Ramayana Series 1 – Dasharatha’s dilemma

Talk at Phoenix, USA

Video:

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
The incident from the Ramayana, which is dramatically changing the whole storyline.
So, Ram, Ram’s life is still at this point, following the trajectory of his father. A typical heroic warrior prince. He is born in a illustrious family, grows to be a chivalrous, skilled, super excellent warrior.
And then he gets married to beautiful princess. And he’s going to be coronated as the prince regent and thereafter the king. And at this particular point, suddenly he is disinherited and dispossessed.
In our life, all of us plan and prepare for the future. Even if we don’t plan systematically, we all dream about the future. And often we expect that life is like a road which will more or less move straight from the present to the future.
But sometimes when we are travelling on a road, there are signals, there is a sharp turn here. Then we prepare for those turns. But sometimes in life, a sudden turn comes with no warning at all.
So, similarly for Ram, at this particular point, he is suddenly dispossessed, disinherited. And he has to go to the forest. Sometimes, for many of us in today’s world, one of our worst nightmares is to be fired.
If you just go one day to office and you find that you are fired. It’s a terrible nightmare. But imagine if on the same day, we get the news that we are fired from our job and are evicted from our house.
Both together on the same day. Just imagine. What do I do now? I have no means to live and I have no place to live.
Just imagine. Now we go and go. We will be on the streets.
At least if we are on the streets, we can go to some friend’s house, to some relative’s house. But Ram was not only evicted and fired, he also could not go to any friend’s house. We think the worst plight is to be on the streets.
But actually, and beggars live on the streets. But actually worse than living on the streets is living in the forest. There are dangerous animals out there.
And sometimes when we live in cities, we may have a somewhat romanticised idea of nature. Oh, city life is so fast. City life is so hectic, so noisy.
Being close to nature is very peaceful. Well, if we are living in a natural retreat, it’s peaceful. But if you are in the forest, it’s the law of the jungle.
Might is right. Survival of the fittest. So it’s an extremely difficult place to live.
So it’s one thing when providence does something like this to us. That means suddenly because of some vicissitude, some circumstance, our life just goes crazy. And we are thrown off track.
But for someone, if someone is doing that, recently I was at a programme, and a person who has now become a devotee, he was in the U.S. Army. And he’s retired from there. So he was not so much on the battle.
He was, he’s a good relationships person. So he was in the Army and his service was to give the news of casualties to the relatives of those who have passed away. And he said it was extremely emotionally draining.
It’s almost every few days is to go and tell some family that their family member has died. So that itself is very difficult to do. Just to give bad news, to be a bearer of bad news is difficult.
But to be the cause of bad news is even worse. To oneself be causing that. There’s a devotee who’s an industrialist in Mumbai.
He was telling me the toughest part of his job is when he has to fire people. He doesn’t like to do that. But sometimes he just has to do it.
So often from Rama’s perspective, we see it was a very difficult situation that he went through. But from Dashrath’s perspective, it was even more difficult. Because he had to be the person who was the cause of Rama’s being dispossessed.
Now, of course, causes are at different levels. At one level, we could say it was Kaikeyi who was the cause. At another level, we could say it was Manthara who was the cause.
But it was Dashrath who was the king. And it was Dashrath who had to do that action of fulfilling the request of Kaikeyi on the instigation of Manthara. And actually, the Valmiki Ramayana describes that Dashrath never spoke those words to Rama.
Go to the forest. He was so distraught. He was so devastated that on the morning of the ceremony, when Rama came to meet him, at that time, he just fainted.
And it was Kaikeyi who spoke the words on behalf of Dashrath. And Dashrath was rendered mute. He just couldn’t believe what is happening.
So at this point, when he hears Kaikeyi speaking those words to Rama, and then watches Rama ascend, he’s just practically not able to speak anything at all. Finally, Rama makes all the arrangements and then comes back. And when he comes back, at that time, he’s come to take permission from Dashrath, basically to inform him that he’s leaving.
And Dashrath finds this unbearable. And he makes various frantic attempts to stave off the inevitable. He says, first he says, O Rama, stay for at least one day.
You are my beloved son. Let me offer you all the royal comforts at least for one day. Now, as soon as he speaks this, Rama sees that Kaikeyi stiffens.
Kaikeyi is itching for a fight. Seeing this, Rama says, O Vendurpa father, if I have to go to the forest, then why delay? I have decided to honour your word. Why should I postpone the honouring of your word? What will be gained by one day? Fourteen years will pass soon and I will be back.
He sees Rama’s resolve, makes another desperate attempt. He says, O ministers, O courtiers, take all the wealth of Ayodhya and relocate into the forest. He says, we will make the forest into Ayodhya and let Ayodhya become the forest.
And let Kaikeyi and her son rule this forest. Kaikeyi blazes up. She says, O king, when you promised me the kingdom, it means the kingdom with all its prosperity, all its wealth.
O Rama, remains very calm. He says, O father, if I am going to the forest, what use is royal luxury for me there? Let the wealth of Ayodhya remain in Ayodhya. Then as Rama turns to depart, Dashratha is almost blinded with grief, with anger, with helplessness and he turns towards Kaikeyi and he says, I am bound by your word to you and that is why I am causing my own son, who is faultless, to suffer a sentence that is given only to the worst of criminals.
The worst criminals are killed and below that, one punishment just below execution is exile. So the faultless Rama is being subject to this great injustice all because of you. He says, by doing this, I have fulfilled my obligation to you.
Now, I disown you. I have no relationship with you. By this time, Kaikeyi has become so hard hearted, she just speaks non-english and then as Rama climbs the chariot of Sunandra, the minister who is acting on the chariot here also, so Dashratha comes running out and Rama sees Dashratha coming and Rama says, move the chariot and he starts moving it and Dashratha says, stop the chariot, stop the chariot and Rama says, move the chariot.
Now, Sumandra is bewildered, what to do, the king is telling stop, the prince is telling move, when two different people tell us two different things and both of them are in positions of authority, so what to do? Just clarify. He tells, oh Rama, your order, your desire is respectable for me but so is the king’s, what should I do? How can I not stop when the king is telling me to stop? So Rama is very sensitive, not just to the pain of his father but also to the pain of Sumandra and he tells him, I understand my father is in distress but by slowing down the distress is only going to increase. Only when I leave will my father accept what has happened and he will eventually come to peace.
The more we delay it, the more we will increase the pain. So therefore, oh Sumandra, do not slow down, move on and when you come back and the king asks you, tell him that because there was so much noise all around, you did not hear his call. And as the chariot starts gaining speed, Dashrath starts running, running, now the king is running, he has forgotten to even wear his footwear, he is running and suddenly he slips and falls right in front of all the citizens, all the courtiers.
The mighty king slips and falls to the ground. There is a gasp of despair and horror among all the onlookers. Rama’s heart is breaking but he tells Sumandra, keep going on.
Dashrath gets up but the chariot is disappearing far into the distance. Dashrath comes back dejected. So Dashrath is always caught in his heart that he did the right thing.
How do we know what is the right thing to do? The epics, both the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, they talk about the quest for dharma. The dharma is basically the right thing to do. So how do we know what action is right in what situation? So for Dashrath, was it right that to honour his word to the king, he did a great wrong to Rama? So if doing the right thing requires us to do a wrong thing, then what is right and what is wrong? Now actually, there are two broad conceptions of morality.
One is that morality is categorical. Categorical means there are two categories. This is the category of right and this is the category of wrong.
And whatever falls in this category is right, whatever falls in that category is wrong. The other understanding of morality is that it is contextual. That the context determines what is right and what is wrong.
This does not mean that morality is absolutely relative and there are no absolute moral principles. But the reality is always nuanced. Killing someone is bad.
Killing someone is punishable. But is it always punishable? If some thief comes into our house and is about to kill us and we kill in self-defence, is that punishable? No. If we are fighting on the national border and at that time, to protect against an invading army, if we kill, far from that being punishable, that is not enough.
That’s what is required. So killing is bad. That’s a category.
It’s important to know. But context has to be seen. So what is right and what is wrong, how do we decide it? In the Mahabharata, there are elaborate discussions on this subject and at one level, we can say that dharma is determined from shastra, that Krishna, that God has given us scriptures and Veda pranidho dharma, the Bhagavatam says that if you study scriptures, then you will know what is dharma.
And that is true. We don’t need to study scriptures. Krishna also says in the Bhagavad Gita, tasmāt śāstraṁ pramāṇam te kāryākārya-vyavasthitaṁ jñātvā śāstra-vidhā loktaṁ karma-kartaṁ ihāra-si He says, tasmāt śāstraṁ pramāṇam te, that by the pramāṇam śāstra, understand what is right and what is wrong, and then act.
At the same time, when śāstra gives us dharma, it gives us principles. Dharma, we cannot imagine it, it’s not like a humongous law code, which at every moment, we are to memorise. Whenever we want to find some information, we search in Google and find the information.
So like that, there is no Google of dharma codes. Okay, I am in this situation, what should I do now? Google and find out. You won’t find out like that.
Actually, dharma is more a set of principles than a source of specific instructions. Those principles have to be applied in our life by using our God-given intelligence. So broadly speaking, there is, how do we know what is right and what is wrong? There are three broad factors.
One overarching factor is that what scripture tells us. But how do we apply scripture? For that, there are three broad factors. There is intent, there is content, and there is consequence.
How do I know what is right and what is wrong? First is intent. What was my intent in doing it? Second is content. What did I actually do? Third is consequence.
What was the result of what I did? So let us start with the practical and then we will move to more philosophical to understand this or more context, more in the epics, ramayana context. Suppose a doctor, a surgeon does some surgery. So the intent is to heal the person.
But while healing the person, so the intent is good. The content is that the surgeon finds out, knows and then exactly finds out, this is the tumorous part which needs to be removed, gets to that part, removes that. And the consequence is the patient gets healed.
So the intent is good, the content is good, the consequence is good. But suppose in this, there are some unscrupulous doctors, they are organ peddlers, they operate the body, but they do not just remove the tumour, they remove some organ also. So the intent itself is bad, that is one level.
That is obviously culpable, but beyond that there is content. Sometimes the doctor while doing something may just do something wrong. They want to cut one nerve, but something else gets cut.
The intent was not bad, but it just happened at that time. Maybe under the pressure of the situation or because of the defect of the instruments or whatever, the content was good. Or sometimes the intent was good, the content was also good.
But some unexpected complication happens. And the consequence is that the patient’s situation worsens and the patient even dies. So now the doctor can be sued for that.
You meant to heal the patient, but the patient died. But then the consequence was bad. So is the success of an operation, what makes the doctor’s actions right or wrong? The doctor may have done everything according to the book, done everything intelligently, but then the result was the patient died.
So the consequence was bad, does that make the action bad? So now if you see in this, all three are important. At the same time, in different situations, different factors may work out as prominent. So in the case of Dashrath, his dilemma was that should he do his duty to his wife or should he do his duty to his son? His duty to his son was that the father prepares the son, grooms the son to become an heir.
And at one level, the father may have a right that I can give my property to whoever I want, whichever of my sons and whatever proportion. But to dispossess, to disinherit and exile a son, that right, no father has that. So the one whom he had protected throughout his life, the one whom he had guided throughout his life, now he has to exile.
So here on one side was his duty to his son, to protect him. On the other side was his duty to his wife. Actually it was not so much his duty to his wife as it was his duty to honour his word.
His word was that he had promised his wife, Kaikeyi that, I will fulfil two wounds of yours. I will fulfil two desires of yours. Now, what was he to do at that time? So sometimes we are caught into different, we are pulled into different directions by our situations.
One situation pulls us in, this is what you should do. Another situation pulls us, this is what you should do. So of course, when we are pulled into different situations, the stakes are probably not that high.
You know, we don’t have the power to exile anyone. Most of us don’t even have the power to give a kingdom to anyone, or to speak of banishing anyone from a kingdom. He had that power.
That’s what, and his dilemma there was, what do I do in this particular situation? So the way he dealt with that situation was that he chose to honour his word. Now, what was his reasoning over there? At one level, if Dashrath had wanted, he could have put his foot down. He said, no, I’m not going to do this.
The characters in the epics and their actions can be understood at various levels. At a transcendental level, we see that their actions are primarily meant for enhancing the Lord’s pastimes. That the Lord has a plan, he has his leela, and his leela, everybody is orchestrated to act in a particular way, by which his leela is furthered.
So in that sense, no one is culpable. Kaikeyi is also not culpable, Dashrath is also not culpable, and Manthara is not culpable. The Ramayana points towards that, when it says that actually, the devatas influence the minds of Kaikeyi and Manthara.
Why? Because they wanted Ram to go to the forest and confront the demons. And thus he would fulfil the purpose of his descent. Which was to annihilate the demons and free the world from the curse of those demoniac rulers like Ravana and his scouts.
So if you see from this perspective, then it is all transcendental. Nobody is culpable. At the same time, when we say everything is all transcendental, the Lord also wants us to learn lessons.
The epics can be relished simply as stories about the Lord, and they purify us at that level. At another level, they can also serve as ethical guidelines for us. Okay, this is what I should do, this is what I should not do.
When we are trying to draw such lessons, our purpose is not to judge a particular person as right or wrong. Our purpose is primarily to try to learn for ourselves what is right and what is wrong. Whenever any statement is found in scripture, this is what was done or this is what should be done.
We have to look at the statement in context. That means, what did this statement mean in that situation? So if we consider how knowledge progresses or how we understand things, this is a slightly philosophical concept, but I will be talking about this in all the sessions, hinting at it, so I will elaborate this right now. Now, understanding requires climbing up and down the ladder of abstraction.
The ladder of abstraction means that we observe things and we observe specific events. And from specific events, we abstract. Abstract means draw out some principles.
We put things into categories. And the specifics that we observe around us are so many that they can be overwhelming. But we make sense of the world not just by focussing on the specifics, but on trying to understand by placing those specifics in some categories.
So if we consider ladder of abstraction, at the bottom of this ladder are specific events. At the top of it are some abstract principles, some categorical understandings. So for example, if we meet a person and we shake hands with them, instead of shaking hands, they pull us into a hug.
Now we understand, some people are more touchy-feely, they like to hug. So we understand this is this person’s nature. Some people, we speak some point of connection and they go into a long history of self-defence.
Then we understand this person is too defensive, we have to be a little careful. The specific incident, we do observe the specific incident, but we make sense not just by observing the specific incident, but by drawing some influence from it and placing what we observe into some category. So we may understand, if we talk with someone in English and that person talks back in Hindi, then we may understand this person is more comfortable in Hindi.
Then we may talk with them in Hindi. Maybe this person comes from a part of the country where they do not know English so much. Basically, we look at events, we experience things, but the way we make sense is not just by focussing on the specifics, but looking at something universal from the specifics.
Not necessarily universal in the sense that it applies to everyone, but in terms of some broader category. If we constantly dealt only with specifics, without having any categorical analysis, we would just get overwhelmed. There can be hundreds, thousands of even food items.
Now, if we look at, this is salty, this is spicy, this is sweet, this is tangy, some broad categories. We say, okay, I can take this kind of food, I don’t want to take this kind of food. So we categorise.
And that’s how we try to make sense of the complexity of the reality that is around us. So the ladder of abstraction, how does it apply in the study of scripture? Scripture describes specific events. Those specific events and those specific situations will not literally apply to our life.
So from those specific situations, we need to look at, okay, firstly, when anything happens in a scriptural setting, if you want to learn how to apply that in our life, we need to broadly ask three questions. What did this mean in that context? I have to understand the context to understand what it means in that context. What does it mean in that context? Then I move up the ladder of abstraction and understand, what is the universal principle? What is the context-independent principle we talked about earlier? And then we move down the ladder of abstraction to our situation.
How can that principle apply in my life? Or how do I apply that principle in my life? So for example, the specific incident in the Ramayana was that Lakshman, Dashrath, consented to Kaikeyi’s request and Ram went to the forest. So in that context, what exactly happened was that Dashrath considered honouring his promise extremely important. Now in that context, actually, Kshatriyas are individuals with extraordinary levels of power.
They are kings and they are respected and empowered as kings. And wherever there is power, there is often the possibility of abusing of power. So one way the Kshatriyas are protected from the abuse of power, one system of check and balance for preventing Kshatriyas from abusing their power is that they are taught the importance of honour, of honouring one’s word.
That if I make this promise, I’ll die, but I’ll not give up this promise. So when they train in this way to honour their word, what happens is we all will get impulses from within, temptations from without and these can push us to move away from the principles that we wish to live according to. But if we are taught to honour our word, if we are trained to do that, then even if those forces come, no, I cannot do this.
In many situations, where there is something grave happening, we take vows. When we take initiation, we take vows. When we get married, we take vows.
The idea is that these are meant to create a sense of gravity within us. And to the extent we respect the principle of honouring our word, to that extent, when temptations come, we will have an inner guard. I’ve given my word, I’ll not do this.
When we talk about giving our word also, there are different situations. I will just tell someone, I’ll come at this time over here. We try to honour that.
But that’s not a vow. A vow is something which is much more serious. It is often taken with some kind of religious sanction and which is made formally.
So there are we give our word, we give a promise, we take a vow. Normally, we try to keep our word. I’ll come at this time, we try to come at that time.
A promise is a little more serious. A vow is much more serious. We cannot expect people to take our word seriously if we ourselves don’t take our word seriously.
If we say something and we don’t do it, then why should we expect people to take our word seriously? So, Kshatriyas, this value of honouring one’s word is very deeply ingrained within them. And that protects them from being prone to giving in to their impulses, the temptations that may come, the impulses that may come. And if they decide to give in, they are very powerful.
Who will stop them? It may not be so easy to stop the head of the state from doing something. So, in the past, there was monarchy. Now, we have democracy.
So, America is currently experiencing how one head of state can do so many things which can disrupt the lives of so many people. Say, there are checks and balances. You cannot do this, you cannot do that.
If you do this, then the judiciary will counter it. There is a senate which will check that. So, wherever there is power, there has to be some system for counterbalancing that power.
Otherwise, power will be abused. So, the Kshatriyas, when they had power, there were two broad systems of counterbalancing. One was the Brahmanas.
The Kshatriyas had political power, the Brahmanas had intellectual and spiritual power. And this way, there was some balance among the two. Another way was, the Kshatriyas were taught to honour their word.
And that way, when temptation of any sort would come, they would be not so likely to give in to that temptation. We see this ethic of honouring one’s word present to some extent even in Duryodhana. And Duryodhana was saved at one particular time by Arjuna.
He said, I will fulfil, I’ll give you a boon, I’ll fulfil your request. And then eventually Bhishma, he is goaded by Arjuna, goaded by Duryodhana. And Bhishma says, I got this five, I’ve invested this five arrows of my mystic power and tomorrow I’ll kill the five Pandavas.
And Duryodhana says, yeah, OK, very good, I’ll keep these arrows with me. He thinks that if somebody will steal those arrows, I’ll keep them safe. But then, Krishna tells Arjuna when that day’s battle gets over, Krishna, your work is not yet over now.
You have to go to the Pandava, Kauravas’ side. And he goes there and he asks, when he comes to Duryodhana’s tent, Duryodhana is about to retire for the day. Oh, Arjuna, welcome.
What can I do for you? If you want the kingdom, I’ll give it to you. Now, when Duryodhana is saying this also, he knows Arjuna will not ask for the kingdom. That’s why he’s making that request.
You know, the Kshatriyas, the war has started. Now, it’s going to be a matter of honour. But then, Arjuna says, I believe you have five arrows which are meant for killing me and my brothers.
I would like to have those arrows. Duryodhana is infuriated eternally. But he still honours his word.
And he gives those five arrows. And Arjuna takes the arrows and starts going. Now, Duryodhana, his whole dream of victory is crumbling in front of him.
He thought that tomorrow we’ll win the war. And as he’s trying to grapple with the shattering of his dream right in front of his eyes, a question pops up. He asks, Arjuna, just one minute.
Who told you about these arrows? Because this conversation between him and Bhishma had happened privately. He’d got all the attendants and the soldiers to go away. So, Arjuna just turns to Krishna.
Duryodhana just bangs his face. Krishna, how did he know it? He must be God. Although, at that particular point, he gets that understanding that he must be God.
But it isn’t registered within him. For making right choices, we need light, not lightning. Lightning illuminates for a few moments but then goes off.
Light is what shows the way consistently. So, even for those who are very attached, there are moments when they also know what I’m doing is wrong, this is what I should be doing. But for them, that knowledge is like lightning.
It comes for some time, they see the reality as it is, but the lightning goes off. And then, they relapse into their own distorted perception of things. So, the point I’m making is, even Duryodhana honoured his worth.
He is also trained in that. I want to speak of Dashrath, who is extremely virtuous. So then, if you consider from the perspective of intent, content and consequence, what was his intent? He never desired any harm for Ram.
His intent was not bad. The content was what? What he did to send a faultless son to exile. It was a very bad thing to do.
What are the consequence? The consequence at one level was that in separation from Ram, he died. That’s a bad consequence. But at another level, the consequence was that he was remembering Ram when he departed from the world.
Anta Kalecha Mameva Smaran Muktva Kalevaram In the 8th chapter, Krishna says that those who remember him at the time of death, they retain him. So, Dashrath, for him, although at one level the separation was agonising, but eventually his departure was auspicious. He departed, absorbed in remembrance of the Lord and he attained the Lord.
Another consequence was that Ram went to the forest and there he confronted the demons. A whole elaborate story that happens. Ultimately, he freed the world from the scourge of the demons.
And that’s how what he did or what eventually resulted was auspicious. So, for him, at that particular point he was concerned not about, he was not unconcerned or pathetic or insensitive to what Ram had to do. But he was concerned more about how would he dishonour his world.
And for Ram himself what was his concern? His concern was that if my father has given a word, I should honour it. I should honour it. So, both of them, they had that deeply ingrained in their consciousness that we need to honour the world.
So, Ram helped his father in honouring the world. The principle of committing us, the time independent principle over there is that there has to be integrity. If we say something, we will do it.
So, that principle is very much required in today’s world also. We live in a world where morality has become very mutable. Mutable means different people have different ideas of what is right and what is wrong.
And often, when people make promises it’s said that politicians before election they shake your hands and after election they shake your faith. Laughter So, there is integrity that is very much lacking. And when that happens, when that is lacking, then people just can’t trust anyone.
And when they can’t trust anyone, then everyone becomes lonely. We can talk about immorality, we can talk about consequences of immorality but even if that comes later, what comes immediately is that no one feels connected. Everyone feels isolated.
Everyone feels lonely. And when we go through the world like this, we may even project this on to God. That means we find that people don’t keep up their words.
One person does the same thing, second person does the same thing, third person does the same thing. Everybody is like that. And then we put it on God.
Even God is also like that. He just promises but he doesn’t protect. And then we are not only alone horizontally alienated from people around us we can become alienated from God also.
So, the principle that the Ramayan teaches through different characters is that all of us will face difficult choices in life. And more than the specific choice that we make in difficult situations it is the specific choice that can be debated. In the Sri Vaishnav tradition often Dashrath is strongly reproached by some of the saints.
Why did he have to consider his words so important? His service to Ram should be more important. And he should not have sent Ram to the forest like this. He caused so much separation to everyone, so much agony to everyone.
Even if Ram had to confront the demons, why did he have to go to the forest and live in exile to confront the demons? He could have confronted the demons with the army of Ayodhya by his side. So, there are some saints who have that basic thing. And that’s fine.
Because the important thing is not to go here to judge who is right and who is wrong. What we need to do is internalise for ourselves principles. So, when we are trying to apply scriptural principles in our life, we need to try to look at all these three things, the intent, the content and the consequence.
So, why am I doing this? Sometimes, like Ram, he is considered the ideal person who follows Dharma. And still Ram tells Sumantra, just tell the king that you did not hear him speak. At one level, he is telling Ram to lie.
Lying is bad. But what is the intent? The intent is to minimise the pain. So, we cannot have black and white in real life.
We do need to learn about what is black and white. We cannot be colorblind and say everything is white or everything is black. We do need to learn about black and white.
But we also need to know that reality doesn’t come in black and white. It comes in various shades of grey. And at that time, when we are dealing with these shades of grey, rather than making absolute judgement, this is right and this is wrong, we need to look at our own intent, look at the content and look at the consequence.
And thereby we learn. And all this kind of deliberation and decision making becomes easier when we are connected with the Lord. Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita in 10.10, He says that that for those who are devoted to me, I give them the intelligence by which they can come to me.
By which they can make wise choices. So to the extent we are devotionally intense in our practises, to that extent, we will get the guidance, we’ll have the inner clarity to make the decisions as wisely as is possible in our particular situations. So I’ll summarise, then you can have some questions.
So I spoke today about Vashwas dilemma and I started by talking about how Ram had to suffer from being the prince regent to being evicted from the kingdom, from the office, from the home and not even onto the streets, into the forest. He took it graceful. To be a victim of injustice is bad.
But to be the inflictor of injustice, when one doesn’t want to be in human words, just to be a bearer of bad news is difficult. To be the inflictor of bad news, to be the cause of the bad news is even worse. Dashrath was in that predicament.
And in order to honour his word given to Kaikayi, he had to do a grave injustice against Ram. And how do one decide what is right and what is wrong? If you do right to one person but wrong to another person, is it right or is it wrong? So broadly discussed about three factors. What are three factors? Intent, content and consequence.
First of all, of course, is that we need to learn scripture by which we learn what is right and what is wrong in terms of category. So morality is categorical in concept. We have to learn the category.
This is right, this is wrong. But it is also contextual. And to understand the context by which we can nuance and adapt the principles of morality that is also a sign of intelligence.
So to learn from scripture principles, there is a ladder of abstraction. Look at specific situations, we try to look at, understand broader principles and then see how those broader principles apply in our life. So for Kshatriyas, the principle of honouring one’s word, you might say, why is it so important that you are causing such great pain to injustice among us, why do you need to honour your word? At such a cost.
But the purpose of honouring the word was, it was like an internal check system, check and balance system by which Kshatriyas if they were tempted to abuse their power, their word of honour would check them. So that’s why it was ingrained in the Kshatriyas that you must honour your word. And even Duryodhana, he honoured his word at that time, when he had to give the five arrows to Arjuna.
So by this principle, I talked about how there is, we give our word, there is a promise, there is a vow, there are different levels. But in general, relationships, stick relationships can persevere when there is trust. And trust comes when we act, our actions are in harmony with our words.
So that principle when we are studying scripture, we don’t judge who is right and who is wrong. Because at a transcendental level, everybody is acting to further the Lord’s Leela. But still for our own application, we can strive to learn.
And Dharma or Dharma books, the books of Dharma are not like a massive law code which gives an exhaustive list of all possibilities and actions in those situations. No, it is more of principles that we internalise. And the more we practise Bhakti, the more we get connected with Krishna.
And then with his guidance, we can do better deliberation and we can arrive at better decisions. Thank you very much. So are there any questions or comments? I have one question.
First of all, thanks so much for this wonderful lecture. But then again, you know, please forgive me if I misinterpreted you somewhere. You, I mean, you talked about from Dasar perspective and I want to kind of understand from Kathir perspective because you said somewhere in your speech today that you know, Kathir was not culpable.
She was not blameworthy. You know, long back when I started reading Bhagavad Gita, you know, I came across that verse saying, so I was thinking that, you know, how come if I am I am not the Karta, if the three boats of Mathura Nisha is the Karta, how am I the, you know, why I am facing the consequences of my karma? And later, you know, somewhere I read that it’s because you desire. So that’s why you are the culprit.
Now, here in this case of Kaikeyi, I mean, if everything is planned by God, how come she is not culpable then? Because she, because of her statement and everything. So, how can Kaikeyi not be culpable when it is because of her desire that all this happened? And, yeah, somebody might jump from a 100-storey building and they might be doing it because they are frustrated and they want to commit suicide. Somebody else might be jumping from a 100-storey building and they are stuntmen and a movie shot is going on.
The two actions are the same but the contexts are very different. So, in the second case, there is a safety net below and the whole thing is an enactment for a particular purpose. So, when the Lord’s pastimes are going on, it is at one level an enactment.
Now, this doesn’t mean it’s an enactment, it doesn’t mean that it’s unreal. It is real. So, to say that Kaikeyi is not culpable is not to say that her action is not wrong.
What it means is that the Lord can bring good even out of the bad. A higher purpose can be served even through the negative actions that somebody might do. And because a higher purpose is served, in that sense that action can be considered to be good.
So, if you consider intent, content and consequence, then as far as the intent is concerned, her intent was not to serve God. Her intent was to pursue her own agenda. And in that sense that is reproachable.
So, because she is a close associate of the Lord we respect her. But at the same time, the way she is acting in this particular pastime is unfavourable. Her intent was unfavourable.
So, in terms of consequence, the result, the expertise of the Lord was that he brought good even out of the bad. But in terms of intent, what she did, her intention was not right. Even her content of what she did was not right.
The point of saying that we shouldn’t consider the characters in the Ramayana culpable, the point of that is simply to know that these are not just ordinary characters. Many of the characters have previous lives. There are some things associated with previous lives from which things are happening.
There are many subtleties and nuances that we may not be aware of. And so, we need to be cautious in not having moral judgments come up. This is right and this is wrong.
We need to be a little more careful and differential. But that doesn’t mean that there are no moral categories. We do, as far as we are concerned, sometimes we do have to make decisions.
This was right, this was wrong. And in our life, in our interactions with others, we may have to take into consideration the nuances. But after taking into consideration the nuances, we have to make decisions.
So the broad difference is that the Lord’s pastimes, there are special characters involved. And they, even if they act unfavourably to the Lord, but they are also still the Lord’s associates. But that does not apply in the cases, in our cases, in our situations.
Does that answer your question? Yes. Correct, yes. So you said intent, content and consequence.
So in this, by learning scriptures, we can cultivate our intent and we can make use of our content or action also, but most of the time, consequence is something which is not in our hand. So while we are considering this factor which is not in our hand, why should we consider two factors, intent and content, for right and wrong. For example, if two are right, even if third is wrong, then I should be right, right, because it’s not in my hand anyway, consequence.
So when the consequence is not in our hand, how can we consider the consequence as a factor in deciding what is right or wrong. This is more of overall analysis rather than a specific analysis. What I mean by that is that sometimes right and wrong is not in terms of moral categories.
It’s simply in terms of practical decisions. I may decide, okay, while while cooking a particular item I may just use this ingredient this much and I find, okay, this is not, you know, I used too much salt, I put too much sugar and next time I’ll put less. So here we are talking about right and wrong, it’s not that putting this much salt is morally right and that much salt is morally wrong.
It’s not a moral category. But still we learn from consequence, you know, okay, this was too much. So we are talking here more in terms of learning rather than learning from events.
So we do learn from life. This led to this. Maybe I should not act this way.
Sometimes, as I said that, if some people are very touchy, means very, very, very hypersensitive then our intent in maybe telling them that something they are doing is wrong, that may be good, we want to help them. Our content also may be very, we may speak very sensitively. But still there is a big overreaction from them.
Then we may decide it’s not worth it. They will learn their lessons on their own way. And it is not that our intent or content was wrong, but it is that the consequence turned out to be wrong.
So we learn from that and then we adapt ourselves in future. So what is right and wrong is not always in terms of moral categories. It’s in terms of practically how things turn out.
We are also going to learn from experience and improve our decision making process. Does that answer your question? Yeah. This is, I would like to take a full class on this topic.
It’s a very, very important question. Would Sunday class be the best for this? Most of you would be there for the Sunday? So I would like to speak, I have a full article on this. I would like to speak elaborately on this.
It’s one of the most misunderstood aspects of the Ramayana. I’ll deal with that elaborately. If we can change the title for Sunday, Sunday class I will have this.
Thank you. Any other questions? Yeah. Very small question.
Like, we go to the bathroom and sometimes we see insects in the bathroom. And we just use some pesticides or some sprays for them. We know that killing of insects is also bad.
Our heart, it doesn’t allow. But in case of, we cannot stay in a bad house. So we’ll just put the spray.
We know the consequence will be bad. The insects will get killed. Some of the insects will get killed and some will go away also.
But yes, our intent is also bad. Our consequence is also bad. So is that, we are getting bad culprits, we are becoming culprits for that? So, if sometimes we use pesticides to remove insects from our bathrooms and other places, so then, are we karmically culpable for that? In the Bhagavatam, it is said that, the nature of material existence is that one living being is often the prey for another living being.
So for one living being to live, another living being has to die. For the tiger to live, the deer has to die. The tiger catches the deer and eats it.
So, in the material world, often there is this situation where killing is unavoidable. Of course, that is not directly applicable for us, but there are various levels at which we may act. So first is that, if we try to do preventive maintenance and have as much cleanliness as possible, it’s possible that pests may not come at all.
But if pests come, then there are ways in which they can be they can be, whenever it’s possible, they can be knocked down, senseless, but then they can be whisked out. There are certain insecticides, certain insect repellents and things like that. They don’t kill, but they repel me.
So if we can find that, that is good. If we can’t, then we have to see the things in perspective. Yes, there will be some karmic culpability that is there when we take life, but I wouldn’t say our intent is not to kill the animal over there.
Our intent is to basically, there’s another principle of Dharma that is Shuchi. Cleanliness has to be maintained. It’s not just for aesthetic purposes.
It’s also for dharmic purposes. So, for maintaining cleanliness, we have to do what is required. In fact, if you see when we get a disease, when we get infected by germs, what are we doing? We take antibiotics.
We’re killing the germs in the body. So, the doctors who are protecting our life are killing life to protect our life, isn’t it? So, we just can’t avoid that in real life. And that’s why it’s important that we practise Bhakti.
Krishna says, that I will free you from sinful reactions. So, that doesn’t mean that we indiscriminately kill. We use our conscience to try to minimise violence as much as possible.
But when it is unavoidable, we do it, not with any malicious intent, but with a devotional purpose for our life. And one devotee was very deeply ingrained in the culture of non-violence. And then when he was told to clear this land, clear this land of grass, so that we can build a temple over there.
But you’re killing the grass. How can you kill the grass? Okay, when you’re uprooting the grass, you chant Hare Krishna. So, the soul in the grass body, when it’s dying, it will hear Hare Krishna.
It will become elevated. So, when you’re spraying the insecticide, we can be chanting Hare Krishna. The soul in the grass body will be elevated.
Thank you. So, thank you very much.