Preliminary
At the start let me write few words on ‘logical argument’ and its importance in the scheme of matters spiritual. Often, we as sadhakas encounter vexed spiritual conundrums which defy a credible explanation. Or, sometimes, we hang on to only seemingly true pet notions with tenacity, when some simple logic would show how erroneous those beliefs really were. This post picks up on one such conundrum. I have then tried to apply common-sense logic (from “first principles”!) to arrive at certain unusual conclusions.
Some Vexed Questions!
When I was much younger, much like many others I guess, one of the questions that plagued me was - why can I not ‘see’ Isvara, God? Everything that I see around me, this wonderful world with its fabulous beings seems so real; why then could I not see the most fabulous, the supposedly most ‘real’ being of all, Isvara? It did not matter that I would be told by elders that He is without form. My immediate reaction would be that in the scriptural stories ordinary people could see Him, form or no form. The line of thought would lead on to – if Lord Rama, Lord Krsna, Lord Siva, or Isvara in any form, have a 'history' as chalked out in our scriptures, then where is Vaikuntha (Heaven)? What happened to Siva’s great bow that was broken by Lord Rama in that great marriage hall? Where was the arrow that hit Lord Krsna’s foot preserved? Where was Siva’s great scimitar given to Ravana, and recovered by Lord Rama stored? What happened to the race of the great talking Vanaras (Apes) that lived in Kishkinda, the kingdom of Sugriva
Note that these questions are not asking for silly stuff like proof that Isvara exists. They take as given that Isvara ‘exists’, and that scriptural stories are literally true. All that I wanted to know was, much as I could see and touch the objects of this world, why was it not possible for me to see and touch Isvara and all the Divine Objects associated with Him? Needless to say no answer of any credibility was ever forthcoming from any number of elders, big-time swamis and holy people that I put it to. In fact, the best answers I ever got were those that simply said – believe; forget about how and why, it cannot be explained. I could live with that. But what if we were to try to attempt an answer? Actually, it is very useful to do. As immediately a veritable treasure trove of ideas have to be considered, offering an opportunity to clear our notions with respect to the nature of the world and Isvara.
For, the simple, innocuous questions posed by the youngster above, put their finger squarely on a fundamental issue in spirituality: that most of us take the ‘seen’ world as ‘real’, thereby establishing a standard of reality that an entity has to be seen, and touched and so on, to be called ‘real’. Then, this standard of reality by itself implies that Isvara too, necessarily, and all His Divine Objects of yore, have to be available to be ‘seen’ and ‘touched’ to be reckoned as being ‘real’. But then, of course, they are not.
Dualism & Advaita
A word at this point may be fitting on the 2 broad views in this context available to us from doctrine. First, there is the commonly held ‘Dualistic’ viewpoint wherein we believe that the Jiva (the individual) is real, Isvara is real and so is the seen World. This would be, after all, the natural conclusion to be drawn from our daily interactions with this world and which, over time, becomes a rigid mindset. For most of us then, even the mere suggestion of ‘all this’ being unreal, makes us view the proponent of such a supposedly absurd idea as somewhat mad.
But then there is this very ‘mad’ idea in Advaita, wherein this Trinity of the Jiva, Isvara and the World is held as unreal, analogous to a dream; or as in the “sarpa-rajju” analogy, like the snake seen in the rope in poor light. Only Brahman or the Supreme Self is real. It is not as if the Trinity is completely non-existent, like the ‘son of a barren woman’, or like a ‘square circle’, but is of an illusory nature. Something is viewed as something else by that very same something. So Brahman is the one reality, but is illusorily viewed as the Trinity due the operation of Maya. Everything that is seen, touched, or dreamt of in this world, exists in the mind/ego; and is of the nature of vrttis, mere thoughts, in this mind/ego complex.
Superficially then, given that Isvara too is ‘unreal’ in Advaita like everything else, the adherents of the philosophy often stand accused of being dry atheists who do not believe in Isvara, much less worship Him with any reverence. But we will try and examine how, ironically, Isvara is actually more ‘real’ to the Advaitist than to the Dualist, and Advaita is the only system able to provide a logically consistent answer to the conundrum posed by the questions above. In fact, the amazing conclusion reached via simple logic is that any approach which treats the world as ‘real’, like that of the Dualists, will necessarily condemn Isvara to be ‘unreal’.
The Usual Answers
How would you then, dear reader, answer the basic questions as above? Let us first consider Isvara alone. I ask: you who hold that this world that we see and touch and wake up to every day as ‘real’, why then can I not see and touch the supposedly most real entity of them all, Isvara?
The usual reply would be of the type – of course Isvara is real too, and can be seen and touched; but alas, you yourself are an ‘impure’ entity at present. So first you need to become adequately pure via tapas, then you may see, feel and touch Isvara. Unfortunately, this is quite the wrong answer coming from any person who holds that the world is ‘real’. For, immediately then you have split your ‘real’ reality into 2 different categories, a ‘real’ reality that is seen and touched by all without any qualifications – the world; and then there is another ‘real’ reality of another type that comes into perception after certain steps are taken, certain qualifications obtained – the ‘reality’ pertaining to Isvara. Who is there to say then, that we can stop only at 2 ‘real’ realities? Perhaps there is a third entity too, that will come into cognitive range, or a fourth, a sort of ‘super-Isvara’ and ‘super-super-Isvara’, as we add more and more qualifications on more and more intense tapas? At what point can we be certain that we have reached the pinnacle of Isvara-hood? Clearly then, basic common-sense logic shows that the moment we admit of multiple ‘real’ realities, it becomes an infinite expansion and not the optimum solution; and that the standard of reality has to be only one and one only, and only one of the two, the world or Isvara, can be ‘real’. Assuming then, that the charitable folks that they are, the Dualists would rather assign ‘real’ reality to Isvara rather than themselves and the world, this fact alone – that there is an Isvara that necessarily has to ‘real’ but cannot be seen, implies that the ‘seen’ world and the Jiva have to be ‘unreal’.
The foregoing simple argument also shows why the standard of ‘reality’ has to be – only that which is present always and exists always; and the reason why “Sat” is primarily defined as “that which IS”, or “Existence”, or “Beingness”, with a sense of permanency and unbroken continuity built into it. It will not do if that entity is sometimes present and ‘felt’, and sometimes not; if it is present, it should always be so, else it fails the basic test of reality. And it is not as if this is a hypothetical standard of sorts, with nothing available around us to fulfill the essential criteria of unbroken continuity. For, there is indeed one ‘entity’ that fulfils this criterion and which is evident to each one of us, the Self. Hence the great teaching in the Bhagavad Gita (verse 2.16): “Nâsato vidyate bhâvo, nâbhâvo vidyate satah” (translated in the anecdote below).
[From “Day by Day”, Pg 102 (26.1.1946 afternoon); Devaraja Mudaliar had the pamphlet on Madhva’s Philosophy, given to Sri Bhagavan by a visitor, in his hands. He writes …]I said, “… But I find that this author also asks, as I sometimes used to feel, ‘Why should we refuse to treat anything as real unless it exists always?’ Bhagavan said, ‘How can anything be said to be real which is only a passing show?’ ”. Balaram also quoted Bhagavad Gita (verse 2.16) which says, "That which exists never ceases to exist. That which does not exist (at any time) has no existence."
So, those folks out there who hold that the world is ‘real’, know that you condemn God, then, to be ‘unreal’. And you will not be able to convincingly explain and answer the questions as asked above. Because then, the standard of reality is set as this world with all its natural laws and history. Anything then that is even remotely ‘fantastical’ in relation to these natural laws and history, like a what a scriptural story is, immediately becomes unviable and unreal.
The Great Race of Vanaras
To carry the arguments further, from the ‘fantastical’ mythological stories referred to earlier, let us pick up one story only as characteristic of the lot – the existence of the fabulous race of Vanaras as described in the Ramayana by Sri Valmiki: the Great Apes living in cities, walking, talking, wearing clothes and living like humans, extremely intelligent and very powerful, more powerful than any other race on earth, possessing great supernatural powers and tremendous spiritual maturity. How could they have existed in this world with no physical evidence for them now traceable? Surely some fossilized remains should have been found? Where did they fit into the natural scheme of evolution of creatures? And if they really existed once, what happened to them? How could they have disappeared from earth without a trace?
Again, let us see how the Dualists would try to answer this. Remember, they have to provide an answer in relation to this, their ‘real’, visible world. Typically then the reply would be, perhaps, that the Ramayana is an epic set in the Satya Yuga, a “pure” era in which such fabulous beings as the Vanaras could exist. And in the decadent Kali Yuga that we are living now, such holy creatures cannot be present. But vide irrefutable physical evidence we know that the age of the earth is 4.6 billion years, of which multi-cellular life appeared in the last 1 billion years, simple animals like fish in the last 500 million, mammals in the last 200 million years, the species ‘homo’ in the last 2.5 million years, and humans as we understand them, only in the last 200,000 years. Rudimentary civilization began, perhaps, only 10,000 years ago. As per scripture, Satya Yuga began 4.32 million years ago and ended 2.592 million years ago. Even if we assume that there could have been apes like the great Vanaras in the Satya Yuga whose fossil records are still to be found, there could not have been any humans then, and hence no Lord Ram! Also, this same world in which we humans live now in the Kali Yuga, is the same physical world which featured the Satya Yuga as well. No one claims that this earth itself was a physically different world at any point of time. How could then a separate set of natural laws apply in this world now, and a different set 4.32 million years ago when ape-like creatures were able to grow hundreds of feet tall in an instant, and be able to talk? Thus any answers regarding the Vanaras that may be forthcoming, will always get tied up in knots, as long as the world is taken as real.
And so, if the standard of reality is taken as this world as done by the Dualistic systems, it then logically follows that such a ‘fantastical’ race as the Vanaras could never have actually existed at all, and it was all a fictional creation of Sri Valmiki. In fact, all scriptural stories are reduced to mere allegories employing ‘fantastical’ rather than ‘actual’ creatures to explain finer points of morality and religion; they all become basically untrue in a ‘literal’ sense.
Ironically, it is only out of Advaita a logically coherent answer is forthcoming. By the way, personally, as mentioned earlier, I am a staunch believer in all the scriptural stories like those of the great race of Vanaras in the Ramayana and I believe that they are ‘literally’ true. That there was a race of great Vanaras on earth once upon a time, that there was a Hanumanji, and a Sugriva who once led the battle against the evil empire of Ravana. That there was and is Lord Krishna still playing with His Gopis and Lord Siva seated somewhere in His abode on Mount Kailash
An Answer from Advaita
“The ‘un-realities’ can be multiple”! This is an enormously interesting idea:
Advaita holds that whatever we can see or otherwise apprehend, the Jiva, Isvara and the ‘seen’ world, all which seem so ‘real’ superficially, are nothing but a series of thoughts in the mind/ego, and essentially ‘unreal’. They are all ‘unreal’ because they fail the basic criterion of ‘reality’ that an entity has to exist always to be ‘real’, and it is the experience of each one of us that these entities “come and go”. Has anyone seen or apprehended herself / himself or the world when the mind is absent? If we ponder on our situation in deep sleep, when the mind is not, we should conclude that at that point we do not remember our problems, or personal history, not even our identity at all. The Jiva then simply disappears. So does the world, and all notions that we may have of Isvara. All that can be recalled on waking is that there was only the sense of “I”, accompanied by indefinable peace and bliss, and naught else. Note that between the Jiva, world and Isvara we could certainly say that the level of ‘unreality’ of each is different, as Isvara, for instance, is not seen or touched even during waking. Isvara could thus be held to have a superior level of ‘unreality’. But, notwithstanding the fact that the level of ‘unreality’ for the world and Isvara may be different, what is significant is that the sublation of the mind in the Self eliminates all unrealities at one stroke, howsoever close to reality some of them may be.
Dreams too are intrinsically just the same as the images of the world that we see in waking, all thoughts, except they arise in our minds without the intervention of our organs of perception. And, ‘fantastical’ scriptural stories are thoughts too, much like Isvara, and thus as ‘real’ or ‘unreal’ howsoever you prefer to put it, as you yourself and the world around you. The Vanaras exist much like Isvara, and just as Isvara is not seen or touched, neither are they. The standard of ‘unreality’, thus, is not that objects have to be ‘seen’ to be ‘unreal’. All thought is anyhow ‘unreal’. What then is ‘fantastical’, and what is ‘literal’? It all is relative to each other, and in absolute terms, it is all ‘unreal’ (‘fantastical’ and ‘literal’ throughout this post are therefore put within inverted commas to highlight this fact). Certain ‘thoughts’ come linked to our organs of perception, like those of the Jiva and the seen world, and this imparts to them certain characteristics of seeming permanency and continuity of history; and some not, like those of the stuff of dreams. And some thoughts, analogous to dreams, but of an infinitely higher category spiritually, are of the nature of Isvara and of the great scriptural stories. But in essence, they are identical, mere thoughts in the mind/ego complex.
A word here may be appropriate to highlight the fact that the foregoing does not in any manner diminish the “Godliness” of Isvara. Though technically it may be so, to refer to Him merely as the least ‘unreal’ being of all, is a bit like calling the Kohinoor diamond a lump of carbon. Once manifestation is, He controls the Jiva and the world according to His Will, or, if you prefer, according to His Divine Laws. The Jiva is beholden to worship Him and offer unto Him all devotion and love as is described in the scriptures. The entity Arvind then, as long as he feels his "Arvind-ness" as present and palpable, will worship Isvara, as Lord Siva or Lord Ram or as the great Vanara Hanumanji, with all the love and reverence possible. And when the Jiva, the ego/mind complex referred to as Arvind, extinguishes, the Supreme Self shines forth; whither then the Jiva, the world, or Isvara?
[That the world is naught but but an illusion is derived from science as well. We all know that the atom is 99% space. Of the rest 1% comprising of the sub-atomic particles, the theory is that, again, they may be 99% space themselves! And if we consider some of the cutting-edge developments in the field, “String theory” would reduce the entire universe to vibrations; that the basic electromagnetic force of nature vibrating in a particular plane becomes an electron, and if it vibrates in another plane would be a proton, and so on. It is just that certain electromagnetic radiations that we call light, bounce off certain other electromagnetic forces that surround the sub-atomic and atomic entities, which then being detected by our eyes causes us to ‘see’ the world as solid, which otherwise is essentially nothing but blank space. Or, to put it in another way, certain electromagnetic vibrations of a particular nature cause atoms and molecules to form and then come together in such specific ways so as to form a brain and eyes and bodies; and these organs then detect certain other vibrations surrounding them as the objects of the world; all out of nothing. What is basically blank space is illusorily viewed as solid objects, by the illusion of solidity and form that is us! Does that not sound very much like the world view from Advaita?]
Cut back to our primary question of the Vanaras. The discerning reader may point out that if everything is a thought and all thoughts are essentially equally ‘real’ (‘unreal’), shouldn’t it be then held that every fantasy of every person in the world too is ‘real’ (‘unreal’)? Should it not follow that every story written by anyone, any work of fiction in the world, is also as ‘real’ (‘unreal’) as the Ramayana, and should too have ‘happened’ once upon a time somewhere in the world? What then makes the Ramayana ‘real’ for the Advaitist, and the Harry Potter stories ‘unreal’, for instance?
Well, for a start, Harry Potter in the scheme of things here is ‘non-existent’ like the “horns of the hare” or the “square circle”. That is, ‘non-existent’ and ‘unreal’, as compared to Ramayana as being ‘existent’ and ‘unreal’. Let me elaborate further: the Ramayana is essentially a series of thoughts, vrttis, in the mind/ego of the Great Sage Sri Valmiki, who could peer into both levels of unreality as exemplified by Isvara and the world, and thereby witness the events of the great epic actually happening, whilst still living in the same world as known to you and me. The words of Sri Valmiki, the Great Sage, come with a credibility non-pareil, and in the Ramayana he confirms that the events of the Ramayana happened as told. Something out there, for want of a better term, created these special vrttis comprising the story of the Ramayana in the mind of the great sage, much like the objects of the world are seen by vrttis created in the minds of us ordinary folks like you and me. In essence, the Ramayana, and the ordinary ‘seen’ world, are both thoughts and equally ‘real’ (‘unreal’), the difference being that only a great sage like Sri Valmiki could ‘see’ the former. [So if Sri Valmiki had, for instance, also written a work of fiction, a story purely out of his imagination, that would be taken as materially different from the Ramayana, much as the Harry Potter stories are].
We have come about a full circle. For, these vrttis in the great sage’s mind, displaying to him the world of the Ramayana, are then quite similar to the Dualist’s original reply stating that Isvara will come into view once tapas reaches a certain level. Advaita will agree that only the great sage is at that elevated spiritual level to be able to get such special vrttis and witness the Divine events of the Ramayana. The Dualists answer given earlier was wrong, essentially, ONLY because they held that the world is ‘real’; because immediately then, it runs into a whole series of logical inconsistencies which resolve themselves only if the world and the Trinity as described earlier, are held to be ‘unreal’.
In Conclusion
The simple questions posed by the youngster led us squarely into doctrine concerning the nature of the world. But why all this hoo-hah about whether the world is ‘real’ or not, the reader may ask?
Well, personally, I believe that it is important for every one, whether a sadhaka or not, to at least have an open mind towards the idea that the world is unreal. Because, it is not possible for anyone to be consistently at peace or to enjoy any modicum of happiness, without holding that it all is unreal and illusory. If you hold the world as real, you will continue to be sucked into the sometimes wonderful, sometimes ugly objects and events that it keeps tossing up at you. You could be happy for a while and then be in the depths of despair following, an eternal flip-flop between the two poles. To build up the necessary vairagya (dispassion) to even out the wild swings between bliss and pain, and to find some measure of Shanti (peace), you have no option but to hold the wonderful or the dreadful things happening to you as equally welcome or unwelcome, sort of meaningful superficially but meaningless internally, and that can happen only if you believe that 'it all', is essentially ‘unreal’. And for sadhakas particularly, whether following the bhakti, yoga, or the meditation-based paths, I believe that this belief is mandatory for any sort of spiritual progress to be achieved.
[From the “Maharshi’s Gospel”, Chapter III, “The Jnani and the World”, Pg 58-59; Sri Bhagavan said ...]“There is no alternative for you but to accept the world as unreal, if you are seeking the Truth and the Truth alone.{Why so?}For the simple reason that unless you give up the idea that the world is real your mind will always be after it. If you take the appearance to be real you will never know the Real itself, although it is the Real alone that exists. This point is illustrated by the analogy of the ‘snake in the rope’. As long you see the snake you cannot see the rope as such. The non-existent snake becomes real to you, while the real rope seems wholly non-existent as such.”
In the posts that follow, I hope to post many anecdotes from Sri Bhagavan’s literature, and scripture in general, on this theme holding the world as ‘unreal’.
30 comments:
Arvind
at the end you have said - *it is not possible for anyone to be consistently at peace or to enjoy any modicum of happiness, without holding that it all is unreal and illusory*
I do not agree, this is too sweeping. It does not apply to ordinary people going about their daily routines to earn money, look after their families etc.
salutations to all:
Anonymous:
wonder what's 'sweeping' in that 'unreal' statement :-). if indeed that be the case, then "ordinary people going about their daily routines" are better off staying away from seeking the self!! truth can't be a pickle one incidentally has to spice up the main course meal, isn't it? unless it's the meal itself, seeking implies precious little :-(, much like the man who wanted to be a mathematician by counting from 1 to 100 everyday a 1000 times!!!
arvind's statement ought to be seen in the light of what is defined as "real" by bhagavAn and the gItA. take, for instance, the famous verses from chapter 14 of the gItA:
[14.24: who is the same in pleasure and pain, who dwells in the self, to whom a clod of earth, stone and gold are alike, who is the same to the dear and the unfriendly, who is firm, and to whom censure and praise are as one.
14.25: who is the same in honour and dishonour, the same to friend and foe, abandoning all undertakings - he is said to have transcended the qualities.]
so long as these 'opposites' are taken as real, the task of remaining equanimous amidst them is an insurmountable task. but it begins to be doable once one works "as if" the work is real but knowing well that but for the self everything else gets its so-called meaning from what we have imposed on it with nothing really intrinsic or substantial to it!
as bhagavAn makes it crystal-clear in the paragraph arvind quoted, to view everything of the world to be fundamentally unreal (not empirically) imparts tremendous strength & conviction in pursuing one's search & sAdhanA, besides making it simpler & easier...
Thanks Anonymous for stopping by. Great comment S., I think you covered it really well.
Let me just put up this brilliant article by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. In a different way, he is saying the same thing as the point I was trying to make when I said towards the end – “that it is important for every one, whether a sadhaka or not, to at least have an open mind towards the idea that the world is unreal …”. Popular spiritual teachers are careful these days not to put the teachings too bluntly, as the lay devotee has no time or inclination to pause and ponder over it all. If he were to say directly, “the world is unreal”, I believe half his flock will promptly disown him!
[From: The Times of India, The Speaking Tree: “The World Is A Transit Lounge”, By Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Nov 02, 2012]
Q: In the fifteenth chapter of the Gita, there is a description of a tree which is upside down. The branches are in the ground and the roots are in the sky. What could be the significance of this?
A: This is a symbol to signify that your origin is the Divinity; the consciousness. That is your root. The mind and all its paraphernalia are like the branches. And all the different types of rhythms in life, all the different emotions, are like the leaves. They don’t stay permanently, they wither away. If you are focusing on the leaves, and you forget to water the roots, then the tree will not remain.
So, it says, ‘Asvattham enam su-virudha-mulam asanga-sastrena drdhena chittva’ (BG 15:3). Notice that you are not these different emotions, these different aspects of life. Feel the distance from all these branches and retrieve back. That is what it is saying. Otherwise we get so immersed in the outer, that we forget the main root. You need to prune the tree otherwise it goes here and there. So prune all that, and know that your origin is somewhere up. Adi Shankaracharya has said this beautifully, - ‘My original place is in heaven, I have come here just for few days; just to have fun. Today I have just come for the purpose of relaxing, but this is not my original place, it is somewhere else.’
The thought itself - My home is somewhere else, I have just come to visit - creates a distance inside you. This world is a transit lounge. You know, in airports and railway stations there are lounges, and in a lounge what do you do? You keep your luggage and start eating. You use the bathroom and everything, but you don’t open your suitcase and hang your clothes all over the place. You don’t do that in a transit lounge. You keep your things packed.
So this world is just a transit lounge. Don’t mistake it to be your home.
-----------------
Best wishes
Arvind,
Nice article.Feel like sharing my take on Ramayana and the characters featured there.
1.Ramayana is an Itihasa and not a purana;so there is definitely a Historical content to it and it is not just mythology.
2.If it is ithihasa,how to reconcile the narrative with vanaras like Hanuman and Sugriva,Birds like Jatayu,other animal characters like Jambhavan,Squirrel etc with Reality?
I take it very simply that the Great ones have handled this brilliantly and quite simply.They had highlighted Maryada Purushottama Rama and his near ones like Seetha mata and Brother Lakshmana as the Fit and model(ideal) Humans;all the rest are fickle minded humans with varied characters,like vaa-naras.The Best of the vaa(NARA) is Hanuman ,the ideal devotee of the Lord.Is it for nothing that not a single normal Human is featured in Lord Rama's army?Were there no humans then?This simple consideration should convince us that it is only the humans that are portrayed as the Various characters to highlight the Features of the 'ideal' and the 'actual'.
It is the interrelationship between the characters and their inner nature that is paramount and not how the Look physically that matters to us.As long as the narration succeeds in conveying this,it has admirably met its objective.All of us know that it has.
Hence no convoluted ratiocination of any kind is necessary to appreciate this or to convince ourselves of any inconsistency with the Historicity of Ramayana;It is another matter that even without this Historicity,it may still retain its intrinsic worth.
The subjectivity of perception is easily understood;Beauty lies in the eyes(heart)of the Beholder.
Namaskar.
Hi Ravi
Thanks for sharing!
Yes, you have nicely covered the point that rationalizes the Scriptural stories as allegories for higher truths. But then, I would say, if you allow that Sri Valmiki deliberately gave “animal” form to the great characters like Hanumanji and Angad for instance, despite they being human in appearance, to highlight certain aspects of their character and spirit, how do we know then how far the malaise extends? What else is allegorical? The whole Ramayana story then immediately comes into question. Then, Sri Valmiki could also have made up the character Ravana himself, quite the fantastical character that he is, or even Sri Rama for that matter, all to spin a great tale of good versus evil. That, leaving the characters aside, then even some of the events of the Ramayana may not be true but fabricated to deliver a message. For instance, since it is not possible for any creature of any sort in this “real” world to leap across the straits dividing Lanka and the mainland, that too was a fabrication and an allegory to show the inaccessibility of Lanka; or that no one could lift the great bow of Lord Siva in the marriage hall, was an episode created by Valmikiji to show the prowess of Sri Rama and the bow was not anything special, and so on. If we do not literally believe a scriptural story like the Ramayana, in toto, then, at what point do we stop and say, ok, this much is true and the rest is allegorical? If all the fantastical elements have to be rationalized this way, then probably 90% of the story needs to be stripped away!
And then, crucially, the Great Sage, no less than the Self-realized Guru Valmikiji, himself does not say that he made up the characters in an allegorical sense or cooked up the story in the slightest. In the Ramayana he has categorically stated that the characters existed actually, exactly as presented. And that the seemingly fantastical events of the Ramayana actually happened exactly as related by him. In the face of his own direct testimony, are we prepared to hold then that the Great Sage deliberately waffled and slipped in imaginary characters to preach morals or whatever? Could he be capable of this enormous falsehood, even if it be for “good”? Or could the Ramayana have held the power that it undoubtedly does if it had been anything but the truth, first and foremost?
And then, why would Valmikiji say anything other than what was exactly so anyhow in the Ramayana? There isn’t any great allegorical truth revealed, for instance, by giving the character of Hanumanji an ape-like form. The story could have been so much more believable had Hanumanji, and the entire army of Lord Rama, been “human”. So the fact of the story’s fantastic nature, ironically, lends it greater credibility! Because, if it hadn’t actually been so, why would Valmikiji create such unbelievable characters and events, rather than believable one’s?
Consider these interesting verses:
Valmiki Ramayana, Bala Kanda, Canto III:
Having heard (from Narada & Brahma as aforesaid) the entire theme (of the poem), promising religious merit and prosperity and conferring benefit (in the shape of final beatitude), Valmiki sought to discover directly (through intuition) a detailed life-account of the sagacious prince. (1)
Sipping water according to the scriptural ordnance and taking his seat with joined palms on the blades of kusa grass with their ends pointing to the east, the sage sought to discover the exploits of Sri Rama through yogic power (conferred on him by Brahma). (2)
Cont …
Cont from above …
By dint of that yogic power he was able to perceive directly and clearly in reality and every detail in that state (of absorption) all that pertained to Lord Rama, Laksmana and Sita as well as to Emperor Dasaratha alongwith his wives and kingdom – how they laughed and talked and moved and whatever they did. (3-4)
Likewise he further directly perceived in order of sequence all that was enacted by Sri Rama, whilst roaming about in the forests in the company of Laksmana and Sita, true to his promise. (5)
Absorbed in deep meditation, that pious sage thereby saw, (as clearly) as one would see a myrobalan placed in one’s palm, all that had happened in the past (in relation to Sri Rama, Laksmana and Sita as well as that which still awaited them). (6)
Having seen all that in reality by dint of yogic power, Valmiki, who was possessed of “Mahamati”, girded up his loins to render into verse the whole story of Sri Rama …. (7)
[From the absolutely marvellous Gita Press edition]
-------------
So, the story of the Ramayana was “seen” by Sri Valmiki much as the Vedas were “seen” by the great Rishis, the Great “Seers” of yore. And, in my humble opinion, the sacred verses above describe exactly the same process of “vrrtti” creation in the mind of the Great Sage, as what I tried to explain in my post above. So, “historicity” is not that history only as is seen through the senses and recorded by ordinary humans. A scriptural “Itihasa” is also history and true, the difference with “ordinary” history being that it was “seen” without the intervention of the 5 senses by the Great Seers via a process as described by Sri Valmiki himself in the verses above.
The level of reality of the Itihasa as “seen” by Valmikiji via the Divine Vision granted by Lord Brahma, is exactly the same as the level of reality of the history “seen” by us with our eyes and our power of sight. The error comes in if we regard this as “real” in absolute terms. Then we run into all sorts of logical inconsistencies as the ones described in my post. It is only if we regard it all as equally “unreal”, that the logic holds up!
That all said, couldn’t agree with you more that each one of us has our own method of arriving at the believable point with respect to scripture. The important thing is to “believe”, and not really count the hairs as to how one got there!
Best wishes
PS: On why the army of Lord Rama had only “animal” figures – the terms of His banishment were that He had to sleep on kusa grass, lead a lonely ascetic life, eat only forest produce and not interact with humans in general; He was not allowed to even enter any town or city, and thus stayed out of Lanka after it had fallen. If Lord Rama had raised an army of “humans” it could have been held that He violated His solemn promise, and assumed a “kingly” role.
Arvind,
Very fine comments and quite a plausible theory of Ramayana as an inspired creation of Rishi Valmiki.Yes,We need not doubt the integrity and psychic powers of a Sage as his calibre.By the same token,we need not doubt the psychic powers of a Rama to bend the bow of Lord Shiva,or the ability of a hanuman to leap across the ocean to lanka.We have in recent history an account of such an astral travel by sri bhagavan from Tiruvannamalai to Tiruvatrriyur to the rescue of kavya kanta ganapathi muni!Even if such accounts are not scientifically observed under standard laboratory conditions,the presence of such power is well recognized in Yoga Sashtras and is generally accepted.
We need to first account for the position of ithihasa in the scheme of spiritual hierarchy-We have the srutis,We have the Smritis and we have the Ithihasas and puranas.The Ithihasa serve to popularize the abstract Truths into tangible Shape for the the common man.The common man is not going to buy the idea of a 'dream' of a Rishi as equivalent to what he or she perceives.He may appreciate it as a nice Story but it will not have the power to make him accept it as an example to be followed. If at all it has to have that power,it should be something which has happened on the very same land where he is born and where his forefathers may have have been citizens in that rama rajya.Otherwise,The Rama Rajya will be like Vaikuntam or sivalokam or a Thrisanju swarga -which he may aspire to be after his death on earth!
to be continued....
Arvind,
My second snippet on Ramayana(I never have the patience and the interest to put my ramblings into a neat organized writeup!Even using 'word' also takes away the spontaneity!So please bear with me for my instalments here).
Are Itihasas on the same level as the Srutis-as you posit that Rishi Valmiki divined it in the same manner that Vedas were intuited by the Vedic seers?The answer that we know is an emphatic No!For the simple reason that the Vedic mantras were only intuited/Discovered by the seers and no subsequent Rishi would edit or alter the sound structure,however silly the literal meaning of the sentences may be.If Ramayana had belonged to that category,there should be no reason for other versions as adhyatma ramayana or even Tulasidas Ramayana ,leave aside Kamba Ramayana.Such a thing would not have been attempted or permitted by the Great ones.This clearly shows that the order of Reality is certainly not on that level-and that indeed poetic license has been resorted to.Not just this but that it is this poetic license that would help the ideals and conceptual Truths to be percolated to the common man,aam junta and compel his or her attention and assimilation and emulation.
A Gayatri mantra cannot be altered or chanted or read in English.The story of Ramayana can be freely translated,assimilated and emulated irrespective of the language in which it was originally created.The Gayatri Mantra resolves into OM and the OM into the soundless state of samadhi.No such tracing back is guranteed for a devotee of Ramayana.He may at the most get a vision of Lord Rama or Hanumanji but never the whole of ramayana can be unrolled for him,the way that it was for valmiki for him to vouch for the Truth of the world perceived by valmiki.
continued.....
Ravi,
Sorry, hope I am not interrupting your comment as the last piece ends with the remark “continued”. Do carry on if you had not finished. Your spontaneous and spirited views are always welcome!
Doubtless the relative role and importance of the Srutis and the different Smrtis is vastly different. However, in my humble opinion, the “process” by which the Vedas and the Ramayana, for instance, were “seen” was pretty much identical. The Maha-Rishi “sees” the sacred mantra, or the sacred events. A difference may be attributed to the extent that the Vedas are “self-revealed”; they spontaneously came to the Maharishi who saw a particular Vedic hymn, without his conscious endeavour. But he “saw” the mantras (not in the script form obviously, but the spirit, body and sounds of the mantra if I can put it like that) much in the same way without the intervention of the physical senses, via vrttis created directly in the mind. On the other hand the Ramayana was consciously sought for by Maharishi Valmiki, at the bidding of Lord Brahma. And what he “saw” were the actual events rather than mantras.
Of course, the Vedas occupy a different and unique spiritual plane altogether. And always will. In modern times we have the example of Sri Daivratha, a staunch devotee of Bhagavan, and an initiated disciple of Ganapati Muni, “seeing” the mantras that comprise the fascinating compilation called “Chandodarsana”. Ganapati Muni, who had an unparalleled mastery of the Vedas, held that these hitherto unknown mantras were just like those of the Rgveda. But though the “process” of the discovery of the Chandodarsana was the same as the Vedas, that similarity does not imply that its importance in the scheme of things spiritual could be even remotely close.
Best wishes
Arvind,
I enjoy your comments.It is always a pleasure to encounter a genuine devotee.My response here are more of a sparring partner!Yes,my response will take its time as I am a little lazy and not motivated enough to go all the way.I will carry on with my snippets.
Namaskar.
Thanks Ravi. Look forward to all your snippets, here and elsewhere.
Best wishes
Arvind,
It is interesting to examine the characterization of the three brothers-Ravana,Kumbhakarna and Vibishana.We cannot miss out on the ten heads attributed to Ravana,the 6 months sleep of Kumbhakarna and the Relatively less interesting and Docile Vibhisana.The Very nature of Tamas is Sloth and Laziness;The Nature of Rajas is Possession,Dominion and expansion and the Nature of Sattva is expressive of a conscientous outlook,sobriety,contentment and Fairplay.
The 10 Heads of Ravana and his characteristic Rajasic Nature,Represents the 5 Karmendriyas + 5 Jnanendriyas-through which the Rajasic Nature exercises its Dominion and sense of posession.Kumbhakarna characterizes Tamas and Vibhishana represents the satvic Nature who warns his Brothers about the impropriety of the act of abducting ma Sita.He also surrenders to Lord Rama,and although accepted by him as such yet was destined to rule Sri Lanka after the slaying of the other two brothers.
This characterization of the three brothers does reveal that the allegorical nature of the epic cannot be ruled out.
continued....
Hi Ravi,
So nice to have your “snippet” again. Thanks so much. That is an interesting characterization that you give. Forgive me for having a slightly different take on it all.
You see, the moment we admit of an allegorical element in the fact that Ravana had 10 heads, we run into a serious problem. We have then held that Maharshi Valmiki told a significant falsehood in the Ramayana. We are saying then that Ravana actually had only one head like any human, but the Maharshi, to spin his tale of good and evil, fictitiously gave him 10 heads, much like any other fairy tale story with a moral at the end. Personally, I have to believe that the Great Self-realized Sage was incapable of telling a falsehood on this scale, however “good” the purpose. Particularly, as mentioned before, he repeatedly avers in the text that the events and characters of the Ramayana are “real”, and it is all depicted as was ACTUALLY “seen” by him via Divine Sight.
Actually, the birth name of Ravana was “Dasgriva”. We know that “Griva” is “neck” in Sanskrit. Maharshi Valmiki categorically states that he was called this at birth because of his 10 heads (necks). He goes on to say that when Dasgriva was born, it rained blood, jackals howled and trees died, or some similar stuff like that. In fact, if one reads even the English translation of his Ramayana, leave alone the original in the marvellous Sanskrit, it will be apparent immediately how the character was evil embodied, and far beyond any mere characterizations of the gunas. Mere rajas or “ghora” tamas does not even come close to describing the evil Ravana. Even on the name “Ravana” itself - Valmikiji built a little double meaning into: for he wrote at one place (right in the beginning of Aranyakanda, if I recall now, when introducing Ravana) - “ravanam loka-ravanam”. Now “ravana” in Sanskrit means “one who makes others cry”, and this phrase by Valmikiji clarifies that, yes, “Ravana” is used for the evil Raksasa throughout in the sense of “he who makes people cry”, not really as the name proper. For wherever Ravana went, he left everyone wailing and sobbing in pain and grief!
So, in my humble opinion, we have to first accept that Ravana, in actual fact, had 10 heads. Once we do so, then we can also, certainly, point to the fact that in a serendipitous sense, 10 corresponds with total of Karmendriyas and Jnanendriyas; and thus look for additional, esoteric spiritual teachings.
In general then, on allegorical explanations for the fantastical elements in scripture, I have 2 observations to make. One: I could, I promise you, fit in absolutely valid, scripturally accurate allegorical truths into a ‘Tom & Jerry cartoon’, or the movie ‘Sholay’, or into any other fictional tale you give me. The Supreme is one; Purusha and Prakriti are 2; Brahma, Visnu & Siva are three; the great youthful Rishis are four; the Pancamahabhuta are five; bring in the Karmendriyas and the Jnanendriyas, and so on; we can always find suitable attributes from doctrine to “allegorically” address ANY story.
And secondly: why the need to find an allegorical meaning into the fact that Ravana is described with 10 heads, for instance? When Maharshi Valmiki himself did not leave the slightest, minutest clue in the vast epic towards that? After all, what great, hidden, secret teaching is revealed by attributing complex esoteric meanings to the characters and events? The literal story itself is the great teaching. If one thinks about it a bit more deeply, it would be apparent that the only reason to torture allegorical meanings into the epic is - because we have found that, given our experience of the world, and it’s “seen” recorded history, we cannot accept that a creature with 10 heads could exist; or that another could be 10 stories tall and sleep for 6 months.
Unless we believe in Advaita, that is !!!
Best wishes
salutations to all:
though i do relate to ravi's way of looking at these heads but yet inclined to lean more towards arvind's view, yet what truly puzzles me is how did rAvaNa indeed "balance" his ten heads? :D. five on one side and four on the other must have been rather inconvenient! as a colleague was telling me a couple of days ago, guess rAvaNa balanced it with some kind of a resonance-like property of the benzene molecule that gave him just the extra stability he needed for the right balance!! :-))) i'm sure both of you would agree that this is more non-trivial than what the 10 heads mean or don't mean... hahahaha
enjoying the story, for what it is, & trying vichAra, for whatever it might be, appears more interesting, besides being of genuine relevance :-)))
:-)))
On a more serious note, Ravana balanced his 10 heads in just the same way that Lord Brahma balanced His four, and Lord Kartikkeya His six. I believe the traditional way to describe the balancing is: Lord Brahma’s 4 heads look in the 4 cardinal directions; Lord Kartikeya’s 6 heads point in the four cardinal directions plus up and down, to enable Him to carry out His functions of the Generalissimo effectively; and Ravana’s 10 heads pointed in the 4 cardinal directions, plus the 4 directions in-between, and the last 2 up and down. He was particularly designed to fight and bring misery all around him!
But, lets not try to figure out how a head could point ‘down’ please!! :-)))
Best wishes
Arvind/Friends,
Snippet No.4
Just what is Itihasa?What is this power bestowed by Brahma on Rishi Valmiki(He is a MahaKavi in creating Ramayana)?Just what differentiates the vision of a poet from that of the ordinary man?Is it that the poet sees more of outer details or does he see the inner essence and is gifted to bring it out in rich imagery and detail to the utter surprise and adoration of the common man?
The Fidelity and honesty of the poet is to be judged by his grasping of this inner essence and not by his adhering to the outer forms that it took in his fancy.
The very seeing and casting of the characters in that outer form is dictated by the inner spirit and character that they portray;in this sense allegory does not diminish or detract in any way the fidelity of Narration,inspired as it has been by the muse of Brahma,in the case of Ramayana.
I will post what Sri Aurobindo has to say in this regard.
continued...
Arvind/Friends,
An excerpt from Sri Aurobindo's scintillating 'A Defence of Indian Culture':
One of the elements of the old Vedic education was a knowledge
of significant tradition, Itihasa, and it is this word that was
used by the ancient critics to distinguish the Mahabharata and
the Ramayana from the later literary epics. The Itihasa was
an ancient historical or legendary tradition turned to creative
use as a significant mythus or tale expressive of some spiritual
or religious or ethical or ideal meaning and thus formative of
the mind of the people. The Mahabharata and Ramayana are
Itihasas of this kind on a large scale and with a massive purpose.
The poets who wrote and those who added to these great
bodies of poetic writing did not intend merely to tell an ancient
tale in a beautiful or noble manner or even to fashion a poem
pregnant with much richness of interest and meaning, though
they did both these things with a high success; they wrote with
a sense of their function as architects and sculptors of life, creative
exponents, fashioners of significant forms of the national
thought and religion and ethics and culture. A profound stress
of thought on life, a large and vital view of religion and society,
a certain strain of philosophic idea runs through these poems
and the whole ancient culture of India is embodied in them with
a great force of intellectual conception and living presentation.
continued...
Arvind/Friends,
Excerpt from Sri Aurobindo continued....
.....
The work of these
epics was to popularise high philosophic and ethical idea and
cultural practice; it was to throw out prominently and with a
seizing relief and effect in a frame of great poetry and on a
background of poetic story and around significant personalities
that became to the people abiding national memories and
representative figures all that was best in the soul and thought
or true to the life or real to the creative imagination and ideal
mind or characteristic and illuminative of the social, ethical,
political and religious culture of India. All these things were
brought together and disposed with artistic power and a telling
effect in a poetic body given to traditions half legendary, half
historic but cherished henceforth as deepest and most living truth
and as a part of their religion by the people. Thus framed the
Mahabharata and Ramayana, whether in the original Sanskrit
or rewritten in the regional tongues, brought to the masses by
Kathakas,—rhapsodists, reciters and exegetes,—became and
remained one of the chief instruments of popular education and
culture, moulded the thought, character, aesthetic and religious
mind of the people and gave even to the illiterate some sufficient
tincture of philosophy, ethics, social and political ideas, aesthetic
emotion, poetry, fiction and romance. That which was for the
cultured classes contained in Veda and Upanishad, shut into
profound philosophical aphorism and treatise or inculcated in
dharma-shastra and artha-shastra, was put here into creative
and living figures, associated with familiar story and legend,
fused into a vivid representation of life and thus made a near
and living power that all could readily assimilatethrough the
poetic word appealing at once to the soul and the imagination
and the intelligence.
continued....
Arvind/Friends,
Excerpt from Sri Aurobindo continued....
......
The Ramayana is a work of the same essential kind as the
Mahabharata; it differs only by a greater simplicity of plan,
a more delicate ideal temperament and a finer glow of poetic
warmth and colour. The main bulk of the poem in spite of
much accretion is evidently by a single hand and has a less
complex and more obvious unity of structure. There is less of
the philosophic, more of the purely poetic mind, more of the
artist, less of the builder. The whole story is from beginning
to end of one piece and there is no deviation from the stream
of the narrative. At the same time there is a like vastness of
vision, an even more wide-winged flight of epic sublimity in the
conception and sustained richness of minute execution in the
detail. The structural power, strong workmanship and method
of disposition of the Mahabharata remind one of the art of the
Indian builders, the grandeur and boldness of outline and wealth
of colour and minute decorative execution of the Ramayana
suggest rather a transcript into literature of the spirit and style
of Indian painting. The epic poet has taken here also as his
subject an Itihasa, an ancient tale or legend associated with an
old Indian dynasty and filled it inwith detail from myth and folklore,
but has exalted all into a scale of grandiose epic figure that
it may bear more worthily the high intention and significance.
The subject is the same as in the Mahabharata, the strife of the
divine with the titanic forces in the life of the earth, but in more
purely ideal forms, in frankly supernatural dimensions and an
imaginative heightening of both the good and the evil in human
character. On one side is portrayed an ideal manhood, a divine
beauty of virtue and ethical order, a civilization founded on the
Dharma and realising an exaltation of the moral ideal which is
presented with a singularly strong appeal of aesthetic grace and
harmony and sweetness; on the other are wild and anarchic and
almost amorphous forces of superhuman egoism and self-will
and exultant violence, and the two ideas and powers of mental
nature living and embodied are brought into conflict and led to a
decisive issue of the victory of the divine man over the Rakshasa.
......Continued.....
Arvind/Friends,
Excerpt from Sri Aurobindo continued....
All shade and complexity are omitted which would diminish the
single purity of the idea, the representative force in the outline of
the figures, the significance of the temperamental colour and only
so much admitted as is sufficient to humanise the appeal and the
significance. The poet makes us conscious of the immense forces
that are behind our life and sets his action in a magnificent epic
scenery, the great imperial city, the mountains and the ocean,
the forest and wilderness, described with such a largeness as to
make us feel as if the whole world were the scene of his poem
and its subject the whole divine and titanic possibility of man
imaged in a few great or monstrous figures. The ethical and
the aesthetic mind of India have here fused themselves into a
harmonious unity and reached an unexampled pure wideness
and beauty of self-expression. The Ramayana embodied for the
Indian imagination its highest and tenderest human ideals of
character, made strength and courage and gentleness and purity
and fidelity and self-sacrifice familiar to it in the suavest and most
harmonious forms coloured so as to attract the emotion and the
aesthetic sense, stripped morals of all repellent austerity on one
side or on the other of mere commonness and lent a certain
high divineness to the ordinary things of life, conjugal and filial
and maternal and fraternal feeling, the duty of the prince and
leader and the loyalty of follower and subject, the greatness of
the great and the truth and worth of the simple, toning things
ethical to the beauty of a more psychical meaning by the glow
of its ideal hues. The work of Valmiki has been an agent of
almost incalculable power in the moulding of the cultural mind
of India: it has presented to it to be loved and imitated in figures
like Rama and Sita, made so divinely and with such a revelation
of reality as to become objects of enduring cult and worship,
or like Hanuman, Lakshmana, Bharata the living human image
of its ethical ideals; it has fashioned much of what is best and
sweetest in the national character, and it has evoked and fixed
in it those finer and exquisite yet firm soul tones and that more
delicate humanity of temperament which are a more valuable
thing than the formal outsides of virtue and conduct.
.......continued....
Arvind/Friends,
Excerpt from Sri Aurobindo continued....
....
This is the character of the epics and the qualities which
have made them immortal, cherished among India’s greatest
literary and cultural treasures, and given them their enduring
power over the national mind. Apart from minor defects and
inequalities such as we find in all works set at this pitch and
involving a considerable length of labour, the objections made
by Western criticism are simply expressions of a difference of
mentality and aesthetic taste. The vastness of the plan and the
leisurely minuteness of detail are baffling and tiring to a Western
mind accustomed to smaller limits, a more easily fatigued
eye and imagination and a hastier pace of life, but they are
congenial to the spaciousness of vision and intent curiosity of
circumstance, characteristic of the Indian mind, that spring as
I have pointed out in relation to architecture from the habit
of the cosmic consciousness and its sight and imagination and
activity of experience. Another difference is that the terrestrial
life is not seen realistically just as it is to the physical mind but
constantly in relation to the much that is behind it, the human
action is surrounded and influenced by great powers and forces,
Daivic, Asuric and Rakshasic, and the greater human figures
are a kind of incarnation of these more cosmic personalities
and powers. The objection that the individual thereby loses his
individual interest and becomes a puppet of impersonal forces
is not true either in reality or actually in the imaginative figures
of this literature, for there we see that the personages gain by
it in greatness and force of action and are only ennobled by an
impersonality that raises and heightens the play of their personality.
The mingling of terrestrial nature and supernature, not as
a mere imagination but with an entire sincerity and naturalness,
is due to the same conception of a greater reality in life, and
it is as significant figures of this greater reality that we must
regard much to which the realistic critic objects with an absurdly
misplaced violence, such as the powers gained by Tapasya, the
use of divine weapons, the frequent indications of psychic action
and influence. The complaint of exaggeration is equally invalid
where the whole action is that of men raised beyond the usual
human level, since we can only ask for proportions consonant
with the truth of the stature of life conceived in the imagination
of the poet and cannot insist on an unimaginative fidelity to the
ordinary measures which would here be false because wholly out
of place.
.....continued.....
Arvind/Friends,
Excerpt from Sri Aurobindo continued....
.....
These epics are therefore not a mere mass of untransmuted
legend and folklore, as is ignorantly objected, but a highly
artistic representation of intimate significances of life, the living
presentment of a strong and noble thinking, a developed ethical
and aesthetic mind and a high social and political ideal, the
ensouled image of a great culture. As rich in freshness of life
but immeasurably more profound and evolved in thought and
substance than the Greek, as advanced in maturity of culture but
more vigorous and vital and young in strength than the Latin
epic poetry, the Indian epic poems were fashioned to serve a
greater and completer national and cultural function and that
they should have been received and absorbed by both the high
and the low, the cultured and the masses and remained through
twenty centuries an intimate and formative part of the life of the
whole nation is of itself the strongest possible evidence of the
greatness and fineness of this ancient Indian culture.
concluded.
Arvind/Friends,
To conclude,The story of Ramayana or the Reality of Isvara does not need an advaitic perspective to bolster or validate their place!
Namaskar.
Arvind/Friends,
"Well, personally, I believe that it is important for every one, whether a sadhaka or not, to at least have an open mind towards the idea that the world is unreal. Because, it is not possible for anyone to be consistently at peace or to enjoy any modicum of happiness, without holding that it all is unreal and illusory. If you hold the world as real, you will continue to be sucked into the sometimes wonderful, sometimes ugly objects and events that it keeps tossing up at you."
For a devotee,the question whether the world is real or unreal is of little consequence-in as much he has understood that nothing that it has to offer,even were it to last for all eternity, would fulfill him.This is understood by all great devotees irrespective of whether they are dualists,qualified monists or pure monists-as long as this is understood and recognized,the apparent differences between the three Great schools championed by Sri Madhwacharya ,Sri Ramanujacharya and Sri Sankaracharya is something that is of little consequence to the devotee.
Namaskar.
Arvind/Friends,
Interestingly today-An appraisal,a booklet-The Ramayana of Valmiki found its way into our drawing room and stared at me from the table.It is by Swami Harshananda of R K Mutt,Bangalore.The Introduction runs like this:
"If you are a scholar looking for a scholastic treat ,you are sure to be disappointed;because this is not a learned treatise written by a scholar for the benefit of scholars.
If you are a researcher interested in unearthing new facts or discovering new theories,you will find nothing here that can excite you or whet your appetite for a deeper understanding of Ramology.
If you are a 'lively as a lark' sort of person,seeking entertainment here,thinking that it contains the exploits of monkeys,bears and hideous demons,you are in for a shock,since this booklet contains more serious things that can make you do some self-introspection.
However,if you are a simple devotee of Rama,believing in the Hindu scriptures as a source of strength and inspiration for life,and the Ramayana of Valmiki as such a scripture,we can assure you that you will not be disappointed.
If this brochure can induce you and inspire you to read Valmiki's original work,we deem that our task is done!-Swami Harshananda.
I intend posting a few excerpts that are relevant to our discussions here.
Namaskar.
Arvind/Friends,
The Ramayana of Valmiki by Swami Harshananda has the following chapters:
1.Introduction 2.Historicity of Rama Story 3.Valmiki and his work 4.Date of the composition
5.The Text 6.The story in brief 7.The characters of the Ramayana 8.civilization and culture as depicted in the Ramayana 9.Ramarajya-the ideal state 10.Literary Grace 11.Ramayana Literature 12.Ramayana outside India 13.Conclusion.
Namaskar.
Arvind/Friends,
'Ramayana of valmiki' by Swami Harshananda is available as a download here:
http://www.rkmission-shivanahalli.org/Archives/JUN_2005/downloads.html
I came across this site after posting a few excerpts from the book.I find that posting excerpts from the book may perhaps infringe on the copyright as indicated in the download Policy.As such,I will just point to what Swami Harshananda has said on the race of vanaras in page 28.
The crux of the whole thing is that Valmiki could not have gone counter to the generally accepted doctrine that man is the Roof and crown in creation and is in a position to manifest the divinity inherent in him.No other animal or bird,or any other manifestation is superior to man in this aspect.
Namaskar.
Thanks Ravi for all the informative comments.
For me, animals, birds and trees, rocks even, are much better than humans any day!
Seriously but, Sri Valmiki’s Ramayana proves quite the opposite than what you mention towards the end. The apes, the bears, the squirrels, the vultures are great and noble, and intrinsically divine to start with. By mentioning that Jambavant was immortal and the son of Visnu, or Hanumanji was the son of Vayu, or that Jatayu was the son of Aruna and a close friend of Sri Dasaratha etc etc, Valmikiji is infusing divinity, ab initio, into the ‘animal’ characters. It is actually the humans in the story (other than the main characters) whom I am not sure of! The race of humans (before the advent of Lord Rama) is shown as generally being the lowest of the lot, incapable of tapas as compared to even the Rakshasas and the Vanaras, and thus Ravana omitted to include them in the boon he sought from Lord Brahma.
Best wishes
Arvind/Friends,
Thanks Arvind for your comments and what is important is that we agree on the innate Divinity of all things manifest;where we differ is on the Historicity and the allegorical part,and this although subject to a Rational probing,eventualy is part of our belief system and as long as it serves to make us feel our inherent Divinity,It has served its end.
Interestingly the Mahabharata which is believed to belong to a later day period speaks about the sons of Soorya,Yama,Indra,Vayu,etc as also sons of man;the Only exception being Karna.
One of the most interesting story for me is where Bhima meets an old monkey(Sri Hanuman)on his way towards fetching the rare flower that Draupadhi had asked.
I would dare say that we are also in a way 'sons of Indra,Vayu,Yama,etc",in as much as the Ego is born and gets its nourishment through the mind operating through the jnanendriyas and karmendriyas,of which the various devas are considered the presiding deities.
This Vedic Symbolism is another puissant way and one that we in this rational age have almost bidden goodbye!
Thanks to your post ,I have rambled long into these thoughts.
Namaskar.
Thanks Ravi, your comments are much appreciated and always welcome.
Post a Comment