​Understanding why Rama banished Sita

​Bhagavatam class at Bhaktivedanta Manor, London, UK

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
So, the Ramayana is probably among the most widely read books in the Vedic canon. And one reason for its popularity is the sweetness of the characters and the intense emotions that are evoked by the recitation of the Ramayana, by the understanding of the depth of the character of those characters. So, now one of the most challenged and challenging incidents from the Ramayana comes towards its conclusion.
Normally, if we have, if there is some movie, to some extent, most movies follow the standard of the Ramayana. There’s a hero, there’s a heroine, the hero and the heroine meet, and there’s a villain who comes in the way. And then the villain abducts the heroine, and then the hero goes and rescues the heroine, and there is a reunion.
And then there is happily ever after. Now this is normally the end of the movie, but surprisingly the Ramayana doesn’t end over it. Then there is the incident where Ram sends Sita away, and that seems to, what is going on over here? Not only from the point of view of the storyline, but also from the reason that is given, it seems a very difficult thing to understand.
So, I’ll go over a few specific points before we go into that incident. See, sometimes the word is used that Ram banished Sita. Now banishment is not exactly an appropriate word to use over here, because banishment means that a person is sent out of the kingdom to the forest with nothing to get, with nothing to have protecting oneself.
When Bharat comes to know that Ram has been exiled, he’s shocked. He comes back and he goes to his mother, and his mother tells him that Ram has been exiled. He says, to be exiled is a sentence just below execution.
It is given for the worst of criminals. How could Ram ever have committed a crime like this? So, to be exiled means to be just sent out of the kingdom with nothing. In today’s language, sometimes some people are deported from the country.
But even when they are deported, they can go to some other country and stay there. But when somebody is exiled, they cannot stay in any other kingdom also. Actually, that was the term of Ram’s exile, that he couldn’t stay anywhere, he had to stay.
It was not just exile from Ayodhya, it was exile to the forest. That meant he couldn’t even stay in Kishkindha, when Subariva invited him to come and stay there. Now, what happened with Sita is something different.
Ram arranged for her to be escorted to Valmiki’s ashram. And in Valmiki’s ashram, she was taken care of well by the female hermits who were there, in that hermitage. So, many of them had maternal attitudes towards Sita, and she lived in the company of those hermits.
And that hermitage was in the kingdom of Ram. So, in that sense, Sita was not exiled to the forest, the way Ram was earlier. So, to use the word exile or banishment, that is not an accurate representation of the reality.
Having said that, now, why did Ram actually do that? So, the specific incident that happens is, Ram has returned back, and as a vigilant king, he sends his spies to see what is happening among his citizens. And one citizen comes back, and he says that, when Ram asks him, he says, everybody is praising you, but then he hesitates. When he hesitates, Ram understands something is wrong.
He says, please don’t hesitate, tell me whatever it is. And then he says that, some people are casting aspersion on you and your character. And when he explains the whole incident, so, there’s a washerman, and he says that, for one night in a storm, his wife was caught somewhere, and she couldn’t come home, and because there was nowhere to go, she stayed in a shelter in some other place, and she said, how can I take you back now? And he said that, I’m not like Ram who can take back his wife.
So, now this, when Ram hears this, he’s very disturbed. Now, why is he disturbed? All of us have different roles to play in our life. And sometimes these roles go together, and sometimes these roles come in conflict.
Say, for example, we may be parents, and we may be professionals. So, as parents, maybe our children need us, but as professionals, they have to go to a job. Sometimes both roles demand our attention at the same time.
And then there is a conflict, should I do this, or should I do that? Because we are finite beings, so we have to choose one role, and that means we sometimes have to subordinate the other role to that role. In fact, the whole Bhagavad Gita is having this conflict. There are two roles, there are two kinds of crises, basically, or dilemmas, we could say.
There is moral crisis, and there is ethical crisis. In the moral crisis, there are two choices. One is moral, the other is immoral.
And at that time, to make the right choice, primarily requires strength of, basically, moral strength. Now, say somebody is a doctor, and the doctor is given some kickbacks, some bribes by someone, so that they can punch some results, so that some people will benefit. Now, to resist the temptation for money, here at least the choice is clear, this is right, this is wrong.
What should I choose? So, for making the right choice, when there is a moral crisis, what is required primarily is the strength of character, moral strength, basically. But sometimes there is an ethical crisis. In the two choices, both of them are moral.
But which is more important? That, deciding that becomes very difficult. So, Arjuna has that kind of crisis at the start of the Bhagavad Gita. There is Kshatriya Dharma, and there is Kula Dharma.
As a Kshatriya, he is meant to fight against the aggressors, punish aggressors. So, the Kauravas are aggressors who have stolen his kingdom, who have tried to poison him, they tried to poison Bhima, they have dishonoured his wife, so he has to punish them. But there is Kula Dharma.
Kula Dharma is that he is meant to protect his dynasty, and it is his own dynasty members who are fighting against him. It is his grandsire who is there, now Drona who has become like his Kula Guru is also there, so how can he fight against them? So, at such a time, it is not so easy to decide which rule should one follow. When there are two choices, both of them are Dharmic.
But which is a higher Dharma? So, similarly, here at this particular point, Lord Ram has a choice between his Raja Dharma and his Patti Dharma. Now, as a husband, his duty is to always protect his wife, to be with her through thick and thin. As a Raja, his duty is to set an example for everyone.
Now, what was the example that he has to set? In Vedic culture, there were these two centres of power. There were the Brahmanas and the Kshatriyas, and both are meant to protect society. The Brahmanas protect through Shastra, and the Kshatriyas protect through Shastra.
So, Brahmanas protect by giving knowledge of what is right and wrong, and Kshatriyas protect by enacting the principles of right and wrong, through rules, through justice, and through punishment sometimes. And in the case of Brahmanas, Brahmanas naturally are meant to live simply. And Brahmanas, they are more or less renounced from the world.
Even in the Brahmanas, their householders, they live very simply, and they focus on cultivating knowledge and sharing knowledge. So, although at one level the Brahmanas are living in an exemplary way, because they are living simply, that is not the example that inspires most people. Most people who are in the world, they are attracted by opulence, and they are attracted by power and imposition.
So, the Brahmanas give spiritual knowledge, and people are attracted to the spiritual knowledge, but they feel their primary example whom they want to emulate is the Kshatriyas. Kshatriyas have opulence, they have power, they have position, and people who are in the material world are naturally attracted to material things. So, when they are attracted to material things, then the Raja, the king’s purpose is to demonstrate that although the king is amidst such opulence, even within that opulence, the king demonstrates detachment.
Normally, how does the king demonstrate detachment? By submitting to the sages. From the material perspective, the king has enormous power. The sages, the Brahmanas, the Rishis, they have practically no power from the material perspective.
So, when the king, the Kshatriyas, submit to the Brahmanas, when the sages come, for example, in the Ramayana, when Vishwamitra Muni comes to the palace, like Ashwathimsa, goes out to welcome him, falls at his feet, offers obeisances, offers worship to him. So, when the common people see these sages, they don’t look so impressive, they are nothing, but this king who has everything, he is respecting the sages. Then, oh, the sages must be something special.
And then they become more receptive to spiritual knowledge. So, in the Bhagavatam also it is described, initially when Shukadeva Goswami was wandering along, people just couldn’t understand who he was. Some of the people were making fun of him.
But when he came in the assembly, where Parashar Maharaj was enquiring, then everybody got up and respected him. And when that happened, the common people shrank back, oh, who is this person? We don’t know who he was. So, the Kshatriyas, for them, detachment is demonstrated not by them renouncing everything.
They live amidst opulence. But while living amidst opulence, they respect those who have no opulence, material opulence. And thus, the idea is that they show detachment.
Their detachment is by adherence to Dharma. Dharma for Kshatriya is often different from the Dharma for commoners. In the Bhagavad Gita 18th chapter, Krishna talks about Valanashram.
And there he says, śamo damas tapaḥ śaujam śāntir ārjavam eva ca jñānaṁ nijñānam āstikyam brahma-karma-svabhāvate. He says, one of the characteristics of a Brahmana is shanti, tolerance, forgiveness. Basically, somebody insults, don’t get provoked.
Somebody shouts, somebody challenges, don’t get provoked, stay calm. Which is the next verse, 8th mark, 43. Next verse is that, describes the characteristics of a Kshatriya.
And there it describes, yudhe cha apy apalayanam. That means if somebody challenges them for a fight, they never run away from the fight. They fight.
So it’s almost exactly opposite. A Brahmana, even when they are provoked, they forgive. A Kshatriya, when they are challenged, their quality is that they don’t run away from the challenge.
They are ready to fight. So what does this mean? In different roles, there are different expectations. There are different qualities which are ideal.
So one of the ways which Arjuna airs in his reasoning at the start of the Gita is, he’s a Kshatriya, but he’s trying to adopt a Brahmanical ethos. The Kshatriya what he’s saying, let me forgive the Kauravas. So Krishna says, sreyan sa dharmo vighunah, paradharma sa nushitah.
Arjuna, don’t try to become a Brahmana. He tells him in, sabhava jena kaunteya nivaddha svena karmanah. He says, everybody is bound by their sabhava.
You have to act according to your nature. So this is the background for us to understand now what exactly is happening when Lord Ram has to do the Rajadharma. The Rajadharma at that time involves setting an example of detachment.
So the detachment, as I said, is demonstrated not by renouncing everything physical necessarily, but by subordinating and using everything for the sake of dharma. So now in this case, when Ram hears that people are thinking that Sita is impure. Now he had this concern earlier.
And that’s why there was the Agni Pariksha. And Sita had proven herself at that time. But even after that, when people are suspecting, Ram thinks, what more can I do? The gods have actually vindicated Sita’s purity.
So why is there any, why are people accusing like this? Then he decides to take a very difficult decision. He says that such an accusation, if people entertain such notions, then they will not be able to follow the example the king is setting. They think the king is adharmic.
That will rationalise their own adharma. And therefore, he decides to send Sita away to the forest. Now here, every scripture has a particular mood to it.
Now sometimes in some depictions, when Sita is taken to the forest, she is depicted as a victim. Oh, Ram did such a great injustice to her. Now when Sita goes to the forest, she’s certainly heartbroken when she understands that Ram is sending her away.
But she does not blame Ram. Here it is said in the translation, that she understood the intentions of her husband. She understood what Ram was doing.
And she said, if this is what Ram feels necessary, I accept it. So now in today’s world, we feel, what is this? It’s a small accusation that somebody has made, that has already been proven to be false. And even after it has been proven to be false, why is Ram taking that accusation so seriously? See the point of the Ramayana is to illustrate the mood of sacrifice.
All the characters in the Ramayana, all the central characters, they all demonstrate that mood of sacrifice. Now when Ram is banished to the forest by Kaikeyi at the instigation of mantra, now Ram doesn’t try to go and pacify Kaikeyi saying that, you know, Kaikeyi’s fear is that if Ram becomes the king, he will become a threat to Bharat. He will see Bharat as a threat and therefore he will become a threat to Bharat.
Now Ram doesn’t try to go and pacify Kaikeyi and say that, Kaikeyi, oh, this is not going to happen. You know, I love Bharat. That’s not the mood of the Ramayana.
Similarly, when Ram is going to the forest, Sita voluntarily goes to the forest with him. Ram doesn’t tell her to go. In fact, Ram tells her, don’t come with me.
Still he goes to the forest. Similarly, Lakshman, his mood is of sacrifice. He goes with Ram.
Although Ram, yes, Sita, you could say she is wife, they are bound together and married. So Sita is expected to go at one level. She is not expected to go.
But still she goes. But Lakshman is not bound like that at all. Lakshman goes voluntarily.
And actually when Lakshman goes at that time, his wife Urmila, he says, I’ll also come with you. He says, no, you cannot come with me. He says, if you are there, then I’ll have to protect you.
I’ll have to give my time to you. And therefore, he says, you stay here. And so he says that, you know, I have two duties.
One duty is as a brother. Younger brother, I have to serve my older brother. But I have also son.
And I have duty to my parents. But I cannot do both duties now. So he says that you do one duty for me and I will do my other duty.
He tells Urmila, you take care of my parents. You stay here. So everybody in the Ramayana is actually embodying that mood of sacrifice.
It’s not that if something is going wrong, necessarily I have to go and prove this is right, that is wrong. And therefore, this is what should be done. The point is embody the mood of sacrifice.
That’s the mood of the Ramayana. So further if we see the character of Hanuman, Hanuman is the foremost of the Vanaras. But Hanuman never becomes the king.
Hanuman stays the assistant of the king, of Sugriva. So everybody in the Ramayana is embodying that mood of sacrifice. Now the Ramayana itself begins with Valmiki Muni asking Narada Muni, what are the characters, is there any ideal person and what are the characters of ideal person? So now when that, at that time he describes Ram’s Leela in brief and tells that Ram is the ideal person.
Now if we consider Ram sending Sita away, we would say what to speak of ideal person? This is not even normal. A normal person would also not do such a thing. You know if somebody’s wife is pregnant and you send that wife away, how can someone do like that? But the point is, here what is the ideal that is being demonstrated? The ideal is the ideal of sacrifice.
So the specifics are not as important as the principle. The principle is the mood of sacrifice. And we see, if you focus on this only on Sita, it may seem that she was wronged over there.
But look at Ram. Now it is not that Sita is in one sense, she is separated from Ram, she is in the forest, she is suffering. But Ram is also separated from Sita.
Now Ram could very easily have decided that I can marry some other woman. He doesn’t do that. So Ram is also embodying the mood of sacrifice.
Not only that, later on when Ram has to perform sacrifices, now while performing sacrifices, at that time the requirement for the grahastha to perform sacrifices, the husband and wife perform the sacrifice together. So some of the courtiers in Ram’s court, when they see that Ram is very sad in separation from Sita, they thought that maybe we can persuade him to marry again. So therefore they tell him that we have to perform these sacrifices.
And how can you perform sacrifices without a queen? Therefore you should marry again. Ram says no. The day when I got Sita’s hand at that time, he promises Sita, you know, that what can I give from you? Sita says no, I just got it.
I said no. He says, you know, yes, you will never lose me. He has seen for his father, you know, he had three wives and so much conflict.
Resultantly he says, I will, you will be my only wife. Eka vrata he takes. And he says, I will honour that word.
And he says, I am not going to marry again. So that mood of sacrifice is demonstrated through Sita. It is also demonstrated through Ram.
Then the courtiers still try to persuade him and they say that no, but how will you perform sacrifices? And Ram arranges for a effigy, for an image of Sita to be next to him. So it is not that Ram has ever rejected Sita. Ram doesn’t consider Sita culpable, nor is Sita culpable.
The point here is to demonstrate how for a higher cause somebody may have to sacrifice. The idealness of Brahman’s characters is not necessarily the specifics in everything. It is not necessary that when we try to apply the Brahman’s characters, that if one brother is punished, then the other brother has to go with him or the fourth brother has to carry his padukas on his head.
Those specifics are not what is to be applied. It is the principle that is to be applied. The principle is the principle of sacrifice.
So when Sita is sent away, it is not just Sita who is in suffering, but even Ram is in suffering. And the idea is that for Ram, he feels my duty to my father is higher and therefore he gives up his claim to the kingdom. Here he feels my duty to my citizens is higher and therefore he is ready to give up the association of Sita.
Now we see this is not simply for reputation. Is it that for a king his reputation is so important that for his reputation he is ready to give up his own wife? It is not just reputation. We see that same Lord Ram comes later as Krishna.
And when he comes as Krishna, the purpose of every avatar is to establish Dharma in a particular way. So Ram is demonstrating primarily the Dharma of sacrifice. When Krishna comes, Krishna actually does exactly the opposite.
There is this demon Bhaumasura who has abducted 16,000 princes. He has actually attacked and arrested many kings and he has actually taken the daughters of the princes. And now because they have been abducted by him, so he was actually, he had not violated them.
He was planning to do the sacrifice in which he would sacrifice the kings, he was planning to sacrifice the daughters and after that he was going to touch them. But at that time Krishna comes and Krishna releases the kings and he releases the princes also. Now from the world’s point of view, because they had been abducted by some other man, they were not considered pure.
So what does Ram or Krishna do over here? Krishna rescues them but they say you have rescued us from bondage but still what will we do now? So Krishna says what do you want me to do? You accept us as our Lord. And Krishna accepts all of them. So here if we see this avatar is demonstrating something entirely different.
But the principle, if the Lord is guided simply by external considerations such as reputation, then why would Krishna accept women who had been abducted by someone else? In Ram’s case Sita was already his married wife. In this case Krishna was already married to them. Krishna accepted them and married them.
Whereas in this case Sita was already married and Ram told her to go away. So why this difference? It’s not just consideration of reputation. It’s not such external consideration.
Actually the principle over here is the mood of sacrifice. And from the Gaudiya Vaishnava perspective, actually the Ramayana, especially in its end, it demonstrates the glory of love and separation. So you know that separation does to love what wind does to fire.
There is a fire that is blowing and then there is a fire that is going and then some house is on fire and wind comes over there. Then what happens? That wind spreads the fire. So like that separation leads to the intensification of love.
So later on Krishna demonstrates this in his Leela with the Gopis when he leaves Madhura, when he leaves Vrindavan and goes to Madhura and thereafter to Dwarka. So the Gopis in their separation from Krishna, they attain the greatest intensification of their love. And similarly Sita, her love for Ram is intensified more and more in separation from Ram.
And similarly Ram’s love for Sita is intensified in separation from Sita. And in that way, in that separation and the resulting intensification of love, there is the climax. So this Ramayana, Ramayana demonstrates in a realistic way that in this world relationships are not permanent.
Even for Ram and Sita, their union is not permanent. But the principle of love is permanent. Love especially when directed towards the Supreme Lord, that is eternal.
And that eternal love can go on even when there is no proximity, even when there is no personal association. So actually the love in separation is what Ram demonstrates through this particular Gita. Now one more point about this whole pastime is that actually when Ram is acting and is performing his pastimes, he sets an example of how to sacrifice.
And that principle of sacrifice will have different practises, different ways in which it applies at different times. See when we approach scripture, we have to approach it, in scripture there are specifics. From the specifics we need to understand the principles.
And from the principles we have to come to the specifics again. So in literary theory this is called as the ladder of abstraction. Ladder of abstraction means that in any field there are specifics which are concrete, this is a specific.
From the specific we move up to the principles. The principles are abstract. And from those abstract principles we come down to the specifics.
As they apply now, I will give an example to illustrate this. Shri Prabhupada in 15.6 Bhagavad Gita, he translates that in a very interesting way. That verse is That eternal abode is not illuminated by the sun, the moon or fire.
And that is my abode. And one who attains this will never come back. This is the translation literally of the verse.
Now Shri Prabhupada in the translation itself adds electricity over there. That abode is not illuminated by sun, moon, fire or electricity. Now if you look at the Sanskrit, where is the electricity over there? There is no such word like Vidyuta or anything over there.
Now how can Shri Prabhupada, Shri Prabhupada is not adding this in his parapur. He is putting it in translation. Now what is he doing over here? Shri Prabhupada, he actually focused always on making scripture relevant to his audience.
His purpose was, when scripture is taught, his purpose is not just to get it right. The purpose is to get it across. Get it across.
Help people to understand what is the essential point over here. So if you look at the context, what is going on in that section of the scripture in 15th chapter, see Krishna is illustrating the essential principle of that verse is that the spiritual world is self-luminous. That it does not need any external source of illumination.
Actually the same three items which Krishna talks about over here in 5.6, he again mentions those same items six verses later in 15.12. There he says, So he says that this world is illuminated by the sun, the moon and fire and their effulgence comes from me. So the point is to contrast the spiritual world and the material world. The spiritual world is illumined, does not require any external source of illumination.
The material world requires some illumination. The same three sources are mentioned over there as well as here. So the essential principle is that actually scripture does not, the spiritual world does not require any illumination.
Actually Prabhupada is actually speaking to an audience who lives primarily in the modern world and for them the primary source of illumination is not sun, moon or fire. For them the primary source of illumination is electricity. So Prabhupada is making scripture relevant by adding electricity over there.
The point is not just to give a specific exhaustive list of the points which are given in scripture. The point is to actually highlight the principle. The principle is that there is no external source of light required.
And so Prabhupada adds electricity over there. So actually Sri Prabhupada is doing the same thing in a very condensed way. He is taking the specifics, from there he is moving to the principle.
The principle is that there is no external source of illumination required and he is bringing it down to the specifics today. And he applies it and says that the specifics today are that electricity is the source of light and therefore there is no electricity in the spiritual world also. And Prabhupada does this expertly on many occasions.
At one time in the early days of our movement one hippy came to him and he asked Swamiji, one of the early devotees, Swamiji what is the bliss of Vaikuntha like? He said spiritual world is a place of great happiness. So what is the bliss of Vaikuntha like? And Prabhupada told him, Vaikuntha is like an ocean of LSD. An ocean of LSD.
This person heard it, oh yeah I want to go there, you know. I want to have an ocean of LSD. Now they say, which scripture has said that Vaikuntha is like an ocean of LSD? Somebody was very critical, they say how can you compare the bliss of Vaikuntha with the bliss that comes from a drug? An intoxicating drug, how can you compare that? In fact somebody might go further and say it is one of the offences to the holy name to compare it with anything mundane.
So is Prabhupada, who actually gives the holy name to billions of people, is he committing an offence? Not at all. What is Prabhupada doing over here? The point is not to get it right, the point is to get it across. So for people whose definition of happiness is centred on LSD, then Prabhupada is explaining the happiness in their language.
So again this ladder of abstraction is there. The specific example in scripture might be that, scripture might tell that the bliss of Vaikuntha is thousands of times more than the bliss of Mukti. Now people don’t know what is Mukti.
So for people who don’t know what is Mukti, the description that the bliss of Vaikuntha is thousands of times more than Mukti, it won’t make any sense to them. It will not resonate with them. The specifics are there in scripture.
From the specifics, the universal principle is, in scripture, in the spiritual world, there is unlimited happiness. And that principle Prabhupada translates into today’s world. And he says it is like an ocean of LSD.
There is a verse of the 7th Canto, where Prahlad Maharaj is praying to Narasimhadeva and there he is saying that, My dear Lord, I am being dragged by my senses in different directions. जिन्वेक्त अच्छत विकर्षति मावित्रुत्ता He says the tongue is dragging me in one direction, the ear is dragging me in another direction, the skin is dragging me in another direction. So there the translation itself says that, actually the ears are attracted by radio songs.
Now somebody may say, Prahlad Maharaj time there were no radio songs. But this is Prabhupada’s expertise. What is Prabhupada doing? Okay, at that time, the primary lure for the year, Prabhupada wrote his Purpose in 1967, that was the radio songs.
So Prabhupada is making scripture relevant to his audience. Same way, I am talking about this specific, universal, specific. This is a ladder of abstraction going up and down.
That is when we approach the pastime in scripture. Now the specifics are not as important as the universal principle. So the universal principle that Ramayan teaches us, through this particular pastime as well as the other pastimes, is the principle of sacrifice.
And that principle is what we all need to internalise now. It is not that every single action that is given in scripture, that has to be literally applied in today’s world. In some cases it may be applicable, in some cases it may not be applicable.
The essential principle is what is important. Actually, at Brahmapada, we have in our own tradition, this enormous difference. We have the example of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, refusing to meet Pratap Rudra.
Pratap Rudra is begging to meet him, give me one audience at least. But Chaitanya Mahaprabhu says, no, how can I meet him? So Chaitanya Mahaprabhu refuses to meet Pratap Rudra, despite his repeated efforts. And finally Pratap Rudra has to dress himself as an ordinary Vaishnava.
And then Chaitanya Mahaprabhu comes and meets him and gives him his blessings. Now Shila Prabhupada is the greatest proponent of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s teachings in the modern world. And what did Shila Prabhupada do? Shila Prabhupada, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu says, I will never not meet a king.
And Prabhupada, he was preaching in America, when he got an opportunity to meet Indira Gandhi, who was Prime Minister of India at that time. Prabhupada cancelled his American tour and went all the way to India. So Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said, a Sanyasi should not meet a king, a Sanyasi should not associate with a woman.
Prabhupada went to meet a king or a head of state who was a woman. So here we see the details are not just different, the details will be exactly opposite. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu refused to meet the king, Shila Prabhupada went to meet a female head of state.
Why is that? Again here we have to go beyond the specifics to the essential principle. The specifics is that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu refused to meet the king. But the principle is what, at that time, in that society, 500 years ago, if a Sanyasi was hobnobbing with a king, that would be seen as Sanyasi is still very attached.
That’s why this Sanyasi is enamoured by the king. That’s why Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was demonstrating renunciation. And he said at that time, what will people think of me if I am associating with a king? He will not associate.
So in that society, for him, his reputation would have been harmed by associating with Pratap. But in today’s world, if a spiritual leader gets to meet the head of state, that will enhance the reputation of the spiritual leader. Not only the reputation but also the influence of the spiritual leader.
So the specifics can vary, the specifics will vary, according to time and place circumstances. It is the principle that is important. And to the extent we understand the principle and internalise the principle, to that extent, scripture becomes relevant and not just relevant, it becomes empowering for us.
So sometimes when we stick only to the specifics, without understanding the principles, that can lead to conflict, that can lead to fanaticism, that can lead to intolerance. So the specifics are important, no doubt. But at the same time, the principle has to be understood.
I came just now from America. If you consider traffic rules, the traffic rules in America and England are exactly the opposite. Which side you should travel from, left or right.
The same thing we should do here, if you go and do there, will be penalised over there. The rules are not just different, the rules are opposite, but the purpose is the same. The purpose is the regulation of traffic.
So same way, sometimes the specifics may be different, specifics may even be opposite. But the purpose, if you understand, then we will not get bewildered. In fact, many places in scripture, if we just get too caught in specifics, we may miss the purpose of scripture and get bewildered.
So when we move from the specifics, we appreciate the specifics. When we hear Krishna’s pastimes, Lord Ram’s pastimes, the narration of the specific pastimes itself is purified. I’ll conclude with this point, then you can have questions, answers or comments.
Sripad Madhvacharya explains in his Mahabharata Tattvarnayana, actually Mahabharata Tattvarnayana is a book in which he comments on the Mahabharata and he echoes this theme in his Vedanta Sutra commentary also, Brahma Sutra Vashyan. So he explains that the Itihasas can be understood at three levels. He talks about the literal, the ethical and the spiritual or the metaphorical.
The literal means just recite the scripture as it is and that itself is purifying. Ek Ek Aksharam Pumsam Mahabharata Kanashinam The Ramayana Mahatma has said that actually when one letter of Ramayana is recited, it purifies us. So literally if you recite the pastimes, hear the pastimes, that also purifies us.
At the same time, the scripture can also be seen as a guide for ethical living. And when we see, when we are reciting it simply for the sake of relishing the scripture, at that time we can even go into the specifics and relish the specifics. But when we want to see the scripture as a guide for ethical living, okay, how does the scripture guide me right now? Then the specifics are not as important as the principles.
So we have to move from the specifics to the principles and then see how that principle applies in today’s world. And then he also talks about the third level at which the scripture can be understood. That is the spiritual or the metaphorical level where he says that certain details of scripture can represent certain things.
So for example, the Lakshman Rekha that Lakshman draws in around Sita, therefore that represents the protection, the perimeter that protects us when we are living in this world. So there are some details in scripture which may also be metaphorical. Of course, he is very clear that the metaphorical is not at the expense of the literal.
The literal is also there and the metaphorical adds to the meaning. So especially when we are taking scripture as a guidebook for ethical living in this world, we cannot apply the principles literally. We cannot apply the details from the scripture literally in today’s context.
The cultural context changes and when the cultural context changes, at that time the way those specifics will apply can vary significantly based on scripture, based on what is underlined below there. So the expertise in understanding scripture and in living scripture, that has to be learned from those who are living scripture. Scripture is not just a frozen book which it is actually a living book and living book means it has to be understood from those who are living it.
Before Srila Prabhupada translated Bhagavad Gita as it is, so many people have translated Bhagavad Gita and some people got some understanding of the Gita through it. But the whole thrust of the Gita is That thrust nobody got, very few people got actually. When Srila Prabhupada translated, people got that essence of the Gita, not just one or two but millions.
What was Srila Prabhupada doing? Srila Prabhupada was actually expert in moving from the specifics to the essential principle and in all his purpose he emphasised that essential principle. So when we, in our study of scripture, if we get into specifics, we can appreciate the specifics also for particular purposes. But when they are saying scripture is a guide for ethical living, for living in this world, then we have to move from the specifics to the principles and then we need expert guidance to understand how that principle is to be applied in today’s world.
Srila Prabhupada was such an expert and following in his footsteps, following the example and instruction that we have given, when we understand scripture, then we will see that scripture is actually very enriching for our life. So I’ll summarise. I spoke about how this pastime of Sita being sent away to the forest can be very troubling in terms of what it implies or why such a thing happened.
First of all, Sita was not banished. Banishment means being sent away to the forest with no care, no protection, no support at all. Sita was actually entrusted to Valmiki’s ashram which was in Ram’s kingdom.
So she was still, even then, under the protection of Ram indirectly because she was in his kingdom. So I discussed, Ram at this point faced an ethical conflict where the two duties, both of them were important, which is more important. So just as Arjuna had faced an ethical conflict between Kshatriya Dharma and Kula Dharma, Ram faced a conflict between his Patidharma and his Rajadharma.
And he did not reject his Patidharma. He gave Rajadharma more importance but he stuck to his Patidharma. How? Two ways.
One is that Sita was still under his protection in Valmiki’s ashram. And secondly, he honoured his word to Sita and he did not marry again, although his duty would have obliged him to do that. But why did he give his Rajadharma more importance here? Because the whole mood of the Ramayana is not just to insist that this is right and that is wrong.
Sometimes bad things happen to us. At that time, instead of going, you know, why is this happening? This is not the way things should happen. Ramayana’s mood is, okay, bad things also happen.
Respond in a mood of sacrifice. So Ram doesn’t try to say how my getting exiled, my being sent on exile is wrong. He doesn’t try to prove I am right.
Why are you victimising me? He says, okay, this is what I am supposed to do. I’ll do it on the rebel. So just as Ram exemplifies sacrifice, Hanuman exemplifies sacrifice.
He doesn’t become the king. Lakshman exemplifies sacrifice. Urmila exemplifies sacrifice.
The same mood of the Ramayana is that Sita also exemplifies sacrifice and so does Ram when they are separated from each other. And this decision is not just taken on the consideration of reputation because that same Lord, when he comes as Krishna, you know, he accepts the queens who have been, the princesses who have been abducted by Bhaumasura. Why does he do that? Because that is how he protects them.
He elevates them. So there Krishna is demonstrating a different principle, the principle of Nila, the principle of compassion, the principle of inclusiveness. But Ram is demonstrating another principle of sacrifice.
So it is the mood of sacrifice that is to be universally understood from the Ram Nila and from the past time of Ram, Sita. Then he talked about when we apply, when we have to apply scripture in our life, there are specific details in scripture. From those specific details we need to abstract or the universal principle.
And from the universal principle, come and see what is the specific detail in our life now. And you have examples, three examples of how Bhagavan did that with respect to adding electricity in the transformation of 15.6, with respect to explaining the ocean, the bliss of Vaikuntha to be like ocean of electricity and saying that ears are attracted by radio songs in the 7.9 Bhagavan translation. So if we could get caught in the specifics, sometimes the specifics cannot just be different.
They can be opposite. And when that happens, we will get misled if we just stay caught in the specifics. So we move on to the universals.
Then we will be able to see how scripture applies in our life. And Shri Prabhupada did that in his Bhagavad Gita as it is. And following Shri Prabhupada’s example, if we are to recite scripture and release scripture at a literal level, that’s wonderful.
But when it is to apply, we have to see how the specifics apply in today’s world. Thank you very much. Are there any comments, questions? Yes, I get it.
Yes, I get it now. That was very close to Valmiki Das. Please go ahead.
So when Gita was recited, there was a full conversation between Lakshman and Gita. And Gita enquiring on Lakshman, Lakshman told Gita, Gita did not know that Valmiki Das was there. Yeah, that’s true.
That’s true. And then Lakshman, when he did not know, had to tell, express how Ram had to get to Gita. At that time, when he told the message of Ram to Gita, Gita was expecting the same.
In the old temple, that Gita was fine, Gita said, how Ram can do that? And she agreed, this is not just a small few lines from the old chapter, the meditation of Sita. But Lakshman, you are joking. And at that time, we can only speak in a few lines.
It’s very emotional, it’s a very painful chapter. Because the most painful chapter is that he has to have a mind. So when simply you say that Gita simply accepted the order of Ram, how Ram, that, you know, I can’t grasp that point.
That how Gita simply accepted the order of Ram, you know, No, no, I understand your point. I understand your point. I fully agree.
Yeah, I agree. Yeah, I understand. So when Sita is abandoned at that time, Sita just breaks down and she cries terribly.
Two chapters. No, no, no, that is not my point at all. Two things I would like to say.
See, when we talk about, when I said that Sita was not exactly exiled, she simply accepted. See, when I say she was not exiled, I am simply saying one thing that the exile was not exactly of the same nature as was Ram’s. Not sent into a forest where there is no kingdom, there is no habitation, she has to live amidst the animals and amidst the Rakshasas.
Wait a minute. Let me complete. Let me complete what I am saying.
So the point is that Ram took her, Lakshman took her across the river and Lakshman also knew Valmiki’s ashram is close by. Sita, so it was, you could say specifically that he did not entrust her to Valmiki’s care. That is true.
I agree with that. But it was nearby and that was the place that Lakshman expected Sita to go. And Ram told her, take her across this river.
Now with respect to Sita accepting, yes, there is definitely agony. And that whole chapter is, as you said rightly, it’s heart-wrenching to read the separation over there. So my point when I said that Sita accepted, that means Sita did not hold on to resentment.
Sita still loved Ram and Ram still loved Sita. At that particular point, see when some reversal happens, at that time there is a natural reaction which is desperate. So when Abhimanyu is killed, Arjuna is devastated.
And there is a whole chapter in the Mahabharata which describes Arjuna’s devastation at that time. And Krishna doesn’t come and say, Krishna, you forgot the Bhagavad Gita, I told you, Krishna doesn’t do that over there. So Krishna is actually very empathic, empathic, he is supporting, he is consoling, he is encouraging.
So there are natural emotions which come under specific situations. And those emotions are not to be denied. So naturally if Sita is separated from Ram, she is going to be shattered at that time.
And that is not to be denied. But afterwards she does pull herself together. And she does not, when she is helping Lavan and Kusha to grow up, she is not, it is not like, see the whole, I am trying to, what I am trying to do by this particular analysis is that we can’t apply our cultural conceptions on that particular Leela.
See it is not that, you know, suppose in today’s world, say a husband and wife have a divorce. And the wife has the custody of the children. And the wife often poisons the children.
You know, father is so bad, he did like this, he did like that, he did like that. Sita never does anything like that to Lavan and Kusha. So the point which I am making is, simply that it is not simply a case of, say, a husband abandoning his pregnant wife, just for the sake of reputation.
There is much, much deeper things happening over there. And when Sita, at that time her emotions are natural, but she doesn’t resent. She doesn’t hate Ram because of that.
She doesn’t plant hatred for Ram in her sons because of that. Eventually she accepts. See, initially there is normally, there is naturally going to be something happens like this.
Natural, not just protest, vehemence is going to be there. When Ram kills Wali, shoots Wali, Wali is furious. He says, how could you do like this? But then Ram explains to Wali what his reasoning was.
And at that time Wali accepts it eventually. So initially Wali’s anger is there, expressed in the Ramayana. But afterwards, Wali’s acceptance also is given in the Ramayana.
So my point, I am not trying to minimise the chapter. I was focussing on the principle that I was talking over here. The principle is that we can’t simply project from here to there, from our situation to that situation and say, how could you do like that? There is a whole lot of other things going on over there.
And what we can take practically is not simply literally go from here to there or there to here. It is that we understand and appreciate the mood of sacrifice. Thank you.
Where is the mic? As long as Mahatma is here now, we can save questions for tomorrow and after. Jai Guruji. Jai.
Jai Guruji. Jai. Jai.
Jai Guruji. Jai. Jai Guruji.
Jai Guruji.