Nachiketa - perhaps, the first recorded argumentative Indian

Picture Courtesy: Amar Chitra Katha

I have always wondered where the argumentative mentality of Indians comes from. That it appears to be in our genes, is foregone. But here is a real proof that, from time immemorial, we have been prone to arguments- and winning, at that.
This conversation in the Kathopanishad , which had been composed at least a few thousand years, if not more, is proof of that.

The "hero" of the Kathopanishad, a nine year old boy, Nachiketas, is given away as alm (Dhaanam), to the God of Death, Yama, by his father Vaajasravas, in a fit of anger. Vaajasravas was, of course, quick to realize his blunder, and not only did he repent, but also he asked Nachiketas not to go away.

But then, we are talking about times, when a commitment is a commitment, and even 9-year olds know that, more than anything else, it is paramount to stick to commitments. And so, our hero goes to Yamaloka, and this brahmin boy waits at the altar of Yama for 3 whole days, without food or water, since Yama happens to be away. Upon his return, Yama is disturbed that he kept the poor hungry and waiting, and as atonement, grants three boons.  As a first boon, Nachiketas asks Yama to ensure that his father is at peace with himself, and will recognize him and wholeheartedly accept him back when he returns to Bhooloka ( the earth). After all, the boy is cock-sure that he would be sent back with full honours! Talk about self-confidence! As the second boon, Yama not only teaches a particular fire ritual that will ensure "Amritatvam" ( immortality) and a place in the heavens, but also names the ritual after the boy - Naachiketaagni.

Trouble comes, when, as the third boon, Nachiketas demands to know what happens after death. In other words, Nachiktas asks for " self knowledge", or Atmavidya. But Yama knows that only a fit person will be in a position to receive it ( such a person is called Adhikaari). Therefore, Yama needs to test if Nachikatas is qualified to receive it. There are 4 such qualifications that are needed

1. Vivekam - Discrimiation that self knowledge alone will give freedom from sorrow
2. Vairagyam-  Dispassion, a knowledge that other things do not give real freedom and so, "I do not consider them primary, and will only settle for the real".  
3. Shatka sampaththi - Discipline, the integration of the personality consisting of sense organs of knowledge, action, emotional mind, rational intellect, and must function in an integrated manner ( for which, they need to be "healthy") . more details of this can be found in Adi Shankara's Tatvabodha. Self mastery, self integration, self organization and self management.
4. Mumukshutvam  - Desire (intense, at that) for self-knowledge. Also called Theevra Jigyaasaa.

Typically, the gurus used to test out the students on the 4 Ds above, by discouraging them, overtly and covertly, before deciding to impart Aatma Vidya.


Now, this concept of life after death, or Atma Vidya, is so so abstract, that only very few people can really understand. A 9 year old ? Quite unlikely. So, Yama tries to dissuade Nachiketas with alternative offerings of wealth and happiness - more than enough to last his life time.  In verse 21 of the Kathopanishad, he does exactly that, telling Nachitas  not to press with that demand, and that, instead, he would offer other materialistic things. I quote verse 21 below, along with its meaning, verbatim.


devai̍r atrāpi viciki̍tsitam purā na hi̍ suvijñeyam aṇur e̍ṣa dharmaḥ |
anya̍ṁ varaṁ na̱cike̍to vṛṇīśva mā mo̍parotsīr ati mā̱ sṛjai̍nam || 21 ||


purā = in days of yore; atra = with regard to this thing; vicikitsitam = doubt was entertained; devaiḥ api = even by gods; hi = since; eṣa dharmaḥ = this principle called the Self; na suvijñeyam = is not easily comprehensible [to common people] anuḥ = it being so subtle and abstract. [Hence] naciketaḥ = O Naciketa; vṛṇīśva = you ask for; anyaṁ varaṁ = some other boon [- less complex]. Mā uparotsīḥ = do not press; mā = me [mā being the same as mām (me)]; ati sṛja = give up; enam = this one.

Yama mentions that even the gods of old had doubt on this point. It is not, indeed, easy to understand; (so) subtle is this truth. Choose another boon,O Naciketas. Do not press me. Release me from this.

The response to this poser from Yama, by the young boy, is the piece de' resistance. It not only brings out the brilliance of the boy and his maturity, but also his ability to counter-argue and convince Yama that the very same reasons for which Yama dissuades him are the ones for which he would not like to settle for anything lesser! Here is verse 22, reproduced, that gives the response of Nachiketas.

devai̍r atrāpi vi̱ciki̍tsitam kila tva̱ṁ ca mṛ̱tyo yan na su̱vijñeya̍m āttha |
vaktā̍ cāsya tvā̱dṛg-a̍nyo na labhyo nānyo̍ varas tulya e̱tasya̍ kaścit || 22 ||

atra = with regard to this thing; devaiḥ api vicikitsitam kila = indeed doubt was entertained even by the gods; ca = and; mṛtyuḥ = O Death; yat = since; tvaṁ = you; āttha = say; [that the reality of the Self]; na suvijñeyam = is not easily comprehended, [therefore this thing is unknowable even to the learned]; vaktā ca asya = and an instructor of this principle; anyaḥ = anyone else; tvādṛk = like you;
na labhyaḥ = cannot be had; na anyaḥ varaḥ = there is no other boon; kaścit = whatsoever; which is; etasya tulya = comparable to this one [ since all the other boons bear impermanent results].

Nachiketas argued that indeed, even the gods had doubt about this, and you, O Yama, say that it is not easy to understand. Instruct me, for another teacher, like you, is not to be had. No other boon is comparable to this at all.

1. Oh Yama, you yourself concede that even the Devas ( Gods) find it difficult to comprehend and handle. Therefore, it must be the rarest of wisdoms, which not many people may possess. And therefore, it is the most precious wisdom one can hope to have. And, this is exactly the reason that I covet it. For, whatever is rare, is valuable, and whatever is valuable, is worth seeking.
2. You say that this teaching is not easily accessible. Which means, I cannot collect this wisdom by own independent effort, and therefore, need a guru to get it. I will not get such a guru on earth. I need an external guide, and so I need to make use of this opportunity.
3. I obviously would like to have the best guru. In this context, who better to teach me, than yourself, the Lord of Death. Remember, the question is - what will happen to the individual after death? The Lord of death, therefore best placed to share this Atma vidya. After all, Yama is the real "maut ka saudagar" (the merchant of detah), as it were. 
4. Hence, after reconsidering, I have concluded that there is no boon equal to, or better than this.  

Note that the fourth point above may also be construed as a demonstration of Theevra mumukshutvam. ( the fourth D above).

With this riveting counter-argument, Nachiketas emphatically passes the first test on Vivekam. The Upanishad then goes on to explain how he clear the other four tests as well.


Do you think that even the best of Harvard Law graduates can argue so convincingly, on the very same points that are being raised against?