatya) of the vaisnavas.