Ramayana and Gaudiya Vaishnavism

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Ramayana and Gaudiya Vaishnavism. So, I will talk first about the Ramayana from a historical perspective, how this initiative has influenced Indian culture. And then I will talk in the same historical sequence, how Gaudiya Vaishnavism is influenced and how Gaudiya Vaishnavism was influenced by Ramayana.
And then we will discuss about how they interact within this con and in our lives as Satakas, as well as preachers. So, firstly, the two epics, Ramayana and Mahabharata, the kind of influence that they have had in the Vedic tradition, there is practically no parallel to it anywhere in the world traditions. So, the Bible is of course, a sacred book for the Muslims.
And these books have canonical value, canonical means scriptural value for their followers. But in and of themselves, they are not exactly literary books. So, the Bible is a compilation of a large variety of books.
The Quran is one revelation, which is more of didactic, just speaking. And apart from that, there are some pre-Christian classics, Iliad, Odyssey, although the Shakespeare we wrote again, and they like Julius Caesar and others, which have also shaped the life of people quite a bit. So, literature has always, now first, I am writing not from the point of view of it being divine literature.
I am simply talking about the literature, how literature shapes people. So, literature has always shaped people in different ways. So, in the Western tradition, there were the Julius Caesar and other sagas, Iliad, Odyssey, they were not necessarily divine.
There may be some element of destiny and God in it, but they were focused on that. And they had enormous popularity. On the other hand, there were books like the Bible, which had huge popularity, but they were not exactly sagas of one person going down.
They were a different collection of books. So, the Ramayana is written by Vanmiki, who is called as the Adi Kavi. Adi Kavi refers to the original poet.
What this means is that the various Vedic literature, they are always existing, but to put them down in written form and to put them not just on a written form, but in poetic form, in the form of poetry, that is something which is done for the first time by Vanmiki. So, the Ramayana is simultaneously a religious work and a literary work. And because, so there are religious works in the world which have had influence on people, there are literary works which have had influence on people, but a work which is simultaneously religious and literary.
Literary means it is according to rules of grammar, poetry, it is a very beautiful poetry. Of course, the Ramayana is a relatively simple metre, but still the poetic imagery, the alliterations, the figures of speech, those who study Sanskrit, they can appreciate the poetic beauty of the Ramayana also, apart from its divine value. So, because of this combination of it having both literary and divine value, the influence which the Ramayana has had on the Indian tradition at large, it is unparalleled.
Not just unparalleled within the Vedic literature, within the areas where the Vedic tradition was there, Aryabhata as it is said, but as compared to other literature having influence elsewhere also. So, in fact, the prominent Christian missionary, when they came to India in the 18th century, the whole way of the Vedic way of thinking is quite different from the Abrahamic way of thinking. So, he said that if we want to understand the Hindu mind, the book that we have to study and understand is the Ramayana.
So, to the extent we understand this book, to that extent we need to understand the mind, the way people think about it, because this book has shaped the lives of so many people. Now, the Ramayana historically, there is, in the Vedic tradition, there is the original telling and then there is retelling. See, books as we know today, for example, we do Prabhupada book distribution.
So, this kind of book distribution is a relatively recent phenomenon. In fact, the printing of books started only in the 16th century. That is why it is called a printing press.
And first it was used to distribute the Bible widely. And that is how the Protestants broke the control of the Catholic Church on Christianity. So, in the past, when any message was to be transmitted, books were not the means by which they were transmitted.
Writing a book itself was laborious. And replicating a book means the whole book would have a re-rewritten version. So, there was no printing, no Xeroxing, nothing like that.
And that is why books were rare. And most people, the way they came to know about spiritual values, moral values, about their cultural values, it was primarily through the oral tradition. So, that is why the word that is used is retelling.
So, for example, there is Valmiki Ramayana and say Tulsidas wrote Rama Charitmanas. That is a retelling. Or in South India, there are many, there is Tamba Ramayana, there are many other Ramayana.
These are called retellings. So, in one sense, they are rewritings. But actually, the primary mode in which they were transmitted were retellings.
Even Valmiki, he did not write down the Ramayana. He composed the Ramayana and he taught it to Lava and Pusha. So, actually, the Ramayana and Valmiki are, in one sense, contemporary in history.
The author is, in both the Ramayana and Mahabharata, the author is a character in the book. So, Vyasadev is a character. And Valmiki is, of course, not exactly the author.
He is more like the creator. But it was put down in the written form much later. So, Valmiki composed it and he taught it to Lava and Pusha.
And that is how Lord Ram himself heard it. When the Lava and Pusha came to Ayodhya for the sacrifice, and they recited this. So, the primary mode historically in which the scriptures were transmitted.
Now, the books like the Upanishads, the Vedanta Sutra, and even the Bhagavad Gita, they were primarily meant for a scholarly audience. Generally, books, books were written for scholarly audiences. And the oral tradition, which was disseminated widely, and that was done through the popular books, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata.
So, over the generations, different poets and different devotees, they retold the Ramayana according to the local language that was popular and according to time, place, circumstance. So, the word Purana is the difference between Purana and Veda or Shruti and Sruti. Bhaktisaraj Thakur explains very interestingly.
Some scholars asked him, the Indologists have a theory that the Puranas are a later creation. And the Shrutis, they are the older creations. And the reason they give for this is that the language of the Puranas is more recent.
You know, we see that English itself changes. So, if you find a book which is this Di, Da, Eda, we will understand that this is not a book which is written in the 20th or 21st century, probably in the 19th century, 20th century, something like that. So, this language changes.
By the kind of language that we use in a book, a rough estimate of the date of that book can be made. So, when it is asked to him that why is the, why are the genera of Shrutis, it is in the later Sanskrit. So, his answer, the Prabhupada gave a different answer.
Prabhupada basically said that it is for a simpler audience. And that is why the language is different. And that is what Vyasadeva also says.
That is what Bhagavatam says that after compiling the Vedas and the Upanishads, then Vyasadeva to make a three-digit one noun. So, for the lower, people with lower intelligence, you cannot take Vyasa in the Puranas. But apart from that, what Bhaktisanta Thakur says is that just as the soul reincarnates in different bodies, the soul remains the same, but the body that the soul acquires is different or is the person maybe in different dresses according to time-place circumstances.
So, is a similarly, the very nature of the Shrutis is that they are presented, they are actually their recollection. The word Shruti means remembrance or recollection. So, the Shrutis are presented in a way that people can understand.
So, people of a particular age recollect the scripture and when they are going to recollect it, they will recollect according to their understanding, according to their sociocultural influences and then they express it. So, in that sense, Shruti has an element of dynamism to it. And the potency of Shruti and Smriti lies in different things.
It is said the potency of Shruti lies in Varna and the potency of Smriti lies in Artha. Varna means necklace. So, Rig Veda, for example, is meant to be recited exactly as it is.
And traditional Rig Veda pathakas to ensure that the accuracy of their recitation is maintained, they would recite the Rig Veda not just forward, they would recite the whole Rig Veda backwards also. And they would do anway of the words and they would also memorise the specific words, the starting of each word also. Otherwise, like the separation of the word into its components.
So, the literal accuracy was very important for the Vedas. So, the potency of the Vedas is said to be in the Varna. Varna is Akshar or letters.
But the potency of the Puranas is more in the Artha. It is not that Varna is not important, but Artha is what is primarily important. So, that is why the flexibility of form is there.
Now, of course, Jiva Goswami in the Sandarbhaja analyses how Bhagavatam is an exception to the general rule of the characterisation of Puranas. And that is also seen in the Sanskrit of the Bhagavatam. The Bhagavatam Sanskrit is more Vedic than Puranic.
It is more scholarly, more deep, more poetic, more refined. The Puranic Sanskrit is very simple. In fact, when the Europeans came to India and when they wanted to study the Indian culture, they felt that we have to learn Sanskrit to study the Indian culture.
So, of course, they had their own agendas. They wanted to Christianise India. But they said if you want to study Sanskrit, one of the books which we can use for studying Sanskrit is the Ramayana.
Because the Ramayana Sanskrit is relatively quite simple. So, the idea is what? That the flexibility of form is there because the important thing is to make the message understandable to people. So, Sridhar Swami in his Bhagavatam commentary raises this question.
For example, when we say that Lord Ram had a discussion with Guha. So, he went out to the forest and had a discussion. So, he does not literally use this example.
I am elaborating on the point. So, he says that is it that Ram and Guha and the characters exactly spoke those same words. So, he says not necessary because the Guha is an outcast.
He is not likely to speak in Sanskrit. Or for that matter, if we go, there are the Vanaras and there are the Rakshasas. Do they all speak in Sanskrit? And not just Sanskrit, poetic Sanskrit at that.
No, he says the essential meaning is maintained, but the form is given by the Adi Kabir, that is Maliniki or it may be Vyasagiri in either case. So, the Puranas as they have been passed on, there have been retellings. Now, the retellings, of course, sometimes can enhance the reach, the appeal, the understanding, the influence of the message, but sometimes the retelling is distorted.
Then it can also obscure them. So, this is an inherent danger that is there. And that is why there is the Guru-Shishya Parampara that is important, which helps us to discern what is right and what is not right.
So, in our Ramayan, there are so many retellings which are there. How do we know which is right or not right? Our Acharyas, if we look at the Gaudiya Vishwasampradaya, the only commentary we have on the Ramayana is on the two chapters of the ninth canto by our Gaudiya Acharyas in Bhagavatam, where Ramayana comes up. So, apart from that, our Acharyas have not directly commented on the Ramayana, but they have drawn repeatedly from the Ramayana.
That means, the Ramayana is a part of the literary body, which is assumed to be present and spiritual. So, some devotees have the idea that we should accept only Valmiki Ramayana as authoritative. But the Sruti is not meant to be frozen like that.
So, we see that when Nityanand Prabhu was performing the pastimes in his childhood of the Lord. So, at that time, he performs a particular pastime in which he was unconscious. Does anyone remember the pastime? So, essentially now, if you look at the pastime, the specific details that are described in the pastime, and the way it is enacted by Nityanand Prabhu, that is not according to Valmiki Ramayana.
I am not going to the full details of the pastime here, because our focus is different. The specific way the pastime is depicted, that it is described that when Hanuman is going to Himalayas, at that time, there is a Rishi who is meditating, and then that Rishi is there who is actually a demon, and then there is a crocodile also, and the crocodile is Apsara. The whole story is there.
Now, if you look at the true narrative of the story, that is not according to the Valmiki Ramayana. But it is there in the Nityanand Saritana book as well as in the other scriptures, which are considered canonical by the Gaudiya tradition. So, that is accepted as a valid book.
So, a valid story of Lord Rama. So, the broad criteria is that as long as the storyline is not directly contradictory to the Ramayana storyline, and as long as it does not contradict the philosophy of the Ramayana, then they are understood to be embellishments. They are retellings, which enhance the appeal of the Ramayana.
So, they are fully accepted. So, the Ramayana has been going on and one of the ways in which the Ramayana has influenced the Vedic culture is through its cultural depictions. So, we know in Vrindavan, there are pastimes which are performed of Krishna.
So, in Varanasi especially, it is very famous, it is called Ramlila. Ramlila is basically the enactment of the full life of Lord Rama. So, they have a 15-16 day festival in which each day, the different pastimes of the Lord are performed and thousands of people from various places come to see the pastime being enacted.
And in this particular pastime enactment, what they do is, they have a particular person, a baby child. Now, they decorate that child as Ram and he performs the pastime as Ram and there are other characters who play those roles of Siddhashtra, Tharumavepad, who are other associates in that particular pastime. But it is considered that during that particular time, when a child is playing the role of Ram, it is almost as if, so that child is of worship and he goes somewhere, people offer obeisances to the child.
So, the idea is, this is not just an enactment, but it is a reenactment. Reenactment is that in one sense, if the actors perform the pastime with devotion, then some level of connection with the original characters happens and a manifestation happens over there. So, this was how the Ramayana through the poetry, its own poetry, through the retellings in the vernacular languages.
Now, you see Sanskrit, we see that it is Deva Bhasha. But even during the Vedic times, there are, if you read the scriptures carefully, there are evidences of other languages also. It is not that all the people were speaking Sanskrit only.
So, there was plurality of culture even during the Vedic times. And that plurality of culture meant different languages. So, even at that time, a lot of pastimes were told in different languages.
And especially, there has been historically a resurgence of Bhakti tradition from the 12th, 13th, 14th centuries onwards. Historically, there is, sociologically, there is a reason. And of course, there is another reason.
Sociologically, the primary reason for the resurgence of Bhakti, the Bhakti as we know, is the confusion of Vedic scriptures. And it was very much there in the past. But over a period of time, because of Sakalye, Himmahamrta, Yoga, Nashtavarantaka.
So, the Bhakti, so the Bhakti essence was lost. And the ritualism became more prominent. And as the ritualism became more prominent, the caste system became stratified and became more fossilised and rigid.
And many unicidal coming into society. But when the Islamic attack happened in India from the 10th century onwards, so both the fire sacrifices, which were normally recommended in the Vedic tradition and the temple redevotion, both came under attack. And sociologically, the way people could preserve their religious practises was shifting to those religious practises, which did not require tangible forms that could be destroyed.
So, that was primarily through Katha, through Kirtan. And these are primarily expressions of Bhakti. So, we will see that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, we do not see any descriptions of any big temples being constructed in Bengal.
Because Nawab Hussain Shah was ruling over there. So, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said that thousands and thousands of people would come for his Kirtans. But in Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, you do Kirtans, inside and later outside.
But there was no tangible, they did not say that, create temples. Of course, the devotees created as possible temples at their houses. There may be some golden deity of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu or six-armed deity.
But no big temples were constructed. The reason was sociologically, that there was a threat that the external manifestations of religion in form of tangible structures would be targets of attacks. But along with that, we also understand that there has been a, just let me complete a few things, if you do not mind.
So, historically, there has also been the evolution of the revelation that has happened. Evolution of revelation means that the scriptures have their conclusion, but that conclusion is not revealed directly. So, we see that Ramanujacharya, he came back, the most of us know the evolution from Buddhism to impersonalism to personalism.
I will not repeat that. But I will emphasise some specific points within that. Ramanujacharya, when he taught, he wrote a Srivastana, Ramanujacharya’s appearance is coming up.
So, how it is? Yeah. So, now, if you look at his Srivastana, he does not talk about the Bhagavata practically at all. So, this focus, there is a progressive revolution, where from the impersonal meditation, on the meditation of the impersonal Brahman, towards the meditation on the manifestation of the Lord and our reverence, eventually, the Gaudiya tradition will reveal the intimate form of the Lord.
So, Ramanujacharya addresses several of the themes, which are similar to the themes talked about in the Bhagavatam, but he himself has not commented on the Bhagavatam. Now, there are, of course, subsequent scholars who have commented on the Bhagavatam, in the Rishi tradition also. Madhavacharya himself, Madhavacharya came about a century later than Ramanujacharya.
He wrote a commentary on the Bhagavatam, not exactly an exhaustive commentary, but he commented on it. Now, here is, so, if we consider like a pendulum. So, at one level, to respond to Buddhism, the Buddhist idea of Shunya was replicated in the Vedic tradition as the idea of Brahman.
Now, that pendulum was brought towards the centre again by Ramanujacharya, this Vishishtadvaita. Vishishtadvaita is, yes, there is oneness, but there is difference also. See, Vishishtadvaita is a compound word.
You know, Krishna says, I am a compound word and the other compound word is a gondwa, where both have equal weight. For example, Ramakrishna, both are means both have equal weight. But when there is a compound word, which is a combination of an adjective and a noun.
So, for example, devotional service. So, now devotional is the adjective, service is the noun. So, which is more important? Is service that is important or devotion that is important? So, I will leave that question unanswered right now.
I will come to that. But Vishishtadvaita, Vishishtadvaita, Advaita, it is the noun and Vishishta is the qualifier, something like adjective. So, in Vishishtadvaita, which is more important? Is the Vishishta more important or Advaita more important? So, how it is? So, if you see, normally the noun is like the fundamental thing and the adjective is that which modifies.
Now, what will vary is, how does the modification that is done? How much is the modification that is done? For example, in English we have prefixes. So, we have say, are there some words where we put one prefix or a and the meaning changes entirely? Normal and abnormal. In Sanskrit also, there are many words like that.
So, what happens is, when there is a modifier, how much is the emphasis on the modifier that will determine whether the modifier is important or the original word is important? So, now, Shankaracharya when he came and he propagated, because of the force of his personality and the vigour of his preaching, his influence on Indian society at that time was stronger than what the grip of sciences in modern society, on modern mind. So, directly refuting him was nearly impossible. So, that is why what Mahacharya does is, at many places strongly refutes him in content, but in terms of the name, he says, yeah, actually it is Advaita, but yes, there is non-difference, there is oneness, but there is also some difference.
So, the pendulum is sort of taken from Advaita to Vishishta Advaita. And it is near the steady state, but the historical evolution is not yet complete. Mahacharya comes and takes the pendulum further.
To the other extreme. And he says, there is no Advaita, there is only Advaita. There is only Advaita.
He says, where is the similarity? He says, there is three tattvas are there, Jagad, Jiva and Jagadish. So, he says that if you look at the Jiva, one Jiva is different from another Jiva. If you look at the Jagad, one element is different from other element.
If you look at the Jiva and Jagad, there is difference. So, he says there is a difference between Jiva and Ishwara, there is a difference between Jiva and Jagad, there is a difference between Ishwara and Jagad, there is a difference between Jagad and Jagad, there is a difference between Jiva and Jiva. So, there is only Advaita.
Where is the Advaita? So, what he is doing is, he is taking the pendulum to the other extreme, other extreme. And then, so now, some of Mahacharya s statements, we have to understand them contextually. He has come for a particular mission and to fulfil that mission, he speaks things very forcefully.
So, then after that, when Chaitanya Mahaprabhu comes along, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu follows, bring the pendulum back to the steady state. So, now, if we look at philosophically, it is a huge subject. But if you look at the philosophies of the four Sampradayas, and we look at Gaudiya Vaishnavism, although we are institutionally or officially connected with Mata Sampradaya, our philosophy is quite different from Mata Sampradaya.
Our philosophy is actually more similar to the Sri Sampradaya. So, why? Because historically, it was like a pendulum going back and forth, and then Chaitanya Mahaprabhu taught Gaudiya Vaishnavism in Achaitya Veda, it was brought to the steady state. It was brought to the steady state.
So, this is how things have evolved. Now, while writing these commentaries, for example, so now here, our Gaudiya Acharyas had the advantage of having the commentaries of all the previous Acharyas, and studied those commentaries and integrated the best parts of those commentaries and developed them further based on the teachings of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. So, when the Gaudiya Vaishnav tradition came up, so it was as a part of the plan of the Lord, and that is why in the Sri Sampradaya and Mata Sampradaya, although they have extensive worship of Krishna and even of Ram also, but their understanding is the Narayana is supreme, and even there are many people in these traditions who consider that Krishna and Ram are incarnations of Krishna.
So, now that is not scripturally incorrect, but it is not a complete understanding. That complete understanding is revealed by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu based on the Bhagavatam. So, there are Shri Haridas Swami also commented on the Bhagavatam, but the devotional import of the Bhagavatam was not, it is not possible for Shri Haridas Swami to reveal it at his time in its fullness, because he has been discussed in our last class that Shri Haridas Swami was officially in an impersonal Sampradaya.
So, he sort of penetrated, it is like a spy going into the enemy rank and causing the enemies to defect over. So, like that he entered the impersonal Sampradaya, but from there he brought devotion within the impersonal tradition. So, now when Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and the Gaudiya Vaishnavism came up, there was already the wave of Bhakts that was spreading all around.
And Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu through the Harinana Sankirtan, he built it up tremendously. And it is not just the chanting of the holy names, but the philosophical understanding of the devotional revelation. So, philosophically, the Achintya Vedapayana is the most evolved understanding of the Vedantic philosophy.
And devotionally, the understanding of Krishna is God and understanding of the five Rasas. Now, the whole concept of Rasa was there for a long time in the Vedic tradition. But the explanation, the connection, the concept of Rasa with devotion and the revelation of explanation of how the Lord’s pastimes are in different Rasas, that was generally given to Goswami in a written form for the first time.
So, the Rasa Shastra is an elaborate Shastra. But Rasa Shastra was not always theistic or devotional. So, it was Rupa Goswami who brought about the marriage of Rasa and Bhakti.
The Bhagavatam points to this marriage in its third verse, when it says, this is a message full of Rasa. But actually, in an analytical point of view, how the various Rasas are and how there is a transcendental hierarchy in those Rasas, all this is explained by Shri Rupa Goswami. Now, with this particular background, we know Krishna Bhakti is the highest in terms of the intimacy of the reciprocation of Rasas.
But we see that when in the Bhagavatam, Rupa Goswami talks about the various incarnations and then Sanatana Goswami also talks about in the Bhagavatam, the ascent of the Jiva, of the Gopakumara. We see that Lord Ram has a distinctive place. And our Acharya explained that there are Krishna has many many incarnations, many many manifestations, but among them, the position of Lord Ram is special.
So, he says basically there are two special, Ram and Narasimha. They are special incarnations because the intimacy of Rasa is much more developed in these two incarnations as compared to others. And that is further developed in the Gaudiya tradition, where we have various Rasas with respect to Krishna.
So, now if we look back at the Ramayana, the Ramayana itself is like the Mahabharata. These two books were meant for mass distribution. And not everyone can accept the principle of pure emotion immediately.
So, what happens is in the Ramayana, at one level, the Ramayana is like a book of Karmakand. How is it a book of Karmakand? Because for example, it is talked about that you should worship the Devatas, the Vanduvi Yajnas. And then he said the Dashrath Maharaj goes to Swarga and then from Swarga he comes back.
And Devatas are considered quite powerful. So, at one level, it may seem like it is a book of Karmakand. But at another level, because Lord Ram is God, so all the relations that are centred on him, they are not just a relationship which are Dharma, they are Paramatma.
So, at one level, by seeing how Lord Ram obeyed Dashrath Maharaj or Sita was faithful to Ram, by this one can get inspiration for Aparadharmas. How one should obey one’s parents, how one should be faithful to one’s husband, how one should protect one’s wife. So, at one level, one can learn Aparadharma.
And the genius of the Ramayana is that actually this Aparadharma and Paradharma, they are married together. The Bhagavatam, in one sense, it diverts the Aparadharma at all. What the Bhagavatam does is, Dharmahrojita-kaitavatra-paramo-nirvana-saranam.
The Bhagavatam says, kick out the Aparadharma, Dharmahrojita, give it all. But what the Ramayana does is, it marries the two together in an integral way. So, actually when the centre is Lord Ram, then whatever is done with him in the centre is Paradharma.
But that may not be understood as Paradharma by everyone. So, that may be seen as Aparadharma. So, how the Ramayanas inspire people, see the Bhagavatam’s mood is what? Renunciation.
Every scripture has its own mood. If we study the original Sanskrit carefully, the conception that is described, for example, of Bhakti in the Bhagavad Gita and the conception of Bhakti that is described in the Bhagavatam and the conception of Bhakti that is described in Chetan-Chetanamrita, there are significant differences. In the Bhagavad Gita or in the Mahabharata, we don’t see Arjuna or Bhima dancing in the Haryana-Sankirtana.
Now, they are devotees, but their conception of Bhakti is different. So, each scripture has its own mood. The Bhagavatam is, Jiva Goswami in the Sankirtana says that if you want to understand the meaning of a book, there are certain characteristics, Tattparya Linga, by which you can understand the meaning of a book and one of the Tattparya Linga, one of the characteristics for understanding Tattparya is the Bija Prashna.
What is the defining question? What is the defining question that led to the speaking, led to the development of this book? So, if we see the Bhagavatam’s context and the Ramayana’s context are radically different. The Bhagavatam is written or spoken to a person who is about to die. And for a person who is about to die, what is required is just put aside everything else and fix the mind in Krishna.
Put aside everything else and fix the mind in Krishna. So, that’s why, with that context, the Bhagavatam sort of divorces. Jiva Paradharma focus only on Paradharma.
Now, we see Krishna also says this, Sarva Dharma Antarakti Jam Aamey Ekam Shravanam Vajra. But after that, what does Arjuna do? Arjuna surrenders to Krishna in principle, but in practise, he continues the Paradharma as a Shakti. It is not that Arjuna becomes a Sanyasi who gives up his Aparadharma.
So, for Arjuna, in this context, the practise of Paradharma coincides with the practise of Aparadharma. So, is this point? I hope it’s a subtle point that Krishna is telling Sarva Dharma Antarakti Jam Aamey Ekam Shravanam Vajra. So, he is using Dharma Antarakti, not Aparadharma.
That means, he says he will give up Aparadharma and take up Paradharma. But when he says that, after that, Arjuna extremely seems to continue the Aparadharma. That is, he is doing the Shakti identity.
But he is doing his Aparadharma in Paradharma consciousness. In Paradharma consciousness. So, the Ramayana’s Bijya Prashna is what? Valmiki asks his spiritual master Narad Muni, is there an ideal human being? And what are the characteristics of ideal human being? He lists some characteristics.
And then he asks, is there a person with these characteristics? Now, these characteristics, he is not talking about a person who is about to die and what should a person think about at the time of death. He is asking a person who is going to live in the world, and is going to act responsibly in the world, what is the defining nature? What are the characteristics? Who is the ideal human being? So, now for people who have to live in this world, for them, they cannot reject Aparadharma. They have to balance Aparadharma in Paradharma.
Now, there is a difference between balancing and marrying. Marrying means both become sort of integrated with each other. So, in the case of Lord Rama, it happens, those associated with Aparadharma, because Lord Rama is an ideal human being and he is also God.
So, now the Ramayana has influenced people in two ways. One is that, Maharaj Ji talks about this, he says that scriptures can be understood at three levels. One is the literal level, second is the ethical level, and third is the spiritual level.
So, he says, at the literal level, that just the recitation of scripture, because it is the pastime, because it is one of the pastimes of the Lord, so it is purified. So, just Eke Taksharam Kumsam Mahapadatanasam, it is said about the Ramayana that even one more letter can purify us. So, just the literal recitation will purify.
And that has happened for many people, that people just go for Ramayana Katha, Krishna Katha, and they are purified. The second is the ethical level. The ethical level is, okay, this was a situation that these characters faced, and how did they respond to those situations? And what can we learn from that? So, we talk about practical lessons from the Ramayana, the Mahabharata.
These are primarily at the ethical level. And then the word Ramacharya uses for the third level, that word has two meanings, it is spiritual as well as metaphorical. So, metaphorical means that he says the scriptures, as long as the metaphorical meaning does not contradict the literal meaning, they can be taken.
So, the literal means, okay, this is what historically happened, and this history is purified because it involves the Lord and his great devotees. And ethical means we learn values from those situations, and we adopt those values. And metaphorical means, we look at deeper inputs based on the further understanding, which does not contradict, but which complements the understanding given in the scriptures.
So, now, in the Ramayana, so now if people just hear it literally, as the pastimes of the Lord, then that literal hearing is Shravanam. It is Shravanam Kirtanam Swarmanam, it is Bhakti. So, it is literal hearing will be Paradharma.
Along with that, if they learn ethical lessons from it, but the ethical lessons can be learned at the level of Aparadharma, and they can be learned at the level of Paradharmas. But most of the ethical lessons people learn at a practical level at the level of Aparadharma. So, that is also important.
Aparadharma also has to be preserved in society, if society has to have a stable structure. And social stability is extremely important for the practise of religion in general. So, people learn the Aparadharma through the ethical dimensional structures.
And then there is the metaphor. Generally, the metaphorical meaning is for the scholars. So, Sridhar Swami explains that in general, poetry is not direct.
So, you know, when does a work produce rasa? When you say that your work is poetic, there are some ornaments in it. And what are ornaments basically? They are new or appealing ways of phrasing a particular thing. So, in the first chapter of the Antalila, it said that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu says that, you know, what is the use of a poet’s poetry, if it does not cause the mind to spin in amazement and ecstasy? And then he says, this is the characteristic of the poetry of Rupa Goswami.
Such a beautiful poet. So, the idea is, in general, poetic meaning is, it requires a deeper understanding. With a little understanding, it does not lead to poetic rasa.
For example, when Krishna is telling the Gopis, now you have come to see the forest, you see the forest and go back. So, now he is saying one thing, but he is moving to another thing. He is testing the Gopis.
Will they stay or will they go? So, he talks about the duty of a wife to be faithful to her husband. Now, what is the Gopis? Gopis say, all this is true, but it is not true for our relationship. So, here we see that when there is rasic interaction, at that time, the literal meaning is not rejected.
The Gopis accept, yes, the duty of the wife to the husband is true. But they say there is a higher dimension to it also. So, the Ramayana, at the level of rasa, it focusses primarily on the Dasya rasa.
The Dasatva, we see at one level, Lord Ram himself acts like a servant of Dashrath Maharaj. But we have Lakshman acting as a servant of Lord Ram, Hanuman acting as a servant of Lord Ram. And so, that Dasibhava is foundational for the subsequent bhavas.
Now, for Madhurya or for Vatsalya or for Insakhya, for those bhavas to be real, they have to be founded on Dasya. Otherwise, they are ethereal. Ethereal means they are actually imaginary.
They are largely imaginary. And one of the reasons why Sahajiyaism became widespread within the Gaudiya tradition as well as elsewhere is because the Dasibhava was de-emphasised. So, the Dasibhava is de-emphasised when one assumes that prematurely one can have an intimate relationship with the Lord.
And then that leads to a mixing of material emotions and spiritual emotions. And when the mixing of the material and spiritual emotions happens, then there can be confusion. And there can be actually, even in the discussion of the Madhura rasa, there can be degradation that can also happen.
So, when we, Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is a Jivayasura Poet, Krishna is a Nitya Das. So, that Dasatva, which the Prabhupada also emphasises, also happens when the Dasatva is demonstrated in the Ramayan language. And that demonstration of the mood of service, and the mood of service is always integrated with sacrifice.
And service is that, actually what I would like to do, I do something else because someone else wants to do it. Someone in my love, in my mind, do something for that person. So, that sacrifice is the common denominator we see in the Ramayan agenda.
Now, broadly, we see two kinds of characters in the Ramayan. Those who are ready to sacrifice for someone else or some higher cause. And those who, instead of giving to others, take from others.
So, the defining difference between Ravana and Rama is that, Ravana is taking that which does not belong to him. And Rama is giving up that which belongs to him. Actually, the kingdom belongs to Lord Rama.
But when Kaikeyi does some scheming, what happens? Rama is ready to give up that kingdom, although it belongs to him. And now, Sita does not belong to Rama. But Ravana is grabbing Sita.
So, that service and the sacrifice associated with it, that is the defining rasa which is there within the Ramayan. Now, I will come to one point where the Ramayan comes almost very close to Gaudiya Vaishnavism’s Virabha Bhava. And I conclude with that.
In the Ramayan, how many khandas are there? Okay, let us start with it. There are six or seven, we will see. What is the first khanda? Balakhanda, then Yodhagandha, then Aranyakhanda, then Ishtindakhanda, then Sundarakhanda, then Indakhanda, and then Uttarakhanda.
So, now if you see, actually it is not khanda, it is khanda. So, actually, anyway. Yeah, they are similar words.
But generally, the way it is used. Yeah, the way it is used. Yeah, the way normally it is used is a particular way.
Now, if you see, each of these divisions has some association with the event that is happening. So, we see that Balakhanda is the nature of the past tense. So, that is either the activity or the location.
Now, Bal is the activity, Ayodhya, Aranya, Kishkindha, they are the location. And then after that Yudh is again the activity. And Uttar is also reflective of the content in the sense that it is the subsequent story.
In one sense, for example, in many books, after the story gets over, there is an epilogue. Epilogue means, okay, what happened after? The main story is over. But the reader has developed a relationship with the character.
What happens to the character afterwards? Please tell us. So, Uttar content is the subsequent thing, the main story is over. But there are subsequent events in the character’s life.
So, Uttar is also reflective of the content. So, Sundar, it is not reflective. What is it reflective of? Sorry.
Yeah. Hanuman is Shivagraha. Yes, that is true.
Actually, it is not. Hanuman Shivagraha is one part of it. The soundary of Sundarakhand is that actually Ram is absent in Sundarakhand and Yud is most present in Sundarakhand.
Now, actually, this Sundarakhand begins with Ram standing of Hanuman. And after that, there is no Lord of Ram in this Sundarakhand. It is all adventures of Hanuman.
And then at the end, there is Hanuman’s return. And this is Yudamani direction of Ram. So, that the jewel, the ornament, the signets which were there, which were given by Ram to Sita and by Sita to Ram.
Sita is, what is given by Sita is shown back to Ram. So, Ram is there in the Sundarakhand only at the beginning and at the end. So, but although Ram is not present in terms of any activities in Sundarakhand, he is present in the hearts of his two greatest devotees.
So, the servant of Lord Ram and the consort of Lord Ram. The whole soundary of Sundarakhand is their meeting and their intense devotion to Lord Ram. So, the whole activities of Hanuman, they are themselves adventures.
They are wonderful. That is true. Along with that, Hanuman comes and meets Sita.
And he sees Sita’s readiness to even die, but not give up her devotion to Ram. Not accept the temptations of Ravana. To tolerate all the threats and the incisors and atrocities that were happening to her.
And to continue peacefully. And then there you can talk about how Lord Ram is not present there, but Lord Ram is present and Hanuman speaks Ramayana. He does not speak the full Ramayana, but he speaks Ramayana and Sita hears it.
And there the sweetness and the intensity of the Ramayana actually, you know, every book has its, there is a climax in different ways. A climax can be in terms of story’s evolution. So, story’s evolution is okay.
This is a story is not concluding. The villain is going to say, the hero is going to kill the villain. That is one kind of climax.
But in a movie, there can be different kinds of climaxes. Sometimes the cinematography may be the best in a particular scene. And that is what people carry home.
Oh, this was a very good part of the movie. Or in some places, the dialogues may be very good. And that is how people remember.
So, the climaxes can be of different kinds. So, in terms of the story, the climax comes when Lord Ram kills Ramayana in the reunion of Sita and Ram. But in terms of the emotional climax of the Ramayana, it happens in Sundarkand.
When both the servant of Lord Ram and the consort of Lord Ram are separated from the Lord and yet are united in their remembrance and their service to Him. And that is actually the mood of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. We are separated from the Lord and yet we want to feel His presence.
In fact, in separation, we feel His presence the most. As Padhyavati, Rupa Goswami, Rupa Goswami’s quote that, when Radhanananda says, Krishna, I prefer separation from you than union with you. Because in union, I can see you only in one place.
But in separation, I can see you everywhere. I can see you everywhere. So, this dasya bhava and this intense attitude of remembrance and service, these are very helpful for us sadhakas in our practise of bhakti, of our sadhana bhakti.
And gradually as we keep practising sadhana bhakti, the particular rasa, the particular swaroopa, that will evolve somehow. It will evolve spontaneously. But at our stage, we can take inspiration from wherever we can.
So, although our tradition is the Gaudiya Vaishnavism tradition, but Gaudiya Vaishnavism has grown based on the broader tradition, the bhakti tradition, of which Ramayana is the foundation. And the Ramayana offers us very valuable lessons in terms of the mood of Virata Bhakti through one of its examples and the foundation of dasya. So, I will summarise and then you can have questions.
I started by talking about, historically, how the Ramayana has evolved and how it has influenced the culture. So, there were books, literary books, which have influenced humanity. And there are religious books which have influenced humanity.
But the Ramayana is simultaneously a religious and literary book, which has influenced humanity far more than any other book. Then we discussed about the retellings. Primarily in the past, the message will be transmitted orally.
And the retellings are about time, place, circumstance. And as long as the philosophy is, philosophy fidelity is maintained, and the storylines are not directly contradicted. These retellings are considered to be embellishments.
They are not considered to be contaminations or delineations or anything like that. And then we discussed about the resurgence of bhakti in the mediaeval ages and the pendulum, how it swung from Advaita through Shri Advaita to Advaita and then back to Achintya Veda again. So, Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition has revealed for the first time the concept of Rasad as it is applied to the relationships with the Lord.
And with this framework of Rasad, when we look at the Ramayana, then we understand how it ingeniously marries aparadharma and paradharma. And that marriage can help people to purify them through literal narration. It can also inspire them through the ethical dimension.
And it can also further elevate them through the deeper spiritual metaphorical understandings. And we conclude by discussing about how the Dasya Bhava of the Ramayana and the beauty of the presence of the Lord in his absence in Sundar Pant, they are very much in consonance, in agreement with the mood of Gaudiya Vaishnavism as is presented by Acharyas. Thank you very much.
Are there any questions? Comments? Yes.