Re-Reading the Story of Kāliya the Serpent

Introduction

When we go to the banks of the Yamuna and other lakes

of Vrindavan or near Govardhan hill or the pasturing field, we see
that the impressions of Kṛṣṇa ’s footprints are still on the surface
of the earth. We remember Him playing in those places because He was
constantly visiting them. When His appearance within our minds becomes
manifest, we immediately become absorbed in thought of Him.1

The aforementioned words spoken by Nanda Maharaj to Uddhava, Lord Kṛṣṇa ’s

messenger, is one of countless passages found in the Bhagavat Purana where place and location

is emphasized. No place is more revered and worshipped for bhaktas of Kṛṣṇa than the land of

Vrindavan, the place of Kṛṣṇa ’s early life. According to Gaudiya (Bengali) Vaishnavas,

Vrindavan is the earthly site of Kṛṣṇa ’s divine lila (sport or play) which reflects the pastimes of

Kṛṣṇa in his divine abode of Goloka Vrindavan.

Vrindavan also known as Braj in the vernacular Hindi, and Vraja in Sanskrit is located in

the state of Uttar Pradesh in north-central India. Braj is like no other place; in Braj the

transcendent and the immanent meet. Braj is an active participant in Kṛṣṇa ’s divine lila, one of

many “actors” that facilitates and manifests Kṛṣṇa ’s desire both in the phenomenal and

metaphysical realms. Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s instructions to his key disciples Rupa and

Sanatana Goswami to recover key sites in the holy dham of Vrindavan speaks volumes of the

significance of Braj. Among others, Narayana Bhatt was an important figure who reestablished

Braj as a pilgrimage center. In his biography, the Narayana Bhatt Caritamrita of Janaki Prasad

Bhatt, Lord Kṛṣṇa says to Narayana Bhatt in a vision:

 You have seen all of Braj. You have seen Mathura and Vrindaban.
You have seen the Yamuna, the best of rivers, and Govardhan, the best of
Mountains; you have seen the hills marked with my footprints and all my
Groves and forests. There is no pilgrimage site on earth known to surpass
Braj, the highest form of my own body, which steals the mind of the devotee.
I dwell here eternally, never leaving Braj.2

Similarly, in his Vrajabhaktivilsa, Narayana Bhatt identifies specific geographical features with

the organs and limbs of Kṛṣṇa : Mathura is his heart, Madhuban is his navel, Kamudban and

Talban are his breasts, and so on. 3

Reiterating this view, David Haberman explains that the

region of Braj is identical with the body of Kṛṣṇa himself, a topographic form of God, a physical

manifestation of the love of Radha and Kṛṣṇa .4 Pilgrims each year connect with this

topographical form through the annual Ban Yatra performed on foot. Each day during the

pilgrimage, devotees visit a new site, recount the story inscribed in the geography, and connect

powerfully to the land and the divinity of Kṛṣṇa. David Kingsley writes: “Learning the story of

the land can be transformative for the Ban Yatra pilgrim. In the process of the pilgrimage, the

pilgrim comes to view Braj in a special way. Where we see simply rivers, hills, ponds, and

forests, the pilgrim sees a landscape charged with divinity, a land that was actually shaped by

mythic events.” 5
Śrī Jīva Goswami, the principal architect of Vaishnava theology, explains the

connection between Kṛṣṇa and the land, calling the dhaman of Kṛṣṇa a vigraha, a physical form

of the deity. 6
All this being said, there is no doubt that in the Bengali Vaishnava tradition, the

land is inseparable from divinity; it serves as a meeting point between the infinite and the finite.

With such a strong identification between Lord Kṛṣṇa and his land, it would seem that the

Gaudiya tradition would have an easier time addressing the challenges of environmental

degradation. Despite India’s recent decades of economic growth and prosperity, the cost to the

environment has been unmitigated. In a recent World Bank report, out of 178 countries that
were surveyed, India ranked 155 in the world in air pollution. Another WHO survey stated that

across the G-20 economies, 13 out of 20 of the most polluted cities are in India. Other problems

include the depletion and overuse of land and forest resources, which is fueled by a high degree

of consumption and poverty. 7

The statistics on river pollution is even more alarming. India’s

rivers, including the holy rivers of Ganga and Yamuna, are creating a “ticking health bomb in

India.”8 80% of untreated sewage flows directly into the nation’s rivers, and directly into the

drinking water. The rapid pace of urban development in India has not kept pace with

environmental protections and strategies required to support economic growth.

To what extend does religion play a role in creating and shaping our perceptions of the

environment and our role in conserving and protecting it? How do religions in the East and West

compare ecologically? Patricia Y. Mumme argues in her article “Models and Images for a

Vaishnava Environmental Theology: The Potential Contribution of Sri Vaishnavism” that unlike

the Western religions in which narratives and images often suggest that human beings have

“dominion” over nature, the Vaishnava faith traditions fare a bit better. She states: “In contrast,

the Vaishnava tradition in general, and the SriVaishnava tradition of Ramanuja and his followers

in particular, strikes me as being much more hospitable to ecological thought.” 9 However,

Western eco-theologians, she states, are doing more to reexamine narratives using an ecological

lens and reconstructing environmentally sensitive theological models that can remedy this

perception of nature. The same needs to be done in the Indic religions.

It is important to note, as other scholars have mentioned, that the environmental problem

is a modern problem. As Paul Pederson reminds us, “no Buddhist, Hindu, or Islamic scriptures

contain concepts like ‘environmental crisis’, ecosystems, or sustainable development or concepts

that correspond to them. To insist that they do is to deny the immense cultural distance the
separates traditional religious conceptions of the environment from modern ecological

knowledge.”10 What we are attempting to do is rediscover using creative hermeneutics what lies

hitherto unexamined in the tradition. In these interpretative methods, we tend to select those

narratives, models, motifs that we find theoretically useful and minimize those that do not serve

our purpose. It is not so much that we are discovering what is in the tradition as much as we are

interpreting the tradition with a specific goal in mind.

The intersection of religion and ecology is not new in the study of Vaishnavism. Many

noteworthy scholars such as Patricia Mumme (1998), Bruce M. Sullivan (1998), Lance Nelson

(1998), David Haberman (1994, 2006), Nagarajan (2018), McAnally (2019), Chapple (2020) and

others have offered refreshing insights about the strong correlation between these two features in

the medieval Vaishnava schools. My endeavors here hope to add to the evidence that supports

this relationship by offering new mythical material, which has not been previous considered by

these and other scholars. The first half of this paper will begin with a discussion on two

theological principles: śakti/śaktiman to help clarify the cosmological relationship between God

and the world (Jagat) in the Gaudiya Vaishnava school. This will be followed by a close

ecological reading of the Kāliya story from book 10 of the Bhagavad-Purana. I hope to show

how the story can be viewed as a metaphor for environmental degradation and responsibility.

The final section of the paper shows how seva in the form of engaged bhakti can be a powerful

force for environmental responsibility and conservation.

ŚAKTI /ŚAKTIMAN: IS THE WORLD EVEN REAL?

Scholars looking to resurrect a positive ecological view regardless of the tradition may

begin by paying close attention to the cosmological relationship between God and the world.
Dr. Mumme points out that Sri Śaṁkara’s monistic claims drawn to their logical conclusion

suggest that the world is purely maya, full of illusions and distractions. For Śaṁkara, only

Brahman is real, a self-luminous, supraconsciousness that admits no difference or abheda. All

manifoldness, including jagat (world) and the individual jiva ātmans are unreal. Or to put it

more correctly, all is brahman, any perception of difference whether it be the world or the jiva

ātmans is a perceptual defect. None of these differences actually exist. The question rises that if

the world is unreal, why care for it? What ethical obligations to the environment does Sri

Śaṁkara leave us with, if any and all environmental problems are unreal?

Contrary to Śaṁkara, Śrī Jīva Goswami will argue that the world is real and nature has

intrinsic value because it is a manifestation of Ishvara’s own external śakti or maya śakti. Using

the concepts of śakti and acintya, Śrī Jīva claims that the world is real without compromising the

unity of Ishvara, something Śaṁkara does not succeed in doing. To better understand how he

accomplishes this task, a brief overview of these concepts is necessary.

Loosely translated, śakti means power or energy. Surendernath Dasgupta states that śakti

is “capacity” or “something that helps a cause to produce an effect.” 11 Śakti has two parts—

śakti (power’s capacity) and śaktiman (possessor of the power). The śakti and the śaktiman

share a relation of inconceivable (acintya) identity and difference (bheda and abheda) Like the

burning power of the flame (śakti) and the flame itself (śaktiman) both are at once separate and

yet inseparable.12 The power of the flame is inseparable in the sense that it depends upon and is

determined by the flame. Similarly, as the argument unfolds, Śrī Jīva will explain that since the

world is a manifestation of maya-śakti (one of ishwara’s many śakti s) it co-exists and is

sustained by the śakti man. Thus it is inextricably and existentially attached to the śakti man.

The world is identical to (bheda) and different (abheda) from Ishwara. In the Tattva Sandharbha,
Śrī Jīva Goswami explains that Ishvara, the śaktiman, possesses three śaktis. Svarupa śakti

(para-śakti), Tatastha śakti (jiva śakti ), and Bahiramga śakti (maya-śakti). Svarupa śakti is

intrinsic and bahiramga is extrinsic. These three śaktis are Ishvara’s manifestations and are

determined by him; the śaktis cannot exist without His ultimate existence. According to A.K.

Majumdar, “This theory of perpetual co-inherence (samaaya) of śaktimam and his śaktis is one

of the most important contributions of Gaudiya Vaishnavism to Vedanta philosophy.”13

Overlaying this theory of śakti onto the three gradations of the ultimate reality completes

the cosmological picture. Śrī Jīva explains that there are three aspects or hierarchical gradations

of the ultimate reality—Brahman, Paramātman and Bhagavat. Brahman is nirviśeṣa or

Śaṁkara’s undifferentiated conscious reality,14 which contains no śaktis. Paramātman is a

combination of Jiva śakti and Maya-śakti. This form is endowed with the powers of creation,

sustenance, dissolution of the world, and is the inward regulator of the individual self. Finally,

Bhagavat or Śrī Kṛṣṇa is infinitely qualified and is regarded as a full manifestation and contains

all śaktis.

The Paramātman feature is the material cause of creation. Paramātman is immanent in all

living beings and in all of creation through the powers of jiva-śakti and maya-śakti, which fall

under its domain. Paramātman is known as the kestrajana or the knower of the field (material

creation). Although Paramātman is in and part of creation, in keeping with the dynamics

between bheda and abheda, despite Paramātman ’s association with the world, it remains

unchanged and unaffected. The Bhagavad-Gita describes the paramātman (Supersoul) in this

way:

Everywhere are His hands and legs, His eyes, heads, and faces, and He has
Ears everywhere. In this way the Supersoul exists, pervading everything (13:14)
Furthermore, as the indwelling spirit of all material bodies; Paramātman has knowledge of all

fields, and though it dwells in maya it is never affected by it.

He is unattached, although He is the maintainer of all living beings.

He transcends the modes of nature, and at the same time He is the
master of all the modes of material nature (13:15).

Using the analogy of solar light and its orb, Śrī Jīva Goswami explains the relationship between

Paramātman and maya śakti in the Bhagavat-Sandharbha as follows: “an illusory image is a

reflection of the solar light from outside the solar orb. The solar light cannot exist unless it is

sustained by the solar orb, yet the same light can have an independent role to play outside the orb

when it is reflected or refracted.”15 Likewise, the phenomenal world is bought into being outside

the Lord by the maya śakti but the dynamics of the maya śakti is made possible by the operation

of the essential energy of the Lord.

ECOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

With this lengthy discussion of śakti and acintya-bhedābheda-tattva, the nature of jagat

comes into sharper focus. Contrary to Śaṁkara’s world of unreality, Śrī Jīva’s world is fully

divine, a manifestation of maya-śakti governed by paramātman. Also, unlike the Advaita

position, which presents Ishwara as a transcendent deity devoid of śaktis or any differentiation,

Śrī Jīva’s divinity composed of both transcendent and immanent attributes presents a more

favorable ecological image. By presenting a transcendent deity, both Śaṁkara and Western

religions, for the most part, offer a divinity that is separate and independent from the world. The

world in these traditions is often portrayed as a place full of temptation and material entrapments.

Maya is seen as an illusionary power that entices one into the world of material conditioning.
While this image is certainly available in Indic religions as well, the dominance of a transcendent

divinity is certainly more prevalent in Advaita theology. Without a doubt, this perception

accentuates a more negative view of the world, filled with the three gunas or qualities of material

nature, but is decidedly distant from the divine. Saving such a world seems like a waste of time

after all if the sole purpose of such a world is to escape it, what is the point of saving it?

Environmentalists have their work cut out for them if they are to turn this pessimistic image into

one that looks beyond maya’s veil to a more empathetic view of material nature that is in need of

our protection. Salvific theologies of otherworldliness, which often align with transcendent

portrayals, emphasize escaping and leaving the world, not restoring and protecting it. The goal of

these traditions does not easily aligned with environmentally-sensitive actions and ethics.

Contrary to this, Śrī Jīva Goswami provides a more ecologically favorable theology. The

immanent feature of paramatam draws Ishwara into the world, making him intrinsically part of

jagat. As a manifestation of maya-śakti, the world is a manifestation of the external energy of

śaktiman, who remains a part of the world and yet is not defined or limited by the world. This

has important ecological consequences. With a strong immanent conception of divinity, the

world is a place infused with divine essence. Becoming attune to the divine presence is a

powerfully way of connecting with divinity. This association is drawn out in many practical

ways in the experience of devotees of Kṛṣṇa. Whether it is in the multitude of devotional actions

like bathing in lakes and rivers, worshipping mountains, trees, plants, and rocks, rolling in the

dust of Vrindavan, and walking and remembering the pastimes of Kṛṣṇa ’s in Braj, nature

embodies the divine. Nature religions like Taoism and Shinto are eco-theologies because it is

their belief that the environment is divine. The Gaudiya school does not limit the divine in the

same 16
way but the utilization of maya śakti and acintya-bhedābheda- tattva enhances the
immanent conception and ultimately gives us a world that should be valued and protected

because it is the energy of the divine.

There is however one potential problem with this argument. Since Śaktiman is the

ultimate reality made up of sat, chit, and ananda, and if sat or real is the material cause of the

world, why should it not be as indestructible as the sat? Śrī Jīva states that until the effect is

produced, nothing can be regarded as a cause, and unless the cause is determined, the effect

cannot be determined. The power of effect must be regarded as already existent in the cause. 17

“In a sense, therefore, the world may be said to be eternal, for even in dissolution it is not wholly

destroyed but continues its existence in a subtle form in the power of the Lord.”18 More to the

point, “the world exists as a natural energy of the Lord, and as such it is eternally real.” 19

Obviously, this raises a significant problem for any argument towards environmental awareness

and action. One finds a similar argument being made by David Kinsley (1998) and Kelly D.

Alley in the same volume. There are really two problems that environmentalists confront in this

discussion, which are opposite problems. On the one hand, Hindus sacralize natural phenomena

in an absolute sense so that the pollution or contamination becomes impossible to fathom. The

Ganges is eternally pure and therefore not in need of purifying. Similarly, the world as the body

of God is eternal and pure. There is no need to save or protect it if these views are adopted.

Another problem is selective sacralization. For example, only certain parts of Braj are sacred

and revered, while other areas are not. These sacralize areas are kept free of debris and

pollutants, while “profane” areas are given little or no attention. 20

This raises many negative

ecological consequences for activists and theologians.

THE SERPENT KĀLIYA REVISITED

 Book 10 of the Bhagavad Purana begins with a description of the River Yamuna which

eerily foreshadows the current state of the sacred river today. Texts 4-5 emphasized both the

severity of the contamination and how this affected other forms of life beyond the borders of the

Yamuna River. The text uses words such as ‘boiled waters,’ ‘fiery poison,’ ‘poisonous breeze’ in

its colorful description of river’s ecological degradation under the influence of Kāliya.

Text 4: Within the river Kalindi (Yamuna) was a lake inhabited by the serpent Kāliya,
whose fiery poison constantly heated the boiled waters. Indeed, the vapors thus created so
poisonous that birds flying over the contaminated lake would fall down into it.21
Text 5: The wind blowing over that deadly lake carried droplets of water to the shore.
Simply by coming in contact with the that poisonous breeze, all vegetation and creations on the
shore died.
The contamination was so harmful, we are told, that even the wind blowing from the river had

detrimental effects on both moving and non-moving creatures. 22 Quoting from Sri Hari Vamsa,

Srila Sridhara Swami provides an even deadly description of the river. He notes in his

commentary that, “Even the demigods could not cross over it…All around the lake was a fog

generated the fire of the serpent’s poison, and this powerful fire would at once burn up every

blade of grass that happened to fall into the water.” 23

These vivid descriptions highlight the

river’s catastrophic devastation and its effect on both the residents of Vrindavan but the

demigods as well living in the heavenly abode, which hints at the wider consequences of

ecological damage today.

The text explains that Lord Kṛṣṇa saw the river’s contamination and sought to purify the

river. He jumps into the poisonous waters and furiously dances on the many heads of Kāliya

until the demon is defeated. After this episode, the River Yamuna returns to its pristine state.

There is both direct and indirect reasons given for Krishna’s actions in this story. Explicitly, the

actions of Lord Kṛṣṇa are explained by referring to the divine purpose of all avatars, who
descend to re-establishing dharma or order. The imbalance to the order of the Earth is caused, as

this myth illustrates, when nature is ravaged and overrun by demoniac forces.

Text 6: Lord Kṛṣṇa saw how the Kāliya serpent had polluted the Yamuna River with his terribly
powerful poison. Since Kṛṣṇa had descended from the spiritual world specifically to subdue
envious demons, the Lord immediately climbed to the top of the very high kadamba tree and
prepared Himself for battle.24
Lord Kṛṣṇa ’s actions demonstrates that environmental pollution is like any other adharmic action

which causes disorder and instability to the Earth. The term dharma, which comes from the root ‘dhr’

meaning ‘to sustain,’ has a variety of connotations. It means ‘social order, ‘cosmic order,’ and even

‘ethical order. 25 The latter serves as the link between the social and cosmic dimensions, which represents

respectfully the human and divine. Rta, the Rg Veda principle, which pre-dates and develops into the

notion of dharma,26 is described as a pillar which is supported by ethical actions carried out by humans

and gods that mutually reinforced and depend upon each other. Thus, periodic interventions to recover

dharma without human participation is impossible. Hence the re-instatement of dharma is not merely the

work of the avatars, who descend when things get bad, and perhaps not even humans can rectify the

situation, on the contrary, dharma is empowered by human dharmic actions. It is not a major stretch to

assert that environmental protection and conservation is a form of dharmic action since it participates in

re-balancing the order of the Earth. Patricia Y. Mumme asserts that “Vishnu’s role as preserver of

dharma can be enhanced by noting that the concept of dharma itself is capable of an ecological

reinterpretation.” 27
She goes on to assert that “The Hindu notion of dharma is naturally extendable to

include the modern notion of ecological order and balance.” 28 Citing many scriptures, she contends that

there are plenty of dharmic injunctions for humans to act in ways that support ecological order. For

example, the Manu Smriti prohibits polluting the waters of rivers (MS 4. 56). 29 Vishnu Purana declares

“God, Keshava, is pleased with a person who does not harm or destroy other non-speaking creatures or

animals” (VP 3.8.15). 30

The notion that Vishnu establishes and actively preserves dharma and condemns
and fights against those who disrupt it can go a long way to developing a Vaishnava environmental ethic.
31
If dharma includes ecological order and adharma includes ecological imbalance, then a firm ecological

ethic can be established. In this narrative Lord Kṛṣṇa is an excellent example of this environmental ethic.

The Supreme God is a role-model for environmental action. Kāliya has disrupted the ecological balance

by contaminating the River of Yamuna, and Kṛṣṇa as its preserver fights to restore nature’s equilibrium

by fighting against Kāliya. Kāliya’s behavior is immoral and causes displeasure to the Lord because it

harms the environment and disturbs natures balance.

Another point worth noting in this discussion on dharma and environmentalism is the principle of

divine mercy. Later in the story, the Nāgapatnīs prayers to Lord Kṛṣṇa refer to divine mercy in the context

of Kṛṣṇa ’s motivation for protecting the earth. Text 34: “What you have done is actually mercy for us,

since the punishment You give to the wicked certainly drives away all their contamination.” 32
The

subduing of Kāliya and the restoration of the River Yamuna to its purified state is a manifestation of

Kṛṣṇa’s kṛpā. Combining this with the concept of dharma can be helpful in providing a better way to

understand how restoring the earth to recalibrate the cosmic order is a function of God’s divine mercy.

According to this author’s paper, “The Metaphysics of Grace in the Chaitanya Vaishnava Tradition,”

divine grace is an intrinsic quality of the Lord’s internal śakti, svarupa śakti, which is found in the highest

manifestation of Bhagavan. Svarupa sakti is responsible for the creation of the world and for the avatars

that descend and protect the earth. Thus, both the creation of the Earth and its ecological protection is a

manifestation of God’s infinite grace and mercy. Krpā though is not only limited to the Supreme lord

and His actions in the world. Jīva Goswamin and Viśvanātha Chakravarti use kṛpā or compassion in two

different ways: the former as empathy, the type of kṛpā that a devotee has for other souls, and the latter as

a type of loving feeling that the Lord has for souls in ways, he is able to understand (BhP 10.9.18). The

former one is suggestive because if empathy is the feeling of compassion a devotee feels for

other souls, it is not too difficult to extend this ethic to all living things such as rivers, trees,

plants etc. Hence one could argue that empathy is not limited to only persons since the Lord
demonstrates empathy towards the Earth by protecting its balance and order. Similarly, a devotee

who possesses empathy for other souls should also preserve and protect the Earth and all living

things.

In his interpretation of this myth, Shrivasta Goswami, a well-known goswami from Radha Raman

temple in Vrindavan, provides another thoughtful insight about Kṛṣṇa’s actions. He notes that in

comparison to other asura stories, Kṛṣṇa does not kill the Kāliya serpent but in all the other asura stories,

such as Aghasura, Trinavarta, Putana and Bakasura, to name a few, Kṛṣṇa always ends up killing the

demon. What, if anything, does this tell us about Kṛṣṇa ’s actions in this story? Why does he treat Kāliya

differently? Does this provide further insight into Kṛṣṇa ’s behavior towards nature or pollution in

general? According to Shrivasta, “By not killing Kāliya, Kṛṣṇa gave the clear message that He could only

contain pollution, only separate it and dump it in the ocean, but even He cannot destroy it. Pollution was

just transferred from Yamuna to the ocean, but it remained in the ocean.” 33
A controversial statement that

sends a dire message to of humankind. If God cannot contain pollution, how can us mere mortals

succeed? Shrivasta goes on to state: “Through this action, Sri Kṛṣṇa gives us the clear message that

pollution cannot be completely eliminated.” 34 But the silver lining to this message comes later when he

adds, “Rather than trying to destroy pollution, we need to stop creating it.” 35 According to Shrivasta, the

real solution starts at the source: human action. Kṛṣṇa ’s actions towards Kāliya illustrate the best and

only way to deal with the environmental crisis is to change human behavior. No one can argue with that.

Kṛṣṇa shows that he does not have the capacity to combat the environmental crisis. 36Although he

can kill anyone, he cannot destroy the environmental contamination caused by Kāliya. All he can do is

contain it. He goes on to state that we are all helpless when it comes to the environmental catastrophe

that looms large in our modern life. Shrivasta’s point is certainly eye opening. How is Kāliya different?

The text seems to suggest that Kāliya is special for a variety of reasons.
Text 37: O Lord, we do not know how the serpent Kāliya has attained this great opportunity of being
touched by the dust of Your lotus feet. For this end, the goddess of fortune performed austerities for
centuries, giving up all other desires and taking austere vows.

Text 38: O Lord, although this Kāliya, the king of the serpents, has taken birth in the mode of ignorance
and is controlled by anger, he has achieved that which is difficult for others to achieve…the dust of Your
lotus feet.

These two verses indicate that although Kāliya embodies many demoniac qualities, he is indeed

special in some ways. After all, other conditioned souls spend lifetimes and carry out great austerities to

achieve the shelter of Lord Kṛṣṇa ’s feet, but Kāliya is given this great fortune. The text does provide

some answers to the special treatment Kāliya receives from Kṛṣṇa. In text 34, the wives of Kāliya explain

that Kṛṣṇa ’s anger should be understood as his mercy. Kṛṣṇa ’s punishment is meant to purify the demon

and is a form of his compassion. The wives of Kāliya even speculate the Kāliya may have performed

some austerities in his previous lives or executed religious duties (see Text 35) to be blessed with the dust

from Kṛṣṇa’s lotus feet. These verses highlight Kṛṣṇa ’s unconventional treatment of the Kāliya serpent.

Returning now to Shrivasta’s point, the text does not entirely support the view that Kṛṣṇa is

incapable of defeating Kāliya. In fact, the text emphasizes how Kṛṣṇa playfully but successfully subdues

Kāliya.

Text 26: Having severely depleted the serpent’s strength with His relentless circling, Sri Kṛṣṇa, the
origin of everything, pushed down Kāliya’s raised shoulders and mounted his broad serpentine heads.
Thus Lord Sri Kṛṣṇa, the original master of all fine arts, began to dance, His lotus feet deeply reddened
by the touch of the numerous jewels upon the serpent’s heads.

The Śrila Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakura comments that Kṛṣṇa ’s actions were meant to subdue

the arrogance of Kāliya by forcing him to bow down; the extraordinary demonstration of dancing was

meant for the “pleasure of the young woman of Vrindavan.” 37 Three verses later, Text 30 states:

Lord Kṛṣṇa ’s wonderful, powerful dancing trampled and broke all of Kāliya’s one thousand
hoods. Then the serpent, profusely vomiting blood from his mouth, finally recognized Sri Kṛṣṇa to be the
eternal Personality of Godhead.” 38

These comments hardly seem to support the view that Kṛṣṇa was incapable of defeating Kāliya,

as Shrivasta contends. On the contrary, Kṛṣṇa ’s omnipotence is on full display. Kṛṣṇa does not just
defeat Kāliya; it’s the way he does it that is different. He does it elegantly, rhythmically bouncing on the

serpent’s head. At once powerful and playful. The action contains two opposing sides of the Lord: His

aiśvarya (fierce and powerful) side and his mādhurya (benevolent and merciful) side. The contrast in

these two divine natures characterized in Kṛṣṇa ’s dance across the serpent’s many hoods is the climax of

this myth and accentuates the divine playful nature of the Lord.

But this still begs the question: why does Kṛṣṇa not kill Kāliya? Traditionally, the focus has

centered on how Kṛṣṇa saves Yamuna River; this binary has constituted the focal point of most retellings

of the story. By shifting our attention to the role that Kāliya’s wives play in this story can be a useful

intellectual exercise that offers fresh insights on the role of woman and their connection to nature in this

story. In the following section, I draw on the approach of ecofeminism to present new ways to

understand the role of the Nāgapatnīs and nature. I argue that the strengths of theological ecofeminism,

such as interdependence and mutuality provide an ecological lens that affirms the intrinsic connection

between woman and nature.

Ecofeminism is a theoretical approach that connects the exploitation and degradation of the

natural world with the subordination and oppression of women (Mellor 1997, 1). Simply put, it argues

that the “unjustified domination of nature and of marginalized populations—such as women, people of

color, animals, nature--are conceptually linked in mutually reinforcing systems of oppression” (Carroll,

2). Variants of ecofeminism theorize on the interrelationship between woman and nature adding nuances

to this dynamic debate. For the purposes of this paper, I will utilize theological ecofeminism which

claims that there is a strong connection between woman and nature referring here to childbearing and the

feminist principle of honoring the creativity of life. In contrast to “patriarchy which underlies the process

of ecological destruction and woman’s subjugation” (Winter, 148). Eco-feminism also draws strong links

between women and water. Just like gender is in flux, as Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt, a feminist scholar, claims,

water too is always in flux. “Water, like gender, is known for its fluidity, for changing its shape and

taking new forms, it plays a special role in the social and cultural constructions of environment. (2006,
xiii). While woman’s exploitation is linked to nature’s exploitation, on the positive side, women “might

be the best at creating holistic solutions to ecological injustices (Eaton and Lorentzen 2003, 2). Vandana

Shiva “observes the ways women have come to claim their unique relationship with nature and fight for

ways to protect nature” (Winter, 148).

Drawing from these analyses, it can be argued that Kāliya’s wives are aligned with saving the

River Yamuna, while Kāliya symbolizes the patriarchal exploitation of nature. The classic binary of

masculine exploitation and feminine compassion for nature is represented in the clear contrast the text

draws between Kāliya and his wives. Returning to the text, a significant portion of the story (Texts 31-54)

are devoted to the prayers of Kāliya’s wives to Kṛṣṇa. They pay their respects and beg forgiveness for

their “foolish husband” who did not understand who was Kṛṣṇa? (text 51). In text 54 at the end of their

lengthy supplications, Sukadeva Goswami says: “Thus praised by the Nāgapatnī’s, the supreme

personality of Godhead released the serpent Kāliya.” It is clear that it was the Nāgapatnī’s prayers and

devotion to the Lord that caused Kṛṣṇa to release Kāliya without killing him; and not that Kṛṣṇa is

incapable of saving the environment. The logical conclusion of that statement is far more ominous.

While if we accept the fact that the Nāgapatnī’s had a part to play in saving Kāliya, it underscores their

own agency which so often remains unexplored. To that end, it should be noted that although Kāliya is

demoniac, his wives are devotees of Kṛṣṇa. They understand that their husband is “sinful,” “wicked” (see

text 34) “full of ignorance, pride and anger” (text 38). It is not a stretch to infer that these are the qualities

that cause environmental pollution and contamination personified in the figure of Kāliya. After all it is

these traits that Kāliya exhibits and that cause him to pollute the River Yamuna. The Nāgapatnīs, in

contrast, embody qualities of humility, mercy and kindness which make them the preservers of nature.

This narrative, viewed with an appreciation of the role of Kāliya’s wives, illustrates that woman play an

important role in the preservation and protection of nature in the Vaishnava tradition.

SEVA AND KARUNA AS EMBODIED BHAKTI

 The River Yamuna is considered one of the most polluted rivers in the world. Shrivasta

Goswami draws direct parallels from the myth of Kāliya to the current pollution of River Yamuna. In the

book, Loving Water Across Religions, he states “The poison comes not from a mystic serpent, but from

the factories and sewers of Delhi, seventy miles upstream.” The serpent Kāliya now manifests as “the

drains discharging domestic and industrial wastes into the river, that the various pipes are his many

poisonous heads.” 39
If Kāliya’s poison is likened to today’s industrial waste, Kṛṣṇa is, as Shrivasta tells

us, an ‘ecological guru,’ showing us how to restore the health of the Yamuna River. He states the two

main aspects of Kṛṣṇa’s environmentalism are “repairing environmental damage and worshipping

nature.” 40

Many scholars have noted that the best, most effective way to raise people’s awareness of

environmental issues and impel them to act is not through a scientific approach or a utilitarian one but by

appealing to their religious sensibilities. Helping the environment should be synonymous with devotional

service or seva to Lord Kṛṣṇa and saving His creation. If that link can be successfully made, it will

galvanize more devotees to support environmental causes such as the Braj Vrindavan Heritage Alliance

which formed in 2010 to prevent the construction of an overpass over the Yamuna near Keshi Ghat or the

Yamuna Raksak Dal (Save Yamuna Group) that lead to massive protest that began in Vrindavan to Delhi

in 2013. 41Such measures gain traction when devotees are inspired by religious reasons. Scholars like

Vasudha Narayanan writes, “Devotional (bhakti) exercises seem to be the greatest potential resource for

ecological activists in India. As we have seen, devotion to Kṛṣṇa or to Mother Ganga or Yamuna has

impelled some people to take action to supply safe drinking water, plant and protect trees, and clean up

rivers.”42 To that end, Shrivasta argues, that environmental efforts to clean up the river need to be viewed

as seva or service to the divine.

Seva is a key component of all bhakti traditions; it is an act of selfless service. The word is

derived from two Sanskrit roots saha, meaning “with that” and eva, meaning “too,” which together mean

“together with.” Seva is found in many Indian religions. The practice is used to support many ethical
initiatives such as community engagement, service to holy persons, service in the temple and ashramas,

cow protection, food distribution, and most importantly, the protection and conservation of the

environment. The rationale is, by serving others, one serves God. Thus, performing seva is a direct way to

serve the divine and develop spiritually by cultivating selflessness. Taking a cue from the Sanskrit

meaning, seva is a form of praxis that powerfully connects the devotee to embodied forms of the sacred

such as rivers, murtis, temples, trees etc. This varied form of bhakti described superbly by Karen Pechilis

Prentiss in her book, The Embodiment of Bhakti, highlights how bhakti always actively encourages

participation (which is the root of bhakti). “Engagement with or participation in God should inform all of

one’s activities in worldly life. Bhakti encourages a diversity of activities, not limiting bhakti to

established modes of worship—but instead making it the foundation of human life and activity in the

world.”43 In bhakti, “God is transcendent, yet he is locally concerned,” 44 she writes. This shift in focus

from impersonal/transcendent to personal/immanence can help support a strong environmental ethic in

Vaishnavism because it particularizes and localizes the divine, giving devotees a more tangible way to

participate in and engage with the sacred. When a transcendent aspect is emphasized, world negation is

the accompanying attitude. But immanence brings the attention back to worldly engagement and

participation. This is why theologically speaking Vaishnavism is more favorable to the environment. In

sum, bhakti, as Haberman states, is worshipful interaction with embodied forms of divinity. 45 Hence seva

is engaged bhakti that unites the devotee to a multitude of embodied forms of the divine. 46
“When

ecological restoration of the Yamuna River is performed as Yamuna seva, devotional love for the goddess

is enacted through practical ways of caring for her liquid flowing waters.” 47 On one final note, seva

should not only be limited to devotional service in practice but should also be interpreted as karuna or

compassion, empathy or loving kindness. Since seva is an act of selflessness, then empathy naturally

flows from this ethical virtue. Empathy is a sign of our deep love and commitment for others. The

multivalent term seva in Gaudiya Vaishnavism thus provides the foundation for environmental ethic.

CONCLUSION
 Western eco-theologians are doing more to reexamine narratives using an ecological lens

and reconstructing environmentally sensitive theological models that can remedy our perception

of nature and ignite a greater sense of awareness of our responsibility. Along the same lines, this

paper sought to re-read the story of the serpent Kāliya from book 10 of the Bhagavad Purana to

rediscover how it might reshape our view of the environment and provide further evidence that a strong

relationship exists between the Gaudiya school and the environment. Vivid descriptions of River Yamuna

in the text mirror the type of environmental pollution we witness today which underscores the relevance

of this myth for our modern day. Additionally, what we discovered is the dharmic injunction to restore

balance and order which motivates all avataras to descend can be reinterpreted to include ecological

concerns. When the Earth is overrun by miscreants and demons, the avatar comes to fight against these

forces. But avatars also defend the Earth against environmental challenges, as is shown in the Kāliya

myth. This goes a long way to promoting the foundations for an environmental ethic in the Gaudiya

school. We also noted that Kṛṣṇa’s behavior towards Kāliya not only sheds light on our responsibilities

towards the environment but that he acted with mercy—he spared his life. This was more likely due to

the Nagapatni’s who exhibit the of qualities of kindness, humility and compassion which are favorable to

the environment, while Kāliya’s qualities of arrogance and anger are inimical to the River and all of

nature. This provides a more positive view of woman and their role in protecting and nourishing the

Earth. Finally, our analysis concludes with some ways in which the bhakti principles of seva and karuna

meaning service and compassion can be harnessed to inspire and galvanize more support for saving River

Yamuna and all of God’s creation.

1
Kṛṣṇa Book, Chapter 11, “Uddhava Visits Vrindavana” Trans. A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Page. 59.
2
Haberman, David. Journey Through the Twelve Forests. 56.
3
Ibid. pg. 237.
4
Ibid. 125-127
5
Kingsley, David. “ Learning the Story of the Land: Reflections on the Liberating Power of Geography and Pilgrimage in the
Hindu Tradition.” In Purifying the Earthly Body of God. Pg. 239.
6
S.K. De Vaishnava Faith and Movement. Pg. 335.
7
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/03/06/green-growth-overcoming-india-environment-challenges-
promote-development
8
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/05/india-river-pollution-sewage_n_2810213.html
9
Mumme, Patricia. “Models and Images for a Vaishnava Environmental Theology.” In Purifying the Earthly Body of God.
136.
10
Purifying the Earthly Body of God. Pg. 15.
11
Dasgupta, Surendernath. History of Indian Philosophy. Vol. III. 354.
12
Chakravarti, Philosophical Foundations of Gaudiya Vaiṣṇavism. 312.
13
A.K. Majumdar, Gaudiya Vaishnava Studies. Pg. 72.
14
Lal Chhaganhal, Philosophy of Bhakti. 32.
15
A.K. Majumdar, Gaudiya Vaishnava Studies. Pg. 75.
16
S.K. De. Vaishnava Faith and Movement. Pg. 77.
17
Ibid. Pg. 77.
18
Ibid. Pg. 77.
19
Ibid. Pg. 77.
20
Kinsley, David, “Learning the Story of the Land” in Purifying the Earthly Body of God. Pg. 242.
21
Srimad Bhagavatam, Canto 10, Chapter 16, Verses 4-5, pgs. 110-111.
22
Ibid. pg. 111.
23
Ibid. pg. 112.
24
Ibid. text 6.
25
Mumme, pg. 145.
26
William K. Mahony. See The Artful Universe: An Introduction to the Vedic Religious Imagination.
27
Mumme, Patricia. Y. pg. 145.
28
Ibid. pg. 146.
29
Ibid. Pg. 146
30
Ibid. pg. 146
31
Ibid. pg. 146-147.
32
Srimad Bhagavatam, Canto 10, Chp. 16, verse 34 Translation by A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.
33
https://a108.net/blogs/entry/21495-shivatsa-goswami-let%E2%80%99s-work-together-to-restore-mother-yamuna
%E2%80%99s-health/
34
Ibid. See website
35
Ibid. see website
36
Ibid. See website
37
Ibid. Pg. 127.
38
Ibid. pg. 130.
39
McAnally, Loving Waters Across Religions. Pg. 146
40
Ibid. pg. 146.
41
Ibid. 146.
42
Ibid. 146.
43
Prentiss. Pg. 6
44
Ibid. 6.
45
See Haberman’s Yale Forum on Religion an Ecology, https://fore.yale.edu/blogs/entry/1627364121
46
McAnally, Loving Waters Across Religions. Ibid. pg. 147.
47
Ibid. pg. 147.

References
Chakravarti, Sudhindra Chandra. (1969). Philosophical Foundations of Bengali Vaishnavism.
Calcutta: Academic Publishing.

Dasgupta, S. (1975). A History of Indian Philosophy. Motilal Banarsidass.

De, Sushil K. (1942). Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement. Calcutta: Firma. KLM
Private Limited.

Eaton, Heather and Lois Ann Lorentzen. 2003. Introduction to Ecofeminism and Globalization:
Exploring Culture, Context and Religion, edited by Heather Eaton and Lois Ann Lorentzen.
New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc

Haberman, P. D. R. S. D. L. (1994). Journey Through the Twelve Forests. Oxford University Press.

International Vaishnavas Portal. (2018, March 24). Shivatsa Goswami: Let’s work together to restore
Mother Yamuna’s Health. https://a108.net/blogs/entry/21495-shivatsa-goswami-let
%E2%80%99s-work-together-to-restore-mother-yamuna%E2%80%99s-health/

Interviews with Authors on Hinduism and Ecology | Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology. (2021).
Https://Fore.Yale.Edu/Blogs/Entry/1627364121. https://fore.yale.edu/blogs/entry/1627364121

Lahari-Dutt, Kuntala. 2006. Fluid Bonds: Views on Gender and Water . Kolkata, India: Mandira
Sen.
Lala, C. (1989). Philosophy of Bhakti. Van Haren Publishing.

Mahony, W. K. (1997). The Artful Universe: An Introduction to the Vedic Religious Imagination (S U
N Y Series in Hindu Studies) (1st Edition). State University of New York Press.

Majumdar, A. K. (1978). Gaudiya Vaishnava Studies. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.

Mellor, Mary. 1997. Feminism & Ecology . New York: New York University Press. Mies,
Maria, and Vandana Shiva. 1993. Ecofeminism . Halifax, Nova Scotia: Fernwood
Publications.

McAnally, E. (2019). Loving Water Across Religions: Contributions to an Integral Water Ethic
(Ecology and Justice). Orbis Books.

Nelson, L. E. (2000). Purifying the Earthly Body of God: Religion and Ecology in Hindu India D.K.
Printworld.

Prabhupada, D. H. D. G. A. C. B. S., & Prabhupada, S. B. G. D. H. O. D. A. C. (1977). Srimad-

Bhagavatam, Tenth Canto. The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

Prabhupada, S. B. A. C. (1997). Bhagavad-Gita As It Is (Revised ed.). Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

Prentiss, K. P. (2000). The Embodiment of Bhakti. Oxford University Press.

Smith, D. C. (2001). Environmentalism, Feminism, and Gender. Sociological Inquiry, 71(3) 314–
334. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682x.2001.tb01115.x

Vakoch, D. A., Mickey, S., Bedford, A., Blend, B., Deininger, M., Freyne, G. G., Gorney, E., Winter,
R. H., Hidalgo, A., & Holmes, C. (2017). Ecofeminism in Dialogue. Adfo Books.