Churning the BhagavatamThe Monk’s Podcast 104 – Dashavatara 7 – Rama with Krishna Kshetra M

Podcast: Summary Podcast: Video:

Thank you very much for joining once again for the monks podcast. I am happy to be here again amongst the monks. To be amongst the monks.

Amongst the monks. Actually, you have given me the opportunity to be amongst a monk, a senior monk. I think this is the longest series we have been having on the monks podcast.

I have discussed various issues with different devotees, but it has been a consistent theme for meditation. It is wonderful. We are going to Krishna next time.

Today is Lord Ram. Today, I think, is Ram, no? Yes, Maharaj. Ram.

Yeah. So, on Lord Ram. Actually, I grew up hearing stories of Ram.

We had pictures of Ram in our homes. Right behind our childhood, right behind my home, there was a temple of Ram. So, in one sense, from a cultural connection with Lord Ram is more than with Lord Krishna.

This is my upbringing. Your upbringing was which part of India? Mostly Maharashtra. My parents were from Andhra.

Grandparents. But I was born and brought up in Maharashtra. Which part? I was born in the heartland of Maharashtra, in a remote place called Chandrapur.

I grew up over there. That is, it is still considered to be like a rural or a tribal area almost. Then I came to… So, my youth was in Nasik.

Then I came to study in Mumbai, in Pune, for my engineering. And that's where I was introduced to Krishna consciousness. In Chandrapur, I had a lot of exposure to Lord Ram because just behind our home, there was a Ram temple.

So, you have Lord Ram in your blood. Okay, at least in my psyche, somewhere is there, Krishna, hopefully, by Krishna's mercy. Yeah, you've been so much blessed.

I didn't hear… I don't think I heard about Lord Rama until I joined the devotees, which means I was 21 years old. So, I'm a late starter. You have taken leaps and bounds and you are helping many others to start early now by your outreach.

Were you from a more religious or spiritual installation in your background earlier, Maharaj? Yeah, there was a strong religious orientation in Protestant Christian tradition. And it's a bit complicated, but I was understanding that there's some higher reality from very early, I would say. And I had some kind of attraction, some vague attraction to religious life and then spiritual life.

And then in my early college days, I became attracted to yoga teachings. And then I heard about bhakti, bhakti yoga. And when I met devotees in Germany, they said, we practise bhakti yoga.

And I immediately thought, aha, I think I've found what I'm looking for. I'm not mistaken, you're from America, but you met devotees in Germany. I actually met devotees in America first, but I didn't interact with them.

I saw them and heard them at my university. They would have kirtan every day on the streets in the open area, just next to the main entrance to the university park area. So they were definitely impressing me gradually at that time.

Oh, okay. But it was in Germany that I first interacted with devotees. Yeah, Shiva, Nanda Prabhu and Prithu Prabhu, they were pioneers in German yatra back then.

Yeah, I see that book about Prabhupada in Germany. I think, what is that book called? The Disciples in Germany? Yeah, Shila Prabhupada's Disciples in Germany. So I thought of talking about Lord Ram from one perspective, but if you have something in mind, we can go along.

Well, I thought we should hear first Shri Jayadev Goswami's prayer. Oh, yes. And then I thought we could go to also one of the prayers in the ninth canto, which is interesting because it gives benediction and it describes practically the whole pastime of the Lord's appearance, all in one verse.

So let's start with the Dasavataras Tatra. Dasavataras Tatra And I have a translation here. You scattered in all directions, all ten directions, the severed heads of Ravana as a beautiful offering to the deities of the various quarters, east, west, and so on.

Oh, Keshava, you took the form of Rama. So it's interesting. His ten heads were offered, I think the literal meaning would be as balidana, as an offering to the directional divinities.

Beautiful. So Maharaj, I had this question and I have particular understanding. I want to confirm from you.

So generally when the Lord is glorified, so the glorification, especially in poetic form, does not necessarily be a literal truth. Isn't it? Because as far as I have read in the Ramayana, it's not that his ten heads were cut and sent in ten directions. It's more like that.

His heart was shot. That's the Valmiki Ramayana version. And Purufi Ramayana is that his life force was in his belly.

His belly was shot. And he had the power to regenerate his head. So even if his heads were cut, they would reappear again.

I don't think that after he was killed, after that, he would do anything to his corpse. Ram was not the kind of person who would deform or deface the corpse of a dead enemy. Well, this is kind of a bigger topic, especially in relation to Ramlila.

We can maybe talk more about it later. But there are so many versions of Ramlila. And we can say, of course, we can say, well, the only really bona fide is Valmiki Ramayana.

Yeah, we can discuss that. But I like to think that the Lord's pastimes are unlimited. And so there can be variations.

Oh, beautiful. And the variations, of course, can also, one can invoke Kalpaveda Nyaya. We can say, in different kalpas, the variations appear.

That would be one way, one way to say it. But let's now go to a verse in the Bhagavatam. Which was it? My mind? Canto 9, Chapter 10, Verse 4. And I like to read the Sanskrit, if I may, because it's one of the longer metres.

I don't remember. Shraddhara, maybe. Yeah.

So. That takes more practise to chant properly. To keep the promise of his father intact, Lord Ramachandra immediately gave up the position of king and, accompanied by his wife, Mother Sita, wandered from one forest to another on his lotus feet, which were so delicate that they were unable to bear even the touch of Sita's palms.

The Lord was also accompanied by Hanuman, king of the monkeys, or by another monkey, Sugriva, and by his own younger brother, Lord Lakshmana, both of whom gave him relief from the fatigue of wandering in the forest. Having cut off the nose and ears of Shurpanakha, thus disfiguring her, the Lord was separated from Mother Sita. He therefore became angry, moving his eyebrows and thus frightening the ocean, who then allowed the Lord to construct a bridge to cross the ocean.

Subsequently, the Lord entered the kingdom of Ravana to kill him like a fire devouring a forest. May that supreme Lord, Ramachandra, give us all protection. So it's a prayer of benediction, which is also quite an extensive description of the pastime, with a few details which could also be discussed.

And it's interesting just to consider the Bhagavatam version of Ramalila. You know, the fact that it's relative to, let's say, Valmiki Ramayana, it's extremely short, it's two chapters. And Shukadeva Goswami in the beginning says to Mara's Pariksit, I'm just going to give you a short summary, because you already are familiar with the story.

So it's assumed, one can say, not only that Mara's Pariksit is familiar, but also any reader of the Bhagavatam is familiar. Similar to in the first canto, so much of the first canto is a kind of sequel to the Mahabharata, with some overlap also of later portions of the Mahabharata, and of course, it's very much summarising. But the assumption is that one is already familiar with the Mahabharata, and that's what gives significance to the Bhagavatam sequel and summary, because one's already familiar with it, and now one gets the particular perspective, which can also be considered a kind of commentary to the Mahabharata.

And now in the ninth canto, we can also take these two chapters as kind of commentary on the Ramayana of Valmiki. That's an interesting point. Normally, I never thought of it as a commentary, because isn't technically a commentary bigger than the original book? Or is it? Not necessarily.

Not necessarily? Okay. Yeah, okay. Sridhar Swami's commentary on the Gita is often quite brief for certain verses.

For other verses, he elaborates more, but sometimes it's short. Oh, okay. I also thought about this.

It's remarkably brief. And there are some, in some ways, Sridhar Swami is also presenting things from the perspective that is most relevant for, say, Parishad Maharaj. Most of the Bhagavatam, their pastimes, which are focused on the idea of, say, renunciation of the world and attachment to the Lord.

And one of the things which first struck me as quite odd, but then as I read the Moola, tried to understand the Moola of the Bhagavatam, I appreciate it a little bit more. I'd like to get your understanding also. The Bhagavatam says that in order to demonstrate how somebody who is attached to their spouse, their wife, suffers, the whole pastime of Rambhi exile happened.

Yes, and Prabhupada mentioned that once. In my memory, it was in a talk, maybe it was a conversation in Hyderabad. And he was, as I remember, he was kind of chuckling about it.

He said, what is the essential lesson of the Ramayana? The essential lesson is how much trouble it is to have a wife. So my understanding of that perspective is that also that it's from the Parishad Maharaj, has to be detached from his renounced everything and focus on the Lord. And in that sense that it is encouraging him to do that.

But in India, especially that idea of that means just to teach something, Ram let Sita get accused and he didn't come to her defence and he exiled her when she was pregnant. So it was quite a questionable thing to do. So just to teach the lesson of detachment, Sita is made to suffer for no fault of hers.

It does seem a little objectionable. So my understanding was that that is from the Bhagavan's perspective of helping a person to become detached. A person in the position of Parishad Maharaj.

Yes, Shukadeva Goswami had a very specific task, which was to, as you point out, it was to help Maharaj Pariksit prepare for the inevitable, which was going to happen very soon. And so, as you say, renunciation was, or it's, you can say, a very dominant theme of the whole Bhagavatam. And therefore, in that theme, with that flavour, you can say, he's speaking these two chapters.

But now I have a question. Why is it that he emphasises, in this verse we just read, how delicate Ram's feet are? They're so delicate. He's wandering in the forest, so delicate that they were unable to bear even the touch of Sita's palms.

It's almost an echo of what comes in the 10th canto. Or not an echo, we could say a precursor of what they were saying about Krishna and the gopis. Yeah, anticipation.

Okay, that's a good answer. Because there are a lot of passages in the first nine cantos that are anticipating, hinting at, or somehow anticipating points or elements in the 10th canto. Yeah.

And because of that, you can say it's hinting at the Madhurya relationship between Rama and Sita, isn't it? Yes, definitely. It's also, maybe one way is that it's also to illustrate his renunciation. That if he was so used to comfort, and then he accepted so much austerity.

And what is the first word over there? That he did it because of, just to honour the word of his father. So, that's another way of looking at it. But it's also interesting, this verse.

It's also interesting that, correct me if I'm wrong, but it says here that it was Lord Rama who disfigures Shurpanakha. I was thinking it was Lakshmana who does that. Maybe you can say that, I think we discussed this thing of performative utterance.

That it is Rama's instruction which did that. So, in that sense, Rama told Lakshmana to do that. Oh, I see.

Okay. And then there's this emphasis on the interaction that Rama has, again, still this verse, between Rama and the ocean. He becomes angry, says he therefore became angry because he was separated from mother Sita.

Yeah. And then, he therefore became angry, moving his eyebrows, and thus frightening the ocean. So, all it took for him to frighten the ocean was to move his eyebrows.

Yeah. Then, submits to him. And there are two prayers, I won't be able to find so quickly now, but there are two prayers of the ocean to Lord Rama.

Oh, here they are. Verses 14 and 15. Oh, okay.

Our prayers by the ocean to the Lord. It's interesting that the Ramayana describes that first, Lord Rama tried the peaceful way, and he actually performed austerities to appease the god of the ocean, Samudradeva. And Samudradeva didn't listen, and then Lord Rama got enraged.

And it's described that all the aquatics, that this huge wave started blowing in the ocean, the aquatics started getting burnt. The ocean starts boiling. Yeah.

They fasted for three days. You want to go to Sanskrit Maharaj or should we read the English? Where are we? Verse 14? Yeah, 13 is the description. That he became fearful.

Oh, right. Okay, 14. Let's just do the English.

Oh, all-pervading Supreme Person, we are dull-minded and did not understand who you are. But now we understand that you are the Supreme Person, the master of the entire universe, the unchanging and original personality of Godhead. The demigods are infatuated with the mode of goodness, the Prajapatis with the mode of passion, and the Lord of ghosts with the mode of ignorance, but you are the master of all these qualities.

And then the next verse, he makes the point, the practical point. My Lord, you may use my water as you like. Indeed, you may cross it and go to the abode of Ravana, who is the great source of disturbance and crying for the three worlds.

He is the son of Vishrava, but is condemned like urine. Please go kill him and thus regain your wife, Sita Devi. Oh, great hero, although my water presents no impediment to your going to Lanka, please construct a bridge over it to spread your transcendental fame.

Upon seeing this wonderfully uncommon deed of your lordship, all the great heroes and kings in the future will glorify you. So the verse is saying, yes, please do it. And then it's going on to, in effect, describe what's going to happen in the future.

He is going to build this bridge and this setu, and then he's going to kill Ravana. So it's an anticipation. But again, Maharaj Prikshet already knows the story.

Yeah. And we also already know the story. And as you said, you know it since childhood.

But hearing it again and again and again is always enlightening. Why is that? Why is it that Krishna Leela works in that way? I read an article by a scholar who attended the Ram Leela performance in Ramnagar, just across the Ganga from Varanasi. And she attended the entire one-month performance, and she describes it in quite some detail, the whole atmosphere, how everything goes on.

And she's describing the mood of the audience. And she mentions that many of the audience, well, everyone in the audience already knows the whole story. They are performing not Valmiki Ramayana, but Ramcharitmanas of Tulsidas.

And she says many of the audience have practically the whole Tulsi Ramayana memorised. They already know it. So someone in the West can say, well, I don't want to see.

Okay, sometimes I'll see a film more than once. I already know what's going to happen. I want to see it again.

But again and again and again and again, no, there's no need for that. But somehow with Krishna Leela and Ram Leela, we want to see it again and again and again. Yeah.

Also the late 1980s television performance or television broadcast that went for more than a year in India, directed by, I'm forgetting his name. Was it Ram Sagar? Ramanand Sagar. Ramanand Sagar, yeah.

The reports are that every Sunday morning when that was broadcast, India would come to a stop. Practically, it was like lockdown. Everyone, everyone just stopped and watched the Ramayana.

Yes, I remember that. We were in a remote place at that time and we didn't have TV, but we would go to our neighbour's place or go somewhere else. Many of our neighbours bought television just because to watch that serial.

And some villages, again, I read about this, some villages, maybe there would be only one television in the whole village. They would get an extension cord and they would bring it out to the village square or whatever. And everyone would gather around.

And they might also put a garland or garlands around the TV screen. They would actually have aarti plate ready. And first time Lord Ram would appear to do aarti.

I remember that. In fact, recently Maharaj, during the pandemic, because it was a complete lockdown, the Indian government decided to re-telecast the Ramayana. Because people had to stay at home.

And it seems they had just cracked all records. I'm just looking at the stats. It seems that they had something like 6.9 billion viewing minutes for just the first four episodes.

93.3 billion viewers. So it is far more than any of the popular television shows in America or anywhere else in the world. And the amazing thing is all this is not only already broadcast, but it's already available on YouTube freely for anyone to watch.

But still it was there and the appeal is enduring. Even now. Yes, Maharaj.

So what is that author? Who is that author, Maharaj? Is it from Vasudha Narayanan's book, Life of Hinduism? I remember reading something about it there also. About the Ram Leela. About Ram Leela in Ram Nagar? Yes, that article.

That article, where was it? I would have to look. It's been a while. What was her conclusion, by the way? What was the reasoning? Why are people so attracted? Did she give a spiritual explanation or some sociological, psychological explanation? It's been so long since I read it.

She was deeply appreciating. She's not a religion basher. Oh, okay.

She's appreciating that, how much dedicated people are. And she points out, you know, some days it was raining. But this doesn't stop anyone.

Everyone is coming, sitting in the mud. Doesn't matter. And also, she was highlighting how the audience become actually participants.

They feel themselves to be, in effect, like residents of Ayodhya. So that when Ram, in the drama, when Rama leaves for the forest, they actually move. They physically go on a procession.

And they go to a different part of Ram Nagar. And the entire audience is going in this mood that we are residents of Ayodhya. And so in that mood, it's participation.

And I would say that's perhaps her main conclusion. I'm experiencing what is called abhava. Abhava is one of the 10 pramanas of classical jnaya.

It's the experience of the absence of something or someone. Just like Lord Ramachandra was experiencing the absence of Sita. So now we are experiencing the absence of Chaitanya Charan Prabhu.

We see his chair. And we see that he is not there. Sorry, my voice.

My head got disconnected. So I just called up the person. Ah, OK.

That's all right. We discussed in your absence. We discussed.

I was just kidding. I was just kidding. I heard everything you said.

We were discussing jnaya. Yes, Baba. You mentioned about anubhav and how that is the highest point.

No, abhava. Abhava. Abhava, OK.

Abhava is one of the 10 forms of one type of pramana. And it's the sense of absence. Oh, OK.

Abhava. It's the awareness that something is not present. That's fascinating.

So. Yeah. I thought of anubhava, which is like one of the.

So you were not present. Thank you. But I was relating this to Ramlila because Lord Ram was feeling that Sita was not present.

Yes. And therefore we have a drama. I want to share one more verse from the Bhagavatam, a famous one.

This is quoted in Laghu Bhagavatam. But it's in the Bhagavatam. It's Canto 11.

And it's spoken by Karabhajanamuni. I don't remember. I think it's either Chapter 2 or Chapter 5. What is it? Yes.

Yeah. And here. Oh, here it is.

11.5.34. Oh, Mahapurusha, I worship your lotus feet. As the most faithful follower of religious principles, you honoured the words of your respected father and went to the forest, abandoning royal splendour so opulent that the demigods desired it. In the forest, you chased after the illusory deer desired by your beloved consort.

And commentators explain, this is elaborated in the purport, that this same verse can be applied to or can be taken as describing also Lord Krishna's pastimes and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's pastimes. Yes. So it has a triple meaning, depending how you take the words.

But we may say the initial understanding is that it's referring to Lord Rama. And in this short commentary of Gopi Puranadana Prabhu in the Laghu Bhagavatamrita, it says, This verse can alternatively be taken as Karavajana's description of the Lord, rather than an homage directed to him. In which case, the word dharmishta, or virtuous one, is directed to Nimi Maharaj.

So it's just, he's pointing out, it can be taken either as a description or as praising, as addressing the Lord. Oh, okay. Anyway, that's a nice verse for one reason, because the next verse Is about Lord Chaitanya.

Is about Lord Chaitanya, yeah, specifically. Okay, I am finished with the verses I wanted to quote. Now you wanted to discuss.

Thank you, Maharaj. It's a beautiful thing, a scriptural, as you said, a lot of scriptural verses, but this is a very good meditation. Meditation on how Lord Rama has been appreciated in different portions of scripture.

By different teachers in our tradition or by Acharyas in our tradition. So, one of the things which I have been working on with respect to the Ramayana is, when I grew up, it was, we learned more Human values than devotional values from the Ramayana. Human values means that how the younger brother should obey the older brother, the Children should obey their parents, the wife should follow their husbands, how we should honour our work.

So, of course, we are all Ram-centric and we understood that Ram was God. But that rigid differentiation between say, what we might call as mundane lessons and spiritual lessons was not there. It is all a part of organic, organic teaching.

So, in terms of what was uplifting us. And there is some, one of the most prominent Christian missionaries who came to India. And in fact, in the Gita Press, in their English translation of Tulsi Ramayan, Tulsi Ramcharitmanas, they quote this missionary and they say that If any Westerner wants to understand the Indian mind, this is one book they absolutely need to read.

Because no other book has had a greater influence on the Indian mind than Ramayana. So, the point I was thinking of is that Ramayana itself starts with this question. What are the characteristics of an ideal person? So, and is there an ideal person like that? In fact, that's the discussion which Malviki has with Narada Muni.

And then Narada Muni describes Ram to him. And then he gives him the inspiration and through a circumstance, happenstance or divine arrangement, he gets the metre in which Ramayana is eventually composed. So, this question I have been pondering on that when I wrote a book on the Ramayana or wisdom from Ramayana on life and relationships.

Yes, you are quite a writer. No, some small writing. So, it was reviewed in a few places in Times of India and Financial Express and others.

So, they were both, they were appreciative as well as critical. One thing was, one of the authors who reviewed it said that, I don't think the Ramayana has been explained ever in this way in terms of how it can help us to improve our relationships. I brought some analysis and insights about how misunderstandings occur say between Sugriv and Vali.

And so, in that sense, they were appreciative. But what they were critical of was that all the relationship problem solutions in this book culminate in bhakti. So, if you are not interested in that, you may not find this book very appealing.

If you don't like bhakti, you won't like this. Well, what can you say? So, I told Giriraj Maharaj, that criticism is the perfection, he said. Yeah, that's actually, you can take it as a compliment.

So, I would like to discuss this topic of, you know, in what way is Ram a perfect human being? And then maybe you can share some thoughts. So, now in some ways, what is the ideal person? There may be some cultural specific ideas of an ideal, but still there are, even in the age of moral relativism, also still there are certain values that are always appreciated. And I'll say one value could be selflessness or sacrifice, putting the other person before oneself and doing something for others.

So, my understanding is that while Radharam exhibits many virtues, that one virtue that permeated the whole epic is this virtue of selflessness, of a mood of sacrifice. So, it is to honour his father's word that he goes to the forest and it is to honour his word to his wife that Dashrath allows his son to go to the forest. Although that was worse than death for him.

Then Lakshman also has no obligation to go. Sita is in a sense obliged. But even then Ram actually tells her, don't come with me to the forest.

You stay under the protection of Bharat. And she has to insist, even up to the point of challenging Ram's masculinity. It's a very interesting exchange that happens there.

Yeah, it's amazing. What kind of a man are you? So, then Ram reveals to Aditya, I would love to have you come with me, but I didn't want to impose this on you. So, then she sacrifices and Lakshman has no reason to go.

So, then now when Lakshman goes, his wife doesn't go with him. She says, I'll also come with you. He says, no, if you come with me, I'll have to take care of you.

But I'm going there only to serve Sita and Ram. And then the later tradition says that, he says, you won't have to serve me, I'll assist you in serving them. So, he realises that she doesn't like this and he says, you can assist me in another important way.

He says, right now, I have two duties, one duty to my older brother and the other duty to my parents. And when both of them are in the same place, I could do both duties simultaneously. But now when they're separated, I can't do both duties.

So, you stay here and on my behalf, you serve my parents. And that is the best way you can assist me. So, it's all a very moving and inspiring narrative.

And then, of course, completely voluntary is Bharat's sacrifice. He has the kingdom dropped in his lap, we could say, without doing anything on his own. And yet he doesn't accept that.

He accepts the responsibility without the facility, without any comforts. It's said that he lives in the forest and he performs actually more austerities than Ram also. Because it's like he eats barley cooked in cow urine for the entire exile.

As a Ram in the forest, he gets a variety of fruits and other things. So, that mode of selflessness that is there. So, the way I analysed it, because one of the most troubling pastimes is what I said is of Sita being exiled.

So, the way I analysed in my book was that Sita's being sent away is actually this culmination of the mood of sacrifice. Just as Ram was not at fault when Ram was sent to the forest. So, I compare Ram's being sent to the forest by Dashrath with Sita's being sent to the forest by Ram.

Oh, at the end. At the end, yeah. Okay.

Because that causes a lot of heartburn. Not heartburn, heartache. Heartburn is something else.

No, no, no. They're two different things. That's not right.

No, no. For devotees, it is heartache. Anyway.

Okay. Now, what I meant is that a lot of people feel angry and resentful because of how could Ram deal with his own wife like that? And how could a person who deals with somebody like that even be considered God? So, in that sense, I was talking from that perspective. So, it raises a lot of questions.

Let's put it at that. So, the way I tried to explain it was that it is the same mood of sacrifice attaining its culmination. The point is not that Sita was at fault.

Just as Ram was not at fault. Now, just as Dashrath didn't want Ram to go away, but he was obliged. Similarly, Ram didn't want Sita to go away, but he was circumstantially obliged.

Yeah. So, and that… Nice parallel. Yeah.

Otherwise, why would a book which is purporting to say it is going to describe an ideal human being, describe that very human being abandoning his wife when she's pregnant? That is something which a normal human being would also not do. How would that person be considered ideal? So, when we bring in this mood of sacrifice, that is the time when his wife needed him the most. And his natural inclination or natural chivalry to protect her, he sacrificed even that for the sake of his kingdom.

Not even just for the sake of his kingdom, but rather, not that he was possessive about the kingdom, but for the sake of maintaining citizens in the path of dharma. So, by having that… So, that is one frame of looking at the Ramayana of how these characters in the Ramayana, they strive for ideal behaviour and some of them go a long way, some of them fall before a long way, and some of them go in the opposite directions. So, any thoughts on this, Narayan? Yes, that's nice.

I would just also say that taking this question, this issue of the ideal person, it seems to me that one of the messages of the Ramayana is that no matter how ideal you are, even Rama is put into situations where he cannot possibly fulfil his dharma in all spheres. So, taking the point of banishing his wife at the end, he actually has two dharmas. One is to his wife, his family, and the other is to the public as the king, as the kshatriya.

And the situation is either or. It's one or the other. And he chooses the dharma of king over the dharma of husband.

Yes. And a similar situation is when he is banished by his father. He is banished.

In that case, he's accepting the dharma of obedience to the father over the dharma of being king. So, you made a nice parallel. And I guess what I'm saying here is two things.

There's also an inversion, and the inversion is there. It highlights that there's conflicting dharmas, which raises the question. And this is, I think it's even more so in the Mahabharata.

It's been said the whole Mahabharata is trying to answer the question, what is dharma? Yes. And the only sort of definite answer that's given is by Lord Krishna, sarva dharma parityaja. Oh, I didn't know that part.

That is the only definite answer. I know at the end, the narration of Mahabharata depicts, still they are perplexed. What is dharma? So, it is a search for dharma.

And the Mahabharata also has that same verse in the Bhagavatam has that mahajano yanda katasapanta. That you learn dharma from the mahajanas. Yeah.

But there's something else going on here. And that is that on the one side, we say dharma is difficult to ascertain. But on the other side, we see that at least on the level of social interaction, which is where we are generally concerned about dharma, that it's actually impossible to do everything that is expected.

And this is what the Ramayana is saying. Even if you're a god yourself, even if you're so perfect that you are a god, you're not going to be able to follow all the dharmas. There's going to be some conflict.

And then you have to make a choice. Then you have to make a choice. And as you make a choice, someone is not going to be happy.

The residents of Ayodhya were very sad when Rama left for the forest. And we are all sad when Rama banishes Sita to the forest. There's an interesting episode kind of in the middle of the Ramayana, which may illuminate this or it may just complicate things.

But it's the famous story of Lord Rama killing Vali. And as you know, that's described in the Valmiki Ramayana. As Vali is dying, he's accusing Rama of having completely departed from dharma.

And then Rama refutes. He defends himself. Now, a lot of later commentators and modern express that they feel that his arguments were not convincing.

That Rama's arguments are, they say, oh, they are disorganised. They are not very convincing. One of the arguments is, you're just an animal and I am hunting.

And a hunter doesn't have to walk in front of his prey to say, now I'm going to fight and kill you. That's an interesting argument considering that Vali is speaking to him. So what kind of animal is this? But there's an interesting point that's made by one of the main commentators named Govindaraj.

I think he may be a Sri Vaishnava. I'm not sure. So Govindaraj gives the explanation that if Rama had presented himself before Vali, there was a danger that Vali would surrender.

And you may say, well, what's wrong with that? That's great if he surrenders. But Govindaraj makes the point that if he would surrender, that would spoil the rest of the story. There would be no longer reason for Rama to go to Lanka to save Sita and kill Ramana because it would have all been accomplished in a different way.

I'm not quite sure I get all the connections, but that's the argument apparently he makes. So then you get this very interesting inversion again, where the reason for acting as he does, as Rama does, is so that Vali will not surrender to him. But of course, as he's dying, then he does surrender to him.

Yeah, that's true. And there's a nice passage. Let's see if I can find that.

Go ahead while you're speaking, I will try to find it. Yeah, there are a few incidents in the Ramayana which are quite troubling with respect to their ethical implications. And this is probably the second or third among them, Vali's killing.

Now, among the various arguments, what I find is not all of them are equally strong, but not that all of them are weak. One of the strongest arguments he uses is that basically you are an aggressor. You have taken your younger brother's wife and you have driven your brother away and you never gave him a chance.

So cohabiting with your younger brother's wife is like cohabiting with one's daughter. And for that sin, Ram says that I am still acting on behalf of I am the protector of the world. I am a servant of Bharat.

And I have to maintain law and order in society. So that is a reasonable and we can say from the perspective of Atataina that those aggressors can be killed without any without any sin being incurred. So that is the way.

And now regarding Govindraj's explanation, I also had heard that, I had forgotten it recently. It is striking. So what he seems to also say is that Ram has already promised Sugriva that Sugriva, you will become the king.

So then if Vali surrenders, then how will his promise to Sugriva be fulfilled? And he will become the king of Kishkindha. And another thing is that when I wrote on this topic, what I wrote is that we may not find the argument so convincing but the significant fact is that Vali found it convincing. And Vali actually, it was not just like a reluctant surrender of a defeated person.

Vali, very movingly, he reconciled with everyone. He tells his son to hold Nograj, Angad to hold Nograj against Sugriva. He says, Sugriva didn't cause my death.

It is my own actions which caused my death. He tells Angad and Tara to stay under the shelter of Sugriva. And then they describe in the Ramayan that the reason why Ram's arrow, Ram is known as Amoghasharam.

His arrow never missed their mark. So the reason why the arrow didn't kill him immediately was because he was the son of Indra and Indra had given him a necklace. That necklace would ensure that the person wearing it would live no matter how wounded they were.

So now he could have very easily given that necklace to his own son, naturally. But he gave it to Sugriva. That means he wanted to make amends over there.

So in a sense, if there is a case, if there is an argument between the husband and the wife and then they patch up, but some third party comes and says, no, no, no, this is unfair. And they are actually making things worse among them. They have patched it up.

In this case, Ram and Vali, Vali accepts Ram's arguments and Vali is not reluctant, is a wholehearted surrender and transformation. So in that sense, that is the most reasonable explanation I came to. I just thought we can read Vali's response to Lord Rama.

I found it. This is Kishkindha Khanda Sarga 18, starting verse 42. This is the critical edition translation by this fourth volume is translated by Professor Rosalind Lefebvre.

So Vali says, please do not find fault with me even for the unseemly displeasing words I spoke before by mistake, Raghava. For you understand worldly interests and know the truth and you are devoted to the wellbeing of the people. Your immutable judgement about determining crime and punishment is correct.

You know righteousness, therefore with righteous words and righteousness is of course, translating the word Dharma. Therefore with righteous words, comfort even me, known to be a flagrant violator of righteousness, Dharma. Like an elephant mired in mud, Vali cried out in distress, his voice choked with tears.

Then looking at Rama, he said softly, I do not grieve as much for myself or Tara or even my kinsmen as I do for my eminently virtuous son, Angada of the golden armbands. Then he goes on to express his concern for his son and his son's future and so on. So yeah, there is this change in heart we can say on the part of Vali as he lies dying, there is a change in heart.

And this we might compare, it just occurs to me, I'm thinking aloud to the death of Jatayu. I don't know, this may be a stretch, but Jatayu, of course, is fighting for Lord Rama when he's fighting Ravana and Ravana overcomes him and he lays, he's lying there dying and Lord Rama comes. We can say it's not a change of heart, but it's his perfection now because Rama is present before him as he's leaving his body.

It's a very touching moment in which the, yeah, there's a perfection there, whether it's Rama's perfection, I would say it's Jatayu's perfection just to have given his life for Rama and Sita. And there's a similar perfection, of course, for Vali in that he is dying at the hands of Rama, we understand. But sort of putting aside the bhakti element and the understanding that if you're killed by the Lord, you're liberated.

Still, he has had a transformation. He's had a change of heart, which kind of invites us to see the bhakti principle. So I find it difficult to understand the critics that you mentioned who are saying, well, if you don't like bhakti, then you may not appreciate this book because the Ramayana, I mean, what is it if it's not about bhakti, right? Yeah, that's true.

Yeah, okay, what happened? Let me clarify that. Actually, my publisher chose to position the book as a self-help book based on the Ramayana. So then they felt that self-help should not all culminate in bhakti.

So that was their point. But then, yeah, I agree with you. How can you talk about that? Ultimately, the Ramayana is about bhakti.

It's the only self-help there is. The only real self-help is to find the Supreme Self. That is true.

So, although in one sense, Ravan, Vali was killed by Ram and Jatayu was killed on behalf of Ram. We are saying both attained the same destination. Ultimately.

Was that the parallel you're making? I'm speaking more not about destination so much as about the dramatic moment. They're both before Rama as they are dying. And that moment, it's a very powerful moment in both cases.

Dramatically speaking, it's a perfection. Whatever the perfection may be, we understand it's moksha, etc. It's back home, back to Godhead, and so on.

But just from the point of view of the drama and the issue of perfection, being a perfect person in this world, we can see that those moments in both cases are themselves a kind of perfection, certainly climactic moments. But you just pointed out there's a delay in the death of Vali or Valin sometimes. And I happened to have, I wanted to share an interesting detail because we were mentioning before that there are so many versions of the Ramayana in different parts of the world which are making assorted adjustments to the story, we may say, which resonate with particular cultures.

And so the Ramayana is very well known in Indonesia, all over Southeast Asia. It's also known, excuse me, in China within another story, another famous work. It's known in Japan, and recently it's been made into an animated film in Japan.

There's also an American animation which was done, oh, what is her name? I'm not remembering now, but she did an animation called Sita Sings the Blues. Oh, I remember. Sita Sings the Blues, yeah.

You can find it on YouTube, I think. And anyway, that's a very different version. It's a kind of, you can say, a feminist version sort of taking Sita Devi's perspective.

But here is something from a book called Ramayana in the Arts of Asia. It's a kind of big picture book, and it's describing different famous episodes from different traditions. So one section is the Battle of the Brothers, and first it gives a summary of the Valmiki Ramayana account.

And then it gives a short account from Khmer, which I guess is Cambodia. The Ramakirti, it's called. And here it's translated, it says Rama shoots his arrow at Bali who catches it and sees his name on it.

He sees his name on the arrow. He places that arrow on his head in respect. He's respecting the arrow because it's coming from Rama.

But he accuses Rama of improper behaviour for interfering in the fight of others since he should protect living creatures. Rama offers to recall the arrow, but Bali refuses because he will not plead for his life. He releases his grip on the arrow and the arrow pierces his body, flies to the sea for cleansing, and returns to Rama.

That's amazing. And then it goes on, Tara falls in grief at the feet of Bali's body and laments, this is divine retribution for some wrong you committed long ago. The ground is now your royal couch.

Actually, this is in Valmiki Ramayana. Close. With a forested hill for a pillow and the star strewn sky as a canopy.

The wind is your music, the moon, your torch. And then Indra descends, you mentioned Indra, descends from heaven and sprinkles perfumed water on Bali, granting him passage to paradise. Holy men in the forest recite from the sacred texts for his entrance into nirvana, the state of absolute bliss and freedom from pain.

So I guess this is, you know, some Buddhist influence or elements are there. He attains nirvana. Yeah.

So this is interesting. One of the most, when first I read it, thank you for hearing all these. I knew that there were variants or the retellings with different degrees of harmony with the original in different parts of the world.

I didn't know there was like one book where all of them are available or many of them are available. It's not many, it's a handful. Okay.

Yeah. We have one scholar, by the way, in Oxford who is retired now and he has been, most of his academic life, he's been studying the Ramayana and now he's continuing to study the Ramayana. He and his wife, both.

In particular, they are cataloguing the different versions of Ramayana from different parts of the world. So it's a year's long project that they're working on. Oh, okay.

This is John Brockington and his wife, Mary. Very nice people. So anyway, yeah, different versions.

And speaking of different versions, I want to a little bit advertise because I found it just so nicely done. There is a three volume rewriting, you can say, creative presentation of the Ramayana done by Vrinda Devi. Vrinda in America and her mother, Anna Purna, is the illustrator.

Beautiful illustrations and amazingly nicely written with an emphasis again on the perspective of Sita. But very tastefully done and I would say very well, you can say, venturing into the inner life of the personalities of Sita, of Rama, of Lakshman. How Lakshman feels as he is with Sita and Rama, some of the awkwardness of being with Sita and Rama, you know, over many months and years and a lot of very amazing insights, I would say.

Oh, okay. It's a trilogy called Sita's Fire. Yeah, I've heard about it.

I have not yet read it till now. And everybody has also told me about it. I found also Krishnadharma Prabhu's Ramayan rendition very beautiful.

In fact, as compared to, it's, this brings us a bigger, bigger question, Maharaj, that you know, say, that the Gita Press has tried to accurately translate into English. But it seems that to translate into a particular language, if somebody, for them to be really good in that language, it's not just like the linguistic expertise, but there's a natural flow. So, if one thing is like linguistic expertise, other thing is writing ability.

So, the joy of reading, reading a well-written text, that doesn't come just because the text is well translated in terms of accuracy and fidelity. So, it's a dynamic thing. Yes, a good translation, a good translation of any major text becomes itself a classic.

In the Western world, the, I think, best example of this is what's called the King James Version of the Bible. This was a translation done in, I guess, the 16th or 17th century. And it became, it became, it became the core of English literature.

It became hugely influential, the style and everything about it. And it continues, you can say, to have an influence. Although now there are so many later translations, but none of them compare in sort of the use of language.

The beauty of the translations, I think many would say. So, yeah, that is there. As far as translation of Ramayana goes, I suppose time will tell.

As far as English translation, we do now have this seven volume translation of the Critical Edition. Yes. With, it has also extensive notes, which I think is interesting.

It includes many points that are made by the main commentators in the notes. So it's not neglecting the sort of classical commentators. Oh, okay.

That's interesting. I don't think the Mahabharata Critical Edition was like that. Of course, Mahabharata doesn't have that many commentators also.

It's just too big to be commented on. Yes. Going back to your point, Maharaj, just one or two concluding points I wanted to make.

I will just stick to these various retellings. There is one of the most provocative retellings I read was what is called the Jain Ramayana. And it has more or less a similar storyline, but with some differences.

But the key thing is throughout, while going in the forest, Ram meets Jain sadhus. And at the end of it, when Sita enters into the earth, their rendition is Ram becomes enlightened and becomes a Jain. Ah! Of course, he has to become a Jain.

It's a good example of, I think the term is cultural appropriation. Yeah. Is it known roughly when that Jain version appeared? That's a good question.

I never thought of it historically. But then Jain Ramayana never became accepted as a mainstream in India. So there is this thought I had that, like you talked earlier about different retellings, there is the Kalpaveda that is there, and the Lord's pastime is unlimited.

At the same time, unlimited, it's not unlimitedly stretchable. There are some retellings, which just go against the core storyline or the core mood of the epic. So I've been thinking about this topic.

And I thought of a metaphor, I think this is something I had read elsewhere, that Ramayana is not just a book, it's a living text, it's like a performance. So the Valmiki Ramayana is like the original singer or musician. And all the other retellings are like people who are joining the orchestra.

And to the extent, those who join the orchestra harmonise and enhance the singing of the core singer, to the extent they are welcomed and embraced. But if anybody starts singing disharmoniously, then they are left out. So those retellings, which say enhance the flavour of Bhakti to Ram, while of course adding their own flavours, while adding their own nuances, enhancements, but as long as they enhance the flavour, they become accepted.

Otherwise, they are rejected. So now how do we know that something enhances the flavour? Broadly I thought of two things. One is that it shouldn't, at the very least, it shouldn't contradict the direct storyline of the Valmiki Ramayana.

And it shouldn't directly, it shouldn't contradict the, not just the philosophy, philosophy is one aspect, but like the rasa, the mood of the Ramayana. Now, of course, whether these are like absolute criteria, and who's going to judge whether the mood is being contradicted, that opens a Pandora's box. But in general, Hinduism was never a very organised religion, which could legislate that this is authorised and this is rejected.

but it's not that just because there are many retellings of the Ramayana, doesn't mean that there is no core to it, or there is no soul to it. There is a very vibrant soul, which has affected and animated all the Ramayanas. And if that soul were not there, then none of the other Ramayanas would have any appeal.

Because one day, that was one of the reasons why one of the authors who wrote an article, one of the scholars who wrote an article about how there are so many Ramayanas, he received a lot of flack from some Hindu community leaders, because at least the paper was construed in a public way. It became a hot issue a few years back. I remember in Delhi.

One of the main reasons why that happened in my understanding was that the implication that was brought out from his work, whether he intended it or not, was that because there are so many retellings of the Ramayana, none of them are really authentic. So that was the problem. Because otherwise, there are so many retellings which have survived, and I don't think anyone has militantly opposed any retelling, just because it differs from the Valmiki Ramayana.

Yes, but okay, that gets into the hot political sphere. But I would argue that even if that's the case, that the sort of bottom line of his article was that there's no authorised Ramayana. That in itself is not an argument for removing his article from the syllabus.

Even if everyone wants to disagree with what he says, let everyone read what he says, and then you can argue against what he says. That's education. Not that you control, you ban the article, people shouldn't read this, it's going to disturb them.

No, if it's going to disturb, then you should have strong arguments against it, but everyone should be able to read it and get both sides. That's an interesting perspective. That would make for a Western idea.

But if we're talking about intellectual culture, which I think is what we're trying to do in the university level, then you present your arguments. You say, okay, here's a Purva Paksha. In effect, what this ban of that article was doing, was saying we're going to remove the Purva Paksha, and we're only going to have our Siddhanta.

I understand that. That's how I see it. In principle, I agree that banning anything in today's world just doesn't work.

Anything that is forbidden actually becomes more fascinating. This makes it more attractive. But the point is that the concern in the traditional Hindu circles is not that there is only the Purva Paksha.

In the mainstream academia, there are hardly any traditional scholars who have any standing. So it is mostly more and more extreme from the traditional perspective. Questionable or leftist interpretations are being given.

And it just goes from one limit to another limit to another limit. And then ultimately there is no limit. So that is where the concern was.

There was one of the scholars who critiqued that. He had done a very good comparison. At that time, before Wikipedia came, Encarta encyclopaedia was quite a good resource.

So he did a comparison of how Islam was treated in Encarta encyclopaedia and how Hinduism was treated. So he said that if there are some points which don't make sense, they would write for Islam that there is the principle of something like inconceivability or to the will of Allah, because of which things can't be understood. An exactly similar point in Hinduism.

So Hindu philosophy is riddled with incoherence and contradictions that make it untenable for the modern logical mind to accept. So throughout the bias could be seen. So I think that burning and that particular protest was like a pressure cooker giving out a whistle.

After a long time of opposition, something just burst out. I agree it actually did more damage than good. Because it only painted those who were opposing as right wing extremists and removed, what do you say? It overshadowed whatever new concerns they had and painted them into a corner.

And furthermore, I think it just proves another point. As you said, there's no representation of the tradition in the academy. And this is one of the unfortunate results of the fact that in India, except for a few private universities, there is no departments for the study of religion.

Yes. And therefore, there are no channels for people who are interested in religion to become qualified academically so that they can bring a balanced argument, which can be taken seriously. The traditional scholars, they live within a certain kind of world of presuppositions, which modern scholarship doesn't know how to read.

They don't relate to. So how are they going to interact? To simply ban something is not really solving the problem. Yes, that's true.

Therefore, we are starting with Govardhanika village. You know, you're right there. We have Bhaktivedanta Research Centre, which now has affiliation with University of Mumbai.

And we now have a few post postgraduate students who are preparing. They're getting training by devotees in scholarship on the level of master's and doctoral research. Yes.

I had a podcast with Gaurang Guru also about DRC. I think that is one of the most intellectually promising projects we have. In one sense, in India, we have reached out to a lot of intelligent young people through our college outreach.

At the same time, if they become devotees, many of them become brahmacharis. Afterward, they don't know how to engage their intelligence adequately. Because not all of them may want to become recruiters, preachers themselves of recruiters.

So what more can they do? So it does seem that… That's Varnashram Dharma. That's Varnashram Dharma facilitating the Brahmins to do what Brahmins can do well, which is research, teaching, education. So they should be able, they should be facilitated to do that in the modern context.

That's what the idea is. Avinu, you're also one of the guides over there, isn't it, Varnash? Well, I just taught one module on research skills. And we just completed that.

I still have to mark all of the assignments for this. Yeah, they send me the links to the videos. Some of the students, I know them quite well.

I look at quite a rigorous process, researching for academic publications. So we want to get the students up to speed. Because unless they can follow these kind of standards of the academy, they won't be able to publish.

They won't be able to get positions where they can teach. All of these things, there are skills that are required, like for any speciality. So we're trying to train up students to have these skills.

So now that was my last question. I won't take it anymore. So you mentioned about within the academy.

Yeah, sorry. Coming back to Ram only, but about Ramayan. See, from a traditional perspective, when I mentioned that, there was no centralised system for authorising or rejecting.

But how would you consider from a devotee perspective, that the academy might go into too much of a critical or deconstructionist mode. But as devotees, we also understand that Krishna Leela is, from our perspective, we focus on Krishna more than Ram. Krishna Leela is unlimited.

And when you go to Vrindavan and you hear from some of the local Rajvasis, or say Bina Bandopur tells some stories which he has heard from local Rajvasis, they add to the flavour of what we know about Krishna. So do you know within our tradition, whether any criteria have been given for determining which stories of Krishna can be accepted and which can't be accepted? There is, Bhaktivinoda talks about that Shastra Pramana and Loka Pramana. And many of these stories would fall in Loka Pramana.

But then Loka Pramana becomes Pramana of which Lokas? That raises a question also. Well, and I think it's always going to be blurry boundaries. Blurry boundaries, okay.

Porous boundaries. And I think that is also one of the strengths. Who is patrolling the boundaries, we may say? And I would say that is where the gurus and the sadhus function.

So you mentioned our dear Dina Bandhu Prabhu, sharing much of the Lokika Katha. So he makes a choice that here is a story which will enrich the devotees. Otherwise, he wouldn't tell it.

We all respect him as a sadhu, as a very good follower of our acharya, Shila Prabhupada. And I would just, I don't know if he does this all the time. I don't think he does all the time.

But best would be if when he or someone else is narrating such a story that he's saying, that he's kind of announcing, this is a local tradition. This is what the villagers say. So that the next person who hears it doesn't, then he may share the same story, but he or she will also make clear this is local katha, local tradition.

And according to the Bhagavatam, this and this and this, local tradition says that. The local tradition, we share it perhaps because it enriches our appreciation of Krishna. It also enriches our appreciation of local, of, excuse me, ridge bosses.

You know, they also are to be respected. We understand they're not ordinary. And so they can be respected.

But I think the boundary patrol is always going to be essentially guru and sadhu. Sadhu, Shastra, Guruvadhya, Hridaya, Kurya, Aitya. Yes, that's true.

So with respect to this small, I don't want to use the word disclaimer for it, that it's a local tradition, but it just, maybe it's a note that can be there. So just one point that raises even what to speak of telling other stories. Even when we tell stories of Krishna, there is a certain amount of creativity involved in it.

If you are going to make a drama, we can't just literally take the whole dialogue from the scriptures. We have to add a little bit more, flesh out the characters a little bit more, add some more dialogues. So when I wrote my book Ramayan for the first time, I was very hesitant to put any words in the character's mouth.

But then it became the whole book, the whole story was in passive, not passive, like indirect speech. Yeah. So then it became very, very dead kind of story.

The story aspect of the story was gone. It was like a, not a story, but a report of the story. So, so then I started using the direct speech over there.

And of course I don't like put words in the character's mouth, obviously, but still there is a certain amount of creative licence required. When we, when we talk about telling the stories, like you earlier mentioned in the, in the Sita trilogy, when we talk about the emotions, the inner emotions of the characters, there is a certain amount of creativity used in it. And that is explained by Shila Rupa Goswami, that for the purpose of drama, writing drama, it is permitted to make adjustment to Shastra, as long as the rasa is right.

If you get the right rasa, and I think this gets back to what you were saying about harmonising, you know, if, if there's essential harmony, then we may, we may accept some variation. So that's what, that's, that's what Rupa Goswami says explicitly in his, what is it called? He wrote a textbook on drama. Natakachandrika, I think.

Yes, Natakachandrika. Thank you. And so, for example, Haridas, not Haridas.

The, the famous dramatist Kalidas. So in his Shakuntala, he takes from the Mahabharata, the story of Maharaja Dushyanta and Shakuntala, and he turned, he, he elaborates, he tells, he, he puts a twist into the story. He adds, he adds the curse and so on, that Maharaja Dushyanta or Dushyanta loses his memory because of the curse.

In the Mahabharata, there's a very different kind of, he's actually just playing like he forgets because he needs to first establish that indeed Shakuntala is his wife for the public. So his purpose there is, you could say a dharmic, dharmic purpose because he explains otherwise, otherwise, you know, if I just accept you now, people may not accept you, and then it's going to be a big problem. So he, he keeps putting her off, acting like he's forgetting, acting like she's making it all up.

And then comes, I just read this a few days ago, then comes a voice from the sky saying, this is your wife, come on. But the point is, the point is that Kalidas makes it a rather different story, but I would assume that Shrila Rupa Goswami would say he keeps the rasa, so it's okay. So even drama is not like a frozen genre.

Even modern novelizations you could call as dramas because modern novels are not exactly plays. So, but still the rules we could apply here also. Yeah, I think it's a good general principle.

Makes sense. And as, as for embellishing, as you said, to make a drama, we may want to perform in a Sunday feast programme or whatever. What I have encouraged devotees to do is to have minor characters speak with each other in such a way that they may bring in some additional, you know, points which are appropriate.

And in that way, you kind of, it's a kind of safe position I think you can make it so that you're not taking, you can't be accused of taking too many liberties. Yeah, that's true. I think we had a podcast discussion on this, on using our imagination in Krishna's service.

And you had mentioned this point. Yeah. Yes, Maharaj.

So we could, in one sense, if you're going to talk about rasa, there is no way really emotion and imagination can be separated entirely because ultimately emotion is meant to trigger the imagination, not in the sense of imagining of things, like imaginary things, but using our imagination to visualise the ultimate, visualise realities. So, so, yes, Maharaj. Thank you, Maharaj.

Should I try to summarise? Please. I don't know. We had a lot of discussion today.

So we started today with a brief overview of pertinent prayers. The first prayer of the Shavata Sutra, where very graphically and vividly Ram distributes Ravan's ten heads as offerings to the ten directions. So we could consider it as poetic or we could consider it as having happened in some other kalpa.

And then we discussed the Bhagavatam verse, which is offering, almost summarising the prayer, summarising the pastime and then offering a prayer. May this Lord protect us. We discussed some aspects of those, that prayer also.

And then we discussed 11th Canto, the Tattvas of the Sthaja verse and how it refers to Ram. And we discussed from the Bhagavatam, the commentary of it was Swami about that also. So then we came to how is Ram an ideal person? That was the thing.

And there two, three things was the mood of sacrifice and service, which you mentioned. And then you do this very elaborate in the parallel between Ram sending Sita away and Dashrath sending Ram away. And then we talked about the ethical, some of the questions raised with respect to ethics, with respect to Vali's story.

And you mentioned how Vali is actually convinced at the end. And that aspect of Govindaraj saying that this is, so Ram acted in such a way that Vali wouldn't surrender so that the story would go on. That's quite a beautiful, beautiful reading of it.

And then you also mentioned about how the Ramayana has influenced so many countries and cultures, where they have had different variants of the Ram Leela being depicted. And then, of course, before that, you mentioned about how Ramayana, it is experience. It is a living experience.

They discussed about this, how we can keep hearing Ramayana and Ram Leela and it's still relishable. And this Western scholar who went to Varanasi and went to the banks of Ganga and actually saw it. So everybody knows the story, but still they relish it because they are participating and experiencing it.

It's being re-enacted. The sense is that it's real. It's happening again.

The Leela is happening again. I remember one point which I forgot to mention there. I also read one author's article.

I don't know whether it's the same one. He said how if Ram becomes, if some character is playing as Ram, then they treat that person actually like Ram. They'll do the puja of that person.

And if the father, for that, they will board out to the son, treating him like Ram. So in that sense, it's actually a re-enactment itself. And then we discussed towards the end about various retellings of the Ramayana and how far are the boundaries for us.

So one theme I mentioned is about the harmonisation like a musical orchestra. And then you said that we can't really ban things. We discussed about that many, many Ramayana translations and the deconstruction that happened because of that.

And the solution to that is not banning the book or condemning the author. But it is actually getting the traditional perspective presented in the academia. And that can be done if we have more educational forums where the facility is available.

That's not available, unfortunately, in India. But the Bhakti Andhra Satch Centre is one thing that is coming up. It has already started up.

And then for the living traditions right now, the boundaries patrolling would be by the gurus and sadhus. And so there is a logic pramana also which is used, say, for example, in Krishna Leela. And when there are two different things, one is considering the pastime which are not given in scripture and how to accept them or not.

And the other is, in the pastime that are given in scripture, how do we enter more into them? So for that, there is some amount of character development which is authorised to some extent by Rupa Goswami Narada Chandrika. And you also mentioned that the caution that could be taken is for dramatic purposes, have minor characters who speak the relevant things without having to. So that we don't get accused of taking too many liberties.

And ultimately, imagination and emotion are naturally related. So we can't divorce the two precisely to be experienced. Imagination has to be stimulated.

And that's why we can all immerse ourselves in Ram Leela. Any points I left out or anything you want to add, Maharaj? Maybe just one small point to add, which has kind of fascinated me since I read it some years back. That I think it was the 10th century aesthetician, Ananda Vardhana, who said that the dominant rasa of the Ramayana is Karna.

It's Karna rasa. Karna is a sense of compassion, but it's also a sense of pathos. In a sense, the Ramayana within, let's say this, the Valmiki Ramayana, he's speaking about the Valmiki Ramayana, which is considered the original.

Because Valmiki is the Adhikavi, so this is poetry. So poetry has to express rasa. And the dominant rasa, he said, is Karna.

And if you look at it from that perspective, it's very interesting to see how the whole story of the Ramayana is actually deeply moving. Because of the feelings of separation, Ram from Sita, especially. So there's the hero, there's the vira rasa, of course.

Rama is killing Ravana. And so on. But to identify Karna as the dominant rasa, I think is very fascinating.

And also inviting for us to understand the Valmiki Ramayana is deeply nourishing to our bhakti. In other words, we don't have to think, oh, I'm a Krishna bhakta. I don't have anything to do with Rama.

He's all about dharma and rules and regulations. That's not for me. No, it's deeply about bhakti and on the level also of viraha.

But it's the particular flavour is Karna. Beautiful. Earlier you mentioned about abhava.

That is also a pramana. So this is beautiful. I had heard about Karna.

I didn't know it was Anandvardhan who had said that. It gels very nicely with the viraha bhava. So how are Karna and viraha synonymous? Karna is more like pathos.

And separation is one way of feeling pathos. I'm not an expert in these things. I don't want to speculate.

But I would understand Karna in relation to pathos, whether they are, you know, coextensive meaning may not be appropriate. But with Karna, of course, I think there's something additional, which is the sense of compassion. So who is feeling compassion for whom? Well, you can say Rama is having compassion on all of us.

He's showing compassion to everyone in the story in one way or another. He's showing compassion to Ravana by killing him, you know. That's true.

That's beautiful. Thank you, Maharaj, for adding that. And thank you very much for your association.

This is a very wide ranging discussion on the Ramlila. So who comes next in our series? Oh, Krishna is counted. OK, there's different lists of ten avatars.

So we want to go to Balram then, of course. We can do. Or who would you prefer? Or Balram and Krishna.

I don't know. Or we end up or we do eleven. I think Balram and Krishna is a good idea.

Because if you had to speak about Balram, you really can't speak much without speaking about Krishna. Exactly. And Krishna will become like too big in one sense to cover in one session also.

So you can focus on Balram and the relationship with Krishna. Exactly. That sounds good.

Yes, Maharaj. I look forward to your association next month, Maharaj. Thank you very much.

Thank you for coming today.