AN APPROACH TO
SQUEAMISH NEGATIVISM
(Letter to a skeptic well-wisher.)
Over skepticism is some times taken by some people as
a tool to exemplify their intelligence, and also as a moderate cover of their
ignorance on the subject in question. “I hate so and so word since the same
appeared in such and such text, and therefore I desist myself from reading any
text that contains that word, or I don’t like so and so character in so and so
book and therefore I don’t read any book having any of its character resembling
to that name” etc, are the examples of such over skepticism. This is can be
called a squeamish and unhealthy negativism in the part of such persons and needs
to be attended very carefully.
I have received some reactions on my previous posts on
Vedanta and I have willingly submitted my explanations to the persons directly.
Questions that demand and deserve answers must be attended to. Intelligent
queries must attain their solutions. This is precisely the way to move ahead. I
am thankful to the people who adopted that way. But, at the same time I also
received some fanatic and insulting statements (with no justification for such
outburst). This cannot be a healthy tradition. I have been likened to a Vakil
in the sense as if I advocate for hypocrisy. That is not at all true. I am
not one of priests who is duty bound to support one view and reject the other.
I am also not one among those pundits or gurus who earn their magnificent
living by their oratory skills on public platforms by propagating one or other
magical method to gain perfection or enlightenment. I am a simple man
self-contented and want nothing in return in terms of money or in kind from
those who read these pages and there by gain some insight. I believe in Vedanta.
I have studied it and practiced it in my life. As usual I too was extremely
confused and overwhelmed with anxities and sorrows. But a kind teacher, Sri
Swami Chinmayanand ji guided me and taught Vedanta. Now, it has been over
thirty-five years that Vedanta, as taught by the teacher, rule my life. It has
been extremely rewarding. Now I fully enjoy my life and wish to share the
thrill and contentment with every one. I only intend to spread that knowledge
to every one who may care to seek the same. I strongly believe that even one
right person, if somehow reaches these pages, will exonerate me from Guru-rin
(the debt of teacher). I am a minor and insignificant speck in the field of
Vedantic wisdom. But I know how some skeptic people reacted in the past to the
Masters who possessed distinctive wisdom. Still I feel like to clarify few
points here that have become major part of skepticism in few corners of this
world.
Here are the normal objections which I come across if
I utter the word “Rama”. The first one is related to Shambuka who according to
Adhyatma Ramayana was a shudra ascetic and was beheaded by Rama for attempting
to perform penance in violation of dharma, which, as stated in the book, caused
the death of Brahmin’s son. Adhyatma Ramayana is the only book that states this
story, (and how such things are incorporated in holy texts, I am going to
explain in detail just after the preliminaries). This has created a skeptic
view about Rama since he is also called Maryadapurushottama (The great man who actualized
Principals of life by living them). People detest the deed and thereby denounce
the character. The other incidence is from Valmikeeya Ramayana where, in the
last chapter called ‘Lava-Kusha Kand”, it is said that on some sarcastic
remarks of a washer man, the king Rama, exiled his wife Sita while she was
pregnant. The feminists naturally cannot digest any justification to this deed,
and so they get allergic to the character and even to an extent detest the
mention of the name. If any of these incidences depicted in these books were
true, I mean had really any historical significance, I would have joined the
leading list of the protesters against Rama. But no literature is history or
should be taken as history. We need to more about these books, their making,
and analyze a number of other things before reacting to any such conclusion.
The word ‘Rama’ is a
Sanskrit word and initially used at some places in Vedas, in different context
than that of Puranas. The word ‘Rama’ etymologically means ‘that which pervades
all’ and therefore, in philosophically it can only denote the all-pervading
Spirit. This word was designed or formulated by Rishis in the Vedas and also
used in the same context, millenniums before any epic was written, nay, even
the first rhyme of any poetry was composed, not only in
There is a large
number of poets and literary giants who have worked on this theme (the theme that
depicts Rama as main protagonist) and are still working, taking one or other
philosophical idea and personifying the same as one or other character of their
theme. While doing that they may portray that subtle philosophical idea on some
matching historical, puranic or social figure exclusively or just create
altogether an imaginary character by picking up bits and pieces of character
from here and there. For example take a very recent epic ‘Saaket’ by Maithilisharan
Gupt, that mainly concentrates on dipction of feminine fortitude as the same
was essentially required in the freedom struggle movement of his time and he
found the same in the character of Urmila wife of Laxamana of Ramayana which was
not given due representation by Tulsi Das in his all inspiring epic “Rama
Charit Manasa”. The importance of feminine fortitude was also realised by an
other poet of that time named Ayodhya Singh Upadyaya (Hariaudh) composing another
epic ‘Priya-pravaas’ portraying the fortitude of Raadha, a Puranic fenine
character. A poet is bound to be influenced by the need of his time and can
take advantage of history or mythology to meet his requirement. But it would be
a great injustice to call any of these literary works a historical presentation.
History is never written in poetry. It is a different subject governed by some
essential rules that have its own ways of presentation. The literature, on the
other hand, is a form of an art and has a different field of artistic
expression. In literature, a
If we talk of the
stories related to Rama, you will find various contradictions in themselves.
For example take ‘Lava Kusha Kaanda’ of Valmikeeya Ramayana. Even the most
devoted Bhakta of Sri Rama, and a most prominent poet of the modern Hindi
literature, Tulsi Das did not believe it to be true or acceptable and
therefore, did not include that story in his epic-book. I too don’t believe the
same. Ramayana is basically known for seven Kandas (and can not philosophically
include an additional Kanda to total the number to eight). Here the number
seven is of great significance. Though according to pundits the number of
chapters, as was supposed to be intended by the Master, denoted hundreds of
ideas related to religion and mythology. In my opinion the only idea that must have compelled the
Master, has philosophical implication of importance. That is, our individuality
(the composite of body-mind-intellect entity) is made up of seven sheaths (कोश) and
the epic (Ramayana) as I described elsewhere in one of my posts, is a representation
of this individuality. Valmiki, who, as a poet-cum-philosopher, very cleverly
placed the story in seven of its chapters representing an ego (this
individuality). Out of these seven chapters or Kandas the four are directly
related to places. They are Ayodya, Aranya, Kishkindha and Lanka Kandas. Baal
Kanda, the first one, describes the childhood of Rama, and therefore has
significance in its name. Only two chapters, in the entire epic of seven grand
chapters, are not related to the places and situation (as of Bal Kanda). and they
are Sundar Kanda and Uttarkanda. I will not go into details of Sundar Kanda
except that the hero or main protagonist of the entire epic is not the hero of
this Kanda and therefore the change in name. As about Uttar Kanda, which is the
last of these seven chapters, is evidently has a suggestion. Word Uttar (उत्तर)
is a very pregnant word of Sanskrit which may mean alibi, solution, result,
response, reply, replication, north, defense, answer, end etc as per its use.
The same word is also used as adjective in many other senses. But here the word
suggests either ‘last or end’ or ‘answers’. The critics take the first meaning
and conclude that Uttar Kanda must be the last or ending chapter of Ramayana. The
preachers take the other. But no other meaning of the word Uttar is applicable
to this Kanda. If it is the last kanda of the epic then the additional kanda
(Lava-Kusha Kanda) makes no sense. The poet of an epic cannot be so casual with
the names of the chapters he assigns. Then, in the entire epic (with the
exception of this Lava-Kusha Kanda whose authenticity is under question) no
chapter is named on the name of some character(s), not even Sundar Kanda whose
main protagonist is Hanumaan ji. So, the analysts of Ramayana candidly consider
this Lava-Kusha Kanda as Kshepak (a pastiche or an added episode).
In ancient times, the
books were written on loose sheets or leaves and preserved in a bundle of a
cloth. The binding of these books was not in vogue. These books were either
maintained by a family, generation after generation, or by the Ashram of the
Master through the ages. In the course of time, the custodians of that literature
had a privilege to add or delete some idea or insert or extract any page. It
all depended on their discrimination what they do with the book and in which
way do they preserve the contents. The custodians of the book may or may not be
having the similar set of mind-intellect equipment as the Master had. So, a lot
many pages were inserted between the texts (and even following the original
text) for the reasons we can easily guess. The name of the original Master
continued to represent the whole volume even after insertions. We normally take
the book, without caring for these insertions and extractions, as a complete
book and blame the author for every thing that is unworthy or ridiculous
without giving any thought to the main objective of the Master. The modern scholars
on the subject very strongly maintain that this ‘Lava Kusha Kaanda’ as whole
was an insertion done at later time and was not a part of the original document.
Besides there are hundreds of other Slokas (and stories) in other Kanda’s of
the same book that were inserted at later dates requiring only a little
discrimination can prove that.
The grand epic
‘Mahabharata’ (by Vyasa) was originally a small compilation called ‘Jaya’ and
later in about five hundred years, it developed to ‘Bharata’ and then
‘Mahabharata’. Even some of the old copies available now in some libraries
don’t have Gita in its Bhisma Parva. That is the place in the book where Gita
was supposed to be discoursed. (In these ancient copies available Gita is not a
part of Mahabharat). Naturally this has been inserted in recent times (just
before eighth century to, be precise) by some unknown (great) philosopher. But
as per the ancient tradition the name of the author remained undisturbed. Vyasa
in fact was never a name. It was used as title of to a person writing or
preaching the contents of Purana, and the same continues to till date.
Consistency of
character in any work of literature is essential, observes Aristotle. If there
is inconsistency in any character, it must be consistently inconsistent. You can
say Aristotle had nothing to do with Sanskrit literature. True. But that is a
rule adhered to by all the literature of the world. This rule stands as it is
even if Aristotle has said some thing different. It is same way as the law of
gravitation would have worked even without being observed by any Newton .According to Sanskrit scholars
the elegance is a necessary part of literature (सलालित्यम साहित्यं).
Keeping the consistancy of character and necessary elegance in mind will it be
proper to analyse an epic on the basis of some pastiche (क्षेपक). Will you assess
the quality and worth of a tree on the basis of a rotten fruit on it?
If on the basis of this
contrived kaanda of Vaalmikeeya Ramayana Sita, a pregnant woman, was denounced
and exiled by apparently (tyrannical and male chauvinistic) king named “Rama”,
is your ultimate knowledge about the character of Rama, leaving all available
literatures unnoticed and unanalyzed, then please select some other subject for
your scrutiny. Literature is not your subject that you are qualified and deserve
to study. If the way of your every literary analysis is based on the crap lying
in the trash that suits your whimsical hypothesis, while every aspect of the
literature contradicts it, then what is the use of logic, rationale,
discrimination and analysis? The same
attitude is seen in some Dalit thinkers who are allergic to this word because
in the some other Ramayana, some brahmin custodian inserted some pages stating
what Rama did and wanted the king of that time to follow the suit. The person,
who did that to meet his selfish ends, is to be blamed for such insertion and
not the author of the book. These selfish devils can make use of the scriptures
in their favour better than any one else. Forget about scripture, you take any law of
the land and you will find some devilish minds misappropriating the same in
their favour.
This has been done earlier even in ancient times, being done in the present and
will continue in future. So, the need is of proper discrimination and analysis.
Just think, how could you think Rama, (whether historical or mythological figure),
punish a Shudra because he was doing some penance and just ignore another
Shudra Shavari whome he so categorically preached Bhakti yoga? Then, on what
grounds will you discard his relationships with the tribal people who helped
him all through his 14 years of banishment. Was it not a literary blunder on
the part of an epic writer to discard the consistency of a major character in
his literary work? If the poet was such a blind fool not to notice this
deviation in consistency then how could he compose such a great literature? Such
blunder is not done even by the small time writers. Think. Think!!
As far as calling me
names, I take it as compliments. May God bless you.
OM TAT SAT
YADURAJ SINGH BAIS
No comments:
Post a Comment