Yuga dharma.

Sri gurubhyo namaha.

Post or two on the Ramayana - Done.
Post or two on the Mahabharatha - Done.
No more Mahakavyas. What next?

Realise a lack of more in terms of what are itihasa kavyas (historic epics) which are elevated to the level of the two mentioned above. Ulysses? No. Better stick to what I know.

Yes! A post digging for scraps from the both!
So, here goes.

Rama (the hero of the Ramayana) is one among the avatars (incarnations) of Vishnu. Krishna (the hero of the Mahabharatha) too is one among the avatars of Vishnu. Both incarnations occurred at different epochs. Ramas incarnation is set in the Treta yuga and Krishnas incarnation is towards the end of the Dwapara yuga. These epochs or yugas are huge periods of time and the intrinsic nature of these yugas give us an insight into the peoples and their psyches, their inner and outer troubles, the environment, their 'state', etc as a collective. And believe me, they are certainly varied times. Rama walked this earth in a human form somewhat (quite somewhat) earlier than Krishna and observing the parallels in the lives of these two individuals, who really are the same person, who lived in different times is a wonderful exercise. Not only does it provide the contextual difference in terms of their respective characters or their respective message to the world at large, it also gives us the influence of the actual yuga dharma or the nature of the flow of things in the different yugas.

As with everything, it is easy to look at the obvious differences than the not so obvious ' oneness'. A look at the differences then-

Rama is renowned for being the eka patni vratan or the one who is married only once and remains loyal to that one wife. Legends associated with Rama glorify this aspect of his character. Krishna on the other hand had more wives than there are days in peoples lives! Some legends hold that Krishna had 16,108 wives (this number has an esoteric significance which is not the intent of this post to hover on) and even if we ignore that view for the time being, he still had more wives than one. Krishna was married to Rukmini, Sathyabhama, Jambhavathi, Kalindi and Mitrabinda (these are all detailed in the many stories of Krishna, his life and exploits!). Even still Krishna is always associated with Radha primarily - who was his lover(oh, the taboo) and not one he married! Legends associated with Krishna glorify this aspect of his as the playboy who stole the hearts of many.

The adharma in the times of Rama is personified as the demon king Ravana who out of his lust and desire for Sita forcibly abducts her from the hermitage in the forest to his kingdom. It is this act of Ravana that served to be the catalyst for Rama to invade and attack Lanka the kingdom of Ravana. In the times of Krishna though things look different. Krishna encouraged (aided and abetted) his friend and devotee Arjuna to come to Dwaraka to seduce and steal his sister Shubadra!! Not only that, Arjuna did this job of seducing the princess Shubadra by living in Dwaraka in the guise of an ochre clad sanyasi.

The warfare in the days of Rama was governed by the rules pertaining to warfare and there was not much of the back hand and adharmic fights fought then. Rama's decision to fight with Ravana was justified and Rama did not use his sly cunning to win the war. The war was won by dharma and truth. In Krishna's time, the stories of the Mahabharatha make it evident; warfare was altogether a different affair. Most of the opponents (great heroes each one) that were defeated or slain by the Pandavas were felled by unfair means. In the slaying of Jayadratha Krishna played an important part in the unfair fight by covering the sun temporarily. Radheya (Karna), Drona, Duryodhana were all killed in unfair fights. One of the chapters of the epic also records this transition from dharma to adharma by makeing a note of the fact that the first ten days of the war (when the Kauravas fought under the leadership of the great Bheeshma) were ones of dharma. Then with the fall of Bheeshma and with the captaincy of Drona things took a turn for the wicked. Since then all the duels and the general war was dominated by adharma and underhand fighting. Krishna at the end of the war comments that the Kaurava greats could never have been defeated in a fair fight, never mind being killed, and that it was the nature of the yuga (the transition from dwapara to kali) that is seen from the sudden departure from the accepted code of warfare and dharma.

Rama spent his whole life trying to play down the fact that he was God - really! He was the personification of humility and the paragon of the virtues of the good Hindu. Always respectful towards his elders, sensitive to the needs of his subjects, aware of his duties as a son, king, husband etc. Even when the great Vasishtha began to preach the liberating wisdom to Rama in the end (yoga vashishta) it is remarkably clear that Rama is portrayed as human. Krishna on the other hand lived out his entire life (complete with all its glorious mischief making) to convey that he was God. Right from torturing his poor mother (Yasodha) by his pranks to stealing the hearts (and possibly more) of the gopikas, from the killing of Kamsa to orchestrating the whole great war, from providing yards and yards of saree material for the honour of Draupadi to revelling in his revelation of the cosmic form, Krishna's life story is a celebration of his being God.

There you go now, some of the parallels observed in the two incarnations at the two different yugas. I am sure there be plenty more we can find on even a first glance. These help to determine the ethic and the morality of the general populace at these different times and also in seeing what the yuga dharma does to influence the progress and the evolution of the world and its peoples. Now, I would like to take leave of you with a few questions.....

In the treta yuga (Rama's period) dharma or righteousness has three legs (out of four) so all is hunky dory to the most part. In the dwapara yuga (the end of which is marked by Krishna's birth and the end of the great war) dharma had but two of its four legs and things are (as we can see) beginning to wobble. In kali yuga (the current period, our period) which began at the end of the great war dharma stands on only one leg. Dharma is officially crippled! This much is yuga dharma. If Krishna incarnated to rid the earth of its demons, if his incarnation was for the destruction of adharma and the upholding of dharma, and if this his purpose was achieved by the total and all out slaughter of (nearly) all of the sixteen akshouhinis of troops and the subsequent destruction of the clan of the vrishinis, then why is the immediate birth of the next yuga (kali) one where dharma stands on only one leg??

Were the good slain in battle? Did dharma actually win when the kings and their armies were butchered? If those wicked souls on the path of adharma were weeded out like it is made out in the epic, why then was dharma left with such a handicap immeadiately after? Does adharma to fight adharma (for the bigger stake of dharma) make sense or is that very fact even an indicator that perhaps the means are more important than the end? Or are the means verily ends themselves? Or finally is yuga dharma akin to the proverbial ragwort (a weed) that simply rises its head above the ground no matter how many times is chopped down to the very ground?

The Ramayana adventures - part 2

Sri gurubhyo namaha.

Exploring a few more disconnected angles in the Ramayana would be the natural evolution of the last post. A reader, confused martian, felt that ''The fact that there was such a person as Lakshmana, sacrificing his entire life at the feet of his elder, is something unbelievable.'' Now, in today's world such a person might be rare (note I use rare suggesting that there will still be many people like Lakshmana now, rather than the word impossible), but the puranas and the epics are full of such characters. Not only did Lakshmana willingly sacrifice his entire life at the feet Rama, he took great delight in it and as a result achieved a lot of merit from it. Even today as a result of this his total devotion to his brother, Rama and Lakshmana are always portrayed, thought of and spoken of together.

One of the most beautiful verses in the Ramayana illustrates this point wonderfully. I do not know the full verse in Sanskrit off the top of my head, so I desist quoting the verse here. I will though when I get my hands on the text. But the emotion and the content of the verse I can convey even in English. After the abduction of Sita and after the episode where Rama laments his fate and questions the Ashoka and the Kadamba tress and when he cries out to the deer in jungle regarding the whereabouts of Sita, the deer keep looking southwards. Rama and Lakshmana picked up the cue and went southward to find Sita. Eventually they reached the kingdom of Kishkinda where Sugreeva and Rama made a pact of friendship with the fire as witness. Then Sugreeva brought out some jewels from a cave and told Rama that these jewels were flung down by Sita when she was being carried away by Ravana in the Pushpaka vimana (flying chariot of Ravana).

On being shown the jewels worn by his beloved, Rama broke down as he recognised each of the different ornaments worn by Sita. In this state, perhaps Rama thought that his mind was too clouded by his sorrow, Rama begs Lakshmana to identify whether the jewels do actually belong to Sita. At this juncture, the verse in question comes as Lakshmana's reply to his brothers question. He says (ah, so beautifully) that he does not recognise the necklace, nor the ear rings, he does not know if the bangles and the golden oddiyana (waist band) belong to Sita, but he can say with all certainty that the anklets were Sita's as he has worshipped the feet of Sita every day of his life and can thus recognise the anklets. God, is there any more of a heart wrenching and emotional strings pulling and poetic way than this to point out the nature of Lakshmana( while at the same time teaching us a bit of the Dharma sastra which holds that the wife of the elder brother is like the guru as well and it is not proper to pay attention to any other part of the body of such a person other than the feet, to which alone the disciple has the authority)?? The guru too is the same. The disciple has no authority to meditate on the rest of the form of the guru, just his lotus feet alone.





This response from Lakshmana alone is enough to drive home the point that he was one who had verily given up everything in the love and respect for his elder brother. There are of course plenty more instances where Lakshmana proves to us the stuff he was made of. And with respect to the other half of the comment regarding Rama being the hero of the story, I agree - the epic itself is named Ramayana and not Lakshmanayana or Hanumanayana. However, let it be known that there is no lack of heroes in the epic called Ramayana. Lakshmana, Bharatha, Vibishana, Hanuman, Angada and plenty more are in close contention for the hero's seat. Sita herself is quite heroic. Never mind the human and semi humans (vanaras), even other creatures like the mighty and noble Jataayu (vulture like mega bird), Jaambavaan (the wise black bear) and little squirrels and parakeets all play a part to earn them for a while at least the hero's seat. Whether the many fallacies of Rama serve to further his tragic nature or not, they are features which help the regular folk like us identify on a deep and emotive level to Rama. The God Rama is not someone alien to the sorrows and pitfalls of being human but is someone who time again shows through his apparent delusion and attachment that he is no different from us, really.

Probing the angle of the Dharma sastras that I briefly mentioned while discussing Lakshmana's response above, there is another gem in the Ramayana. This is set in the context of the Ashoka vana (forest of Ashoka trees) where Sita was held captive by Ravana. When Hanuman arrived at the Ashoka vana in the kingdom of Lanka after crossing the mighty ocean in his search for Sita (who he has not seen or met before), he passed from tree to tree trying to find out where Sita was. Finally he saw Sita, sitting all alone and deeply immersed in the thoughts of her lord, under the tall Ashoka trees he decided to wait a while before making his appearance. So he waited on a branch of the tree under which Sita was sitting. In order to first make it clear to Sita that he was a messenger of her lord Rama and not another rakshasha (demon) or Ravana in disguise to torment her further, Hanuman decides to recite the glories of Rama aloud so that Sita could hear it. Thinking thus he began to recite the story of Rama the prince of Ayodhya leaving for exile with his wife Sita and brother Lakshmana and continues the story further. Hearing the words in praise of her lord in this the kingdom of the Rakshashas, Sita looked around to see who was speaking thus. She looked up on the branches of the tree and saw Hanuman sitting there. She then wonders if the monkey on the tree was a dream, a bad dream? This verse shows the dream analysis and prediction science of the Dharma sastras - that seeing a monkey in a dream was a bad omen! But then Sita concludes that it could not be a dream as immersed in the sadness of being separated from her lord, she had'nt slept a nights sleep in days, nay, months. She has just been there sitting and thinking about Rama all these days, oblivious to hunger or sleep or any of the normal distractions. So the monkey sitting above had to be real and not her dream, she concludes. Here in this verse not only are the words of the dharma sastras revealed but Sita's character as the pati vrata (chaste woman) and her grief and pain at the separation from her beloved where even the most natural (albeit temporary) solace of the suffering millions, i.e. sleep, is even not an option. Ore kallula pala maanga (lit. many mangoes from the same one stone, to mean - the one simple verse paints a multi layered picture).

The Hindu epics are just saturated beyond belief with such gems. Not only are they a great read with plenty of the usual masala mix (grandeur, love found, love lost, love found again, love triangles,fights, suspense) as any bollywood block buster, they are also noticeably lacking in the vulgarity of human excesses found in today's world. To add another feather to their crown, they pack plenty of sophisticated yet subtle metaphysical truth and thought and are the instruments through which the words of the dharma sastras and vedanta are brought home to the masses who have not the time and/or the inclination to study the sastras and tantras themselves.

To go back to the point touched in the previous post where I mentioned (thought out loud) that the relationship between the three sets of brothers forms the constant back ground music for the Ramayana - If not for the unquestioned support of Lakshmana, Rama could not have succeeded in enduring his exile or the journey to seek Sita and rescue her from Ravana. If not for the enemity between Sugreeva and Vali, there would have been no chances for Rama to form the crucial alliance with Sugreeva his monkey army which as we all know was instrumental in the search for Sita and for the construction of the Setu or the mega bridge on the oceans to reach Lanka. If not for the alliance with Vibishana it would have taken a lot out of Rama and his army to understand the maya of Ravana and his allies. Kumbakarna the other brother of Ravana too plays an interesting and revealing part in this drama, that however is material for a seperate post. Surely someone who sleeps for six months of the year and eats without a break for the other six months when awake is great material for a post!

A meditation on the subtexts of Ramayana

Sri gurubhyo namaha.

During a recent discussion about the Indian/Hindu epics with some friends, I mentioned the Ramayana. After a few general words on the story line with respect to Rama being an avatar/incarnation of Vishnu and a bit about his exile and the subsequent abduction of Sita by Ravana, I stopped for a coffee. It was then that someone asked me a question. R asked, how would you describe the Ramayana in a few words? What is it really 'about'?

I thought about it for the length of time it takes an extra strong and really hot latte to travel down my oesophagus and into my engine to fire my brain cells with the caffeine. The caffeine in the dark roast Ethiopian beans worked wonderfully well and soon my brain cells began their work - of reading between the lines! Should I say, like most, that the Ramayana is a tale of love of epic proportions? Is it a story that highlights the virtues of a 'chaste' woman? Or is it one that shows that a mans mind is so twisted that he would require the 'fire test' as proof of his woman's chastity and even still abandon her in the forest when pregnant with his children, based on the nasty words of a washer man? Is the main point of the Ramayana its highlighting the fact that even the supreme Vishnu will still have to suffer the pain arising out of attachment and delusion (see the chapters where Rama runs hither and thither in grief asking the Ashoka trees and the Kadamba trees the whereabouts of his beloved) while on a sojourn on this dream scape called earth? Is its moral the end where we see that evil is always won over and controlled by what is good and truthful? Is the intense bhakti and devotion experienced (and expressed) by Hanuman towards Rama a core aspect the epic wishes its readers and listeners to become aware of? I could go on and on in this vein and still be unable to put it in a few words.

If on the other hand I try to express the metaphysical and symbolic meaning of the story and its protagonists, where Rama is the inner self and Ravana with his ten heads is the inner villain representing the ideas of ego,anger, hate etc who is forever tormenting the chaste and noble inner Sita, it will need plenty more than lattes (however caffeinated) for the brain cells to expand (or dilate) enough to make a decent start. So I decided that the best way was to explore a very tangible thread that all of us (well almost all) can latch on to. So I did.

The Ramayana, if I were to describe it in a few words, is a tale about siblings. Yes, a story about brothers!!

First, there is the sub story in Ayodhya. There are four brothers there - Rama, Bharatha, Lakshmana and Shatrugna - who are born to different mothers, the three queens of the king Dasaratha. These brothers here are very well heeled and well aware of the dharma shastras. They realise the elder brother to be verily the guru, the embodied God and their whole relationship is based on that. There are enough instances in the story where each of the brothers prove their devotion and unquestioned and unconditional love towards their eldest sibling Rama. They are ready to give up mighty kingdoms, wife, family, ego and everything else for the sake of their brother. Whatever Rama said, the others took it to be the final word.

Next in line is the sub story in Lanka, the kingdom of the demon king Ravana. Here too there are four brothers - Ravana, Vibishana, Kumbhakarna and Maricha. In this line, we see an altogether different highlight when it comes to the connection between the brothers. Here the main point taught is through the actions of Vibishana. He epitomises the feeling that brother or no brother, father or sister or whatever, a loved one or not, one on the path of adharma has to be avoided. Vibishana loved his elder brother Ravana as much as Lakshmana loved and respected Rama. But when he realised that Ravana was in the wrong (in carrying away Sita), he sacrificed all his own feelings of love and closeness and cast his vote in favour of Dharma and Truth. He switched sides and went over to the army of Rama and offered them his services in bringing Ravana to justice! This he did not because of the knowledge that Rama was the stronger opponent (that is the ilk of the new age politician, the rulers of the olden days were infact much more noble), but because of his orientation to dharma and righteousness was stronger than even the ties of blood and heart.

The third angle is the sub story in the monkey kingdom called Kishkinda. Here there are two brothers - Vali and Sugreeva. And here the focus is on enmity! Here we find that the younger brother, Sugreeva, realises that he can survive peacefully only when his elder sibling is killed. Sugreeva spent years in exile, living in the rocky jungle called Kishkinda in constant fear of his elder brothers spies and army and all the time plotting and waiting for the time when he could deal the death blow to his brother.

Three sub stories. All about the different feelings evoked, expressed and not expressed among siblings. These totally different attitudes and the subsequent actions generated as a result of these attitudes, forms the back ground music for the epic that is Ramayana. There you go. Done it now in a very tangible and 'down to earth' fashion. Only not in a 'few' words, I agree. But reducing the many many khandas (chapters) of this super long epic into a few hundred words, I could do no better.

Not being an only child myself, I wonder what type of brothers would I prefer mine are? Certainly not a Sugreeva type waiting for the moment to throw a boulder on my head when my backs turned for a minute. I dont think I might even appreciate the dharma hugging Vibishana type brother who will put dharma on top of his devotion to me! A blessing it would be to have brothers like Lakshmana and Bharatha who would gladly forsake everything for the sake of their elder brother and manifest God - me!