This declaration is to prove the vital clue to Krishna's character. It is
to be expanded in later texts and is to account for the fervour with which
he is soon to be adored. For the present, however, his claim is in the
nature of an aside. After the battle, he resumes his life as a prince and
it is more for his shrewdness as a councillor than his teaching as God
that he is honoured and revered. Yet special majesty surrounds him and
when, thirty-six years after the conflict, a hunter mistakes him for a
deer and kills him by shooting him in the right foot[8], the Pandavas are
inconsolable. They retreat to the Himalayas, die one by one and are
translated to Indra's heaven[9].

Such an account is obviously a great advance on the _Chandogya Upanishad_.
Yet, as we ponder its intricate drama, we are faced with several
intractable issues. It is true that a detailed character has emerged, a
figure who is identified with definite actions and certain clear-cut
principles. It is true also that his character as Vishnu has been
asserted. But it is Krishna the feudal hero who throughout the story
takes, by far, the leading part. Between this hero and Krishna the God,
there is no very clear connection. The circumstances in which Vishnu has
taken form as Krishna are nowhere made plain. Except on the two occasions
mentioned, Krishna is apparently not recognized as God by others and does
not himself claim this status. Indeed it is virtually only as an
afterthought that the epic is used to transmit his great sermon, and
almost by accident that he becomes the most significant figure in the
story. Even the sermon at first sight seems at variance with his actions
as a councillor--his repeated recourse to treachery ill consorting with
the paramountcy of duty. In point of fact, such a conflict can be easily
reconciled for if God is supreme, he is above and beyond morals. He can
act in any way he pleases and yet, as God, can expect and receive the
highest reverence. God, in fact, is superior to ethics. And this viewpoint