When to forgive and when punish (Ramayana life-lessons)

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
I’ll focus on a particular theme which we will build on in the tomorrow session also. Basically, yesterday I discussed about how Lord Ram demonstrates how to respond to adversity, how he, even when he was unfairly treated, he responded with grace. We discussed about the acronym ACT.
As a way to graduate through the universe, which is a university of adversity. That distress comes upon everyone in this world. Today, we’ll try to make sense of trying to analyze the cause and the cure for adversity.
Yesterday I focused on the Lord Ram forgave Sita, sorry, forgave Kaikeyi, he didn’t decide to hold anything against her. But he did not have the same approach toward Ravan. So, when we face difficulties in life, especially difficulties that come because of somebody’s unfair dealings with us.
So, how do we respond at that time? On what basis do we respond? So, generally, if we have a disease, if we can compare adversity to a disease, then whenever there’s a disease, we want to know, hey, what caused it? And what is the cure for it? So, we could, we will adopt a similar approach over here to try to understand, okay, when we are facing suffering, what is the cause of the suffering? So, today’s discussion will primarily be focused on understanding the cause and tomorrow we will analyze the cure. This is not so black and white. There will be some aspects of the cure being discussed today also.
Now, yesterday itself I analyzed that there are times when we ascribe certain problems to our own destiny. So, while at one level, Ram being exiled, he saw that it was unfair in the sense that he had done nothing to deserve to be exiled, yet he saw it as the will of destiny and he accepted it. But then Sita abducted, that was all unfair, but he considered it as destiny and accepted it.
That was unfair and Lord Ram corrected it. So, when should we see something as destiny and simply accept it? And when do we try to correct it? So, broadly, there is some level of misunderstanding about the Vedic path that everything is seen as destiny and that leads to some level of passivity. Oh, you know, bad things happen and whatever bad things happen, people accept because they think it is destiny.
It is just a matter of destiny. But that is not at all, broadly speaking, the teaching of the Vedic tradition. Why not? Because, first, let’s try to clarify terms.
There is karma, there is destiny and then there is Dharma, which we can call as duty or responsibility. This will be dhaiva. Now, there are multiple terms involved and we will see how these fit in.
But the first point is when we are trying to understand cause of something. Let me start with, I’ll talk about three things with respect to the concept. Then I’ll talk about the context and then contemplation.
The three broad things I’ll talk about, we are trying to understand what is the cause of suffering. So, for example, whenever suffering comes upon us, are we to see all suffering as our own karma? If that is the case, then should we never stand up to wrongdoers? Then why did Krishna tell Arjuna that he had to fight the war? He could have said that actually, this is all the suffering that you are going through is your own karma and just tolerate it. So, the concept is that, you know, every event, we place it in an explanatory framework.
So, basically, explanatory framework, this in Sanskrit can be called as a darshan. A darshan literally, darshan has many different meanings. Darshan means we can say the audience of the Lord, we behold the deity in the temple, that is darshan.
Darshan refers to the word philosophy. The philosophy is basically shat darshan as that in the Vedic tradition. But darshan basically means a vision that we see.
So, how do we see things? Let’s start with a simple example of how an event can be seen in different ways. So, for example, right now, if say my audio or video is unclear to you. Now, this is the event.
Now, this could be placed in various contexts. One context could be that the audio is unclear. The box over here is the event.
I am trying to find the cause of the event. So, one cause could be that my mic is poor. Then another cause could be that that your speaker is poor.
Another cause could be that my net is poor. Another cause could be your net is poor. Sorry, your net is poor.
Now, other cause could be that maybe we could go on, say your hearing is going down. Other cause could be my speaking, my voice is becoming poor. So, maybe I got some throat infection.
We could go on and for one same event, we could come up with various different causes. Now, which of these is right? Well, there is no easy way. There is no instant way to know.
So, the normal way is that when we are looking for a cause, the principle that is talked in the Mimamsa is start with the drushta and then move towards the adrushta. Start with an explanation that is visible and then move towards an explanation that is invisible. So, for example, if I have a stomach upset or say if I have a cough, the visible explanation could be visible means what is immediately perceivable, not necessarily the eyes, but perceivable.
So, if I have cough, I could say, was I exposed to cold water? Did I go out in the rains? Did I drink too much? Now, if I can’t find that, then I could go more towards do I have a sickly disposition? And is it that I’m more vulnerable to this? If 10 people drank the same drink, but nobody else got cold, then I got cold. Then it’s not so much the drink, it is my own disposition. Or beyond that, I could say when nothing is, I don’t think we are sickly disposition, but still I have got this.
So, maybe there is some infection going around. And the infection also, the infection, I’m putting it a little bit, it’s not visible to us easily. Now, you could say that cold water means there’s infection anyway, but there is, let’s put it this way, some unknown infection is there.
Like most of us had not heard about coronavirus before the pandemic came. Now, like that, you could go and eventually, I might say this was my past karma. So, if somebody say eats a dozen ice creams on a cold night, and then the next morning they have a terrible throat.
Now, is it due to their karma? Well, yes, but it is not their past life karma. It is their past night karma. So, basically, the point is that any event that happens, we can put it in many different frames.
So, darshan means basically the vision of what is the cause of the problem. When we talk about philosophy, philosophy is an elaborate world view. See, even in the world view, there is the idea view is there, how it helps us understand the world.
So, world view, view is there in it. So, basically, now I’m coming to this point of karma, that karma, the karma philosophy, this particular darshan, it is meant to expand our existing vision. It is not meant to, it is meant to expand our existing vision.
It is not meant to replace or reject our existing vision. That means, if I can find out from an immediate perspective, what caused this? Say, if a wife are not able to get along together and the husband says that, oh, my, always complain, or the wife says that, oh, my husband doesn’t understand you. Now, both of them can go and say, oh, maybe it’s my bad karma that I have a spouse like this.
Well, that could be an explanation. But first, look at it. Now, have I done something because of which my partner is unhappy with me? So, if say, if I promise to do something, if I do it, then actually the other person may be more pleased with me.
And if I have promised to do something, I have not done that, and the other person is just pleased with me. And then I say, oh, this person is always angry with me. That’s because of my, because of my bad karma.
No, or is it that, no, have I asked that, you know, I would like you to understand me. I want you to talk with me, spend some time with me. If I have not asked that, if I just assume anything, that person is not doing it.
So, basically, then there’s no point to bring in the bigger frame. So, for example, let’s consider some practical situations, or even in the scriptures, if you consider in the Ramayana. So, when Lord Ram is in the forest, and at that time, on many occasions, when a particular thing happens, it is not, when something unexpected happens.
When, say, for example, there is a demon who suddenly comes and catches Sita. That’s Kabanda Bahuchedana Ram. So, as Kabanda comes and suddenly catches Sita, and he takes her away.
Does Lord Ram think, okay, you know, it’s karma that Sita has been abducted, that this demon is so powerful. Okay, how does the demon come and see it? But then, let us, we have a sword, they cut off the arm. The demon and Sita is released from there.
So, when Hanuman is not able to see Sita, find Sita in the forest, sorry, in Lanka, does he think, oh, it’s my own karma, I’m not able to find Sita. Okay, that could be one case. Says, maybe I just not searched enough.
And then, when he notices that, okay, I searched all the palaces, but there’s a garden over there. I haven’t seen that garden. Let me look at the garden.
So, the point is, karma philosophy should not be used to neglect practical causes, as well as practical solutions. It is only when practical causes and practical solutions do not make sense, that just can’t find out why this is happening. Then we look for a bigger explanation.
And one of the bigger explanations is karma. So, the idea is, any event that we see, we can see it in multiple darshanas. So, for example, right now, darshana means through different visions.
We can see the same incident in different visions. When Lord Ram is going through the forest, at that time, what happens? When Ram is in Kishkindha, when he’s in Kishkindha, Sugriva sees him as a threat. Why threat? Hey, is this a person sent by Vali to assassinate me? Jambavan sees him as just some sages.
He sees them as harmless. Hanuman sees him as curious. It triggers curiosity in Hanuman.
Oh, who are these people? I seem to, sometimes we have never met a person, but we feel as if there is some mystic sense of familiarity with that person. So, Hanuman doesn’t consciously recognize Ram. It is something familiar.
He wants to know. And that’s why he also takes the initiative and says, I’ll go and find out. So, when different people see Ram, they see him differently.
There is a famous verse in the Bhagavatam also when Krishna enters in the Mathura. He’s seen differently in the Mathura. He’s seen differently by different people.
So, this is an example of how the same situation, the same event, the same person in this case coming to a particular place can be seen very differently by different people. So, in many ways, intelligence, there are many ways of defining intelligence. But Prabhupada gives a very interesting definition of intelligence in Chapter 10 Purpose.
Now, in the series of verses, he talks about intelligence means to see things in their proper perspective. You see things in proper perspective. Now, what does it mean, proper perspective? That means there are many different perspectives in which a thing can be seen.
The same event, this is a thing, when we use the word perspective, say if you’re buying a house, then we might want a front view of the house. You might want a rear view of the house. You might want a top view of the house.
So, each of these are like perspectives. So, you might want an inside view of the house. So, the idea is what? Through different perspectives, we can get a better understanding.
So, basically, we humans have the capacity to look at things from different perspectives. But when Prabhupada uses the word proper perspective, what does it mean, proper? How do we decide what is a proper perspective? So, if we are trying to buy a house, which is a proper perspective? We say, okay, I want to see from all perspectives possible. But if you’re going to buy a house, no house is going to be perfect from all perspectives.
Now, some house may be perfect for a budget, but it may not be perfect in terms of locality. Some house may be perfect in terms of locality, but maybe it’s not perfect in terms of ventilation. Some house may be perfect.
So, like that, when we look at something from different perspectives, then proper perspective, what does it mean? How do we decide what is a proper perspective? It is primarily, it’s a proper hierarchy of perspectives. Which is the most important perspective? Which is the most important perspective? Which is the least important perspective? Or you could put it, which is a constructive perspective or a helpful perspective? And which is a unhelpful or even harmful perspective? Now, what do I mean by unhelpful or harmful perspective? Say, consider, suppose a doctor is in emergency care and there’s a patient who’s being treated. And the patient has drunk alcohol too much.
And that person is not only thrown up, but the person has fainted and maybe they already have liver issues. And because of that, that person’s condition has become critical. Now, how should the doctor see that? The doctor can see the patient as sick.
The doctor can see the person as having a sick body. You can see the person also having a weak character. Why is this person drinking so much? Or the doctor can see the person just as a bum, as a loser, as a burden to humanity.
Now, if a doctor is doing their job, the doctor should not be prioritizing, oh, this person is a loser. This person is simply a burden on the humanity. Drinking and wasting their life.
For the doctor, now doctor may see like that. Oh, you know, so many young people are just wasting their lives in drinking and hurting themselves and then hurting and wasting so much potential, wasting so much money of society. But the hierarchy, the first perspective should be, I’m a doctor, this is a patient.
Right now, I have to treat the patient. Afterwards, there may be other things to be done. So, it’s important to have the right perspective.
And proper perspective means that we should know which perspective helps us to do our dharma. That’s why I talk about karma, daiva and dharma. The doctor’s dharma is to do one’s duty.
So, proper perspective. So, perspective means is, which is the proper perspective, which inspires us to do our dharma. If a perspective is discouraging us from doing our dharma, then that is an unhealthy perspective.
It may not be a wrong perspective, but it is an unhelpful perspective. So, for example, if some guest has come to our home and they’re staying in a particular room and the guest tells us, you know, actually, I’m feeling very cold over here. And if we say, you know, this world is a place of distress.
Well, that may be true. But when somebody has come as a guest to our house, our purpose should be, how can I serve the guest properly? A guest is to be respected, is to be venerated. So, that is not the time to speak philosophy.
Although there’s a valid perspective that this world is a place of distress, but our focus should be, if a guest is feeling cold, the perspective should not be at that time, teach philosophy. The perspective should be offer service. Okay.
And I can give, I can, I have extra heater in the room or I can use some warm clothes. What would you prefer? So, basically, now philosophy also has to be taught. It’s a two thing, but that may not be the right time for that.
So, proper perspective means that we have to think, what inspires me to do my dharma? So, say, you know, if we are taking care of, you know, if we are inspired by some senior devotee and that devotee is living very purely and we are very inspired by how devoted they are, how pure hearted they are. And then suddenly we come to know that they got some terrible disease like cancer. Then at that time, how should we see it? If advanced devotee gets cancer.
Now, using philosophy itself, we could go towards one perspective. That is, oh, I thought this devotee is so pure. I heard they got this terrible cancer and everything happens because of one’s karma.
So, what karma must this person have done? No, this person I thought was pure. This person is not pure actually. Says must have done bad karma.
This person is a bad karma devotee. And this is not a healthy perspective. We should see this is an opportunity for seva.
Whatever is the cause of this particular devotee disease, that is immaterial. For me, for me, this is a senior devotee, the devotee has guided me, inspired me. So, whatever be the cause this has happened, I should see that this is Krishna’s arrangement by which I can do some seva.
So, some of you may know that I need crutches for walking. So, I had polio since I was one. So, once I was giving a talk in a very leftist university in India.
And after that one, one young boy, one young man, he asked a question. He says, you know, according to your philosophy, everything bad that happens is because of one’s own karma. So, you have polio, that means you must have done some bad karma.
And if you had done bad karma, then what right do you have to tell us to not do bad karma? To teach, what right do you have to teach us? Yes, undoubtedly, I must have done some bad karma because of which I have got this polio. But the Lord is so merciful that he has accepted even me in his service despite my bad karma. Now, you have not done any bad karma like me.
The Lord will accept you even more easily. So, the point is that we need to focus on what is helpful over there. What is helpful in drawing us towards the Lord, in drawing others towards the Lord.
So, this proper intelligence means to see things in their proper perspective. Sometimes we can use philosophy and justify seeing things from an unhealthy, unhelpful or even harmful perspective. Now, how can a philosophical perspective be harmful? Yes, if that philosophical perspective makes us heartless, it makes us unhelpful in our actions.
Then that is not good. For example, say if in our neighborhood, a flood has occurred and we are safe because maybe we have wealth or we have a secure home, but others are in trouble. So, at that time, if we think, oh, everybody is suffering their own karma, let them suffer.
No, we should see that. Okay, if I have some facility, if I have some safety, everybody else is in distress, they’re all parts of God and this is an opportunity for me to do some service. So, the same situation can be seen from different perspectives and it requires intelligence to understand which is the proper perspective.
So, broadly speaking, which is the proper perspective? It is that which inspires us to do our dharma, to ultimately our dharma is not just our family responsibility or national responsibility, it is that ultimately it is to serve Krishna. It inspires us to serve Krishna, it inspires us to bring others closer to Krishna. When that is the focus, then that is what Krishna talks in that same chapter about buddhi, he talks about buddhi, he talks about I believe in 10.3 and 4. But then in that same chapter, he talks later about that’s in 10.10. So, for us, we don’t just want buddhi, buddhi yoga means, buddhi yoga is a compound word, it can be understood different ways, but one way to understand is buddhi to do yoga.
That in this, yoga means connection. So, in this situation, how can I make a helpful connection with Krishna? How can I make a helpful connection with this person so that I can come closer to Krishna? So, Krishna says the buddhi to do yoga. So, yoga for us means the connection with the Lord, but yoga can broadly mean connection or harmony.
So, how can I maintain harmony in this situation? So, if say, we may be worshipping Krishna, but if we go to a temple of the devatas or if we’re invited to a temple of the devatas, or where maybe there’s some festival and they’re inviting us to do kirtans. Now, at that time, if we in the temple of the devatas start talking about how worshipping devatas is less intelligent, and you should always be worshipping Krishna, then that will not be buddhi that will lead to yoga. That is buddhi which will lead to vyoga.
Vyoga means separation, not union. People will become alienated from us. People start thinking, no, if you’re coming to this devata’s temple, instead of glorifying the devata, you’re minimizing the devata over there.
That is not appropriate. So, there is a time when we can talk about a philosophy, but if we are invited to a devata temple, just do kirtan. Maybe speak something general about vedic wisdom, talk about atma gyan, talk about the importance of sanatana dharma, the universality.
We can talk about that which will inspire people to come closer to the Lord, to come closer to the Lord in various ways, whatever it might be. So, even if I’m invited to speak, I speak about how Ganesha, what are the ways in which we can serve Ganesha? What are the ways in which we can glorify Ganesha? Actually, Ganesha wrote the Mahabharata. He took his own tooth and he used that as a pen to write the Mahabharata, and in the Mahabharata is the Bhagavad Gita.
So, Ganesha put so much effort to write the Bhagavad Gita for us. So, by reading the Bhagavad Gita, we’ll actually be serving Lord Ganesha. Any author, when they write a book, or even a transcriber, they transcribe a book, then they want that book to be read and they’ll be grateful if you read the book.
So, instead of criticizing the worship of Ganesha, we see how that can connect. This is the buddhi yoga. So, basically for every one of us, going back to the starting point, why did Lord Ram accept as karma, as destiny, when Kaikeyi sent him away? And why did he not accept as destiny when Sita was abducted? That is because the focus is not on destiny.
There’s destiny. You can see destiny as one offering us one more darshan, that past karma and destiny. This is what offers one more way of looking at things.
But that is not the only way of looking at things. So, we need to say, okay, what is the practical way of looking at things right now? Is that the only constructive way? Yes, maybe yes, maybe not. It depends.
So, it is not the only darshan. So, sometimes things go wrong despite our best efforts. And instead of simply thinking, oh, life is all chaotic, nothing ever works right.
We see, yeah, there is something called destiny. And sometimes things work according to destiny. Let me understand that.
Let me accept that and move ahead in my life. So, when we have this attitude, what happens is we can always be constructive in the way we work. I can give one more example.
Actually, Prabhupada was told about the Ratha Yatra in London. The first Ratha Yatra was done in San Francisco. The second was done in London.
The second Ratha Yatra was done in London. At that time, the devotees, they decided to make a bigger cart, a huge cart. But they did not expand the wheels proportionately.
And then the Ratha went for some distance and the whole Ratha collapsed. It was a disaster. It was a PR nightmare.
It was a debacle. The devotees were dejected. And they wrote to Prabhupada saying, Prabhupada, was Krishna unhappy with us? Did the Ratha collapse because of our poor devotion? And Prabhupada replied, no, the Ratha collapsed because of your poor engineering.
Poor engineering, not poor devotion. So, the point is that we do not have to go towards the dhrushta explanation when the dhrushta explanation is sufficient. So, it is not that.
Now, this particular point about till now, I only talked about the present, the past karma, like when to look at the present situation and see, look in an immediate context. I mean, to look in a bigger context of past life. But this is a good point to end this session.
And tomorrow we’ll talk about how to see Krishna in our daily life. When to see Krishna’s role, when to see Krishna’s hand, and are there times when you should not be seeing Krishna’s hand? Now, what does Krishna consciousness actually mean? When Prabhupada said that the Ratha collapsed because of your poor engineering, not your poor devotion. So, was it that the devotees were seeing Krishna’s hand and Prabhupada was not seeing Krishna’s hand? So, Krishna consciousness means to see Krishna everywhere.
But does that mean we see Krishna as the cause of everything? Or the sole cause of everything? Did Krishna cause the Ratha to collapse? Or did gravity cause the Ratha to collapse? And when to look at gravity, when to look at Krishna? So, that we will discuss in tomorrow’s session. When we will try to see, we look at further the incident about how when Sita was abducted and what exactly happened at that time. And we will move forward to discuss how Lord Rama dealt with Ravana.
But let me summarize what we discussed today. So, we discussed broadly the topic of dealing with adversity. We want to deal with adversity in a way that is constructive.
But I discussed three points. First was the concept. Concept is that there are multiple perspectives available.
Multiple darshanas are available. The same situation can be seen in different perspectives. And then I explained this elaborately.
The second point I discussed was the context. Context means that which is the proper perspective. Prabhupada says intelligence means to see things in their proper perspective.
Proper perspective means because there is a hierarchy of perspectives. There are some perspectives which are helpful and some which may not only be unhelpful but they can even be harmful at that particular time. So, we need to know which perspective to see by.
And what is the proper perspective? It is the perspective that inspires us to do Dharma. And the last part was the contemplation that for us as devotees, the Dharma is to basically connect with Krishna. So, the buddhi, we don’t want just buddhi, we want buddhi to do yoga.
So, therefore, we focus on, okay, whatever has happened, how can I see, how can I increase my desire to serve Krishna? How can I, how can I go closer to Krishna in this situation? So, you focus on that, then you will be able to see the right perspective. So, when Lord Ram, when Kaikeyi was abducted, sorry, when Kaikeyi did something wrong, he saw that my Dharma is to take care of my family, to make sure that family is united and therefore I will not hit back at Kaikeyi. And he is focused on, okay, some past karma is happening.
And for Kaikeyi, the one-time event and Lord Ram’s soft-heartedness, his maturity, that’s what eventually transformed her heart. And but with respect to Ravan, he did it, not he had done it once to Sita, but he had done it to many, many women before and he had no intention to change himself. Then for that, Lord Ram said, my Dharma is to protect Sita.
If protecting Sita means that I have to fight with Ravan, I will do that also. So, basically, if we look at these three things, what is the concept? That’s philosophy offers us multiple perspectives. And then the context is, which is the proper perspective for me in this situation? And the contemplation is, how can I serve Krishna? When Prabhupada said, the best prayer that you can offer to Krishna is, Krishna, how can I serve you? When we chant Hare Krishna, it is not just a ritual.
What we are trying to do is we are praying to Krishna, please give me the vision by which I can serve you, by which I can see an opportunity to come closer to you in this particular situation. Thank you very much. Hare Krishna.
Are there any questions or comments? Thank you so much, Babaji. This is a very wonderful explanation that how we should not blame the karma, destiny, philosophy, but try to see the correct perspective in which the things fall. So, very, very nicely explained.
I’ll just request devotees to unmute themselves and they can ask the question. So, Kaushik Prabhu, raise your hand. Hare Krishna, Prabhuji.
Thank you so much for the class. So, yesterday in the temple, we were discussing that tomorrow it’s going to be your class. And when I was talking about this, a 14 years old girl, she was raising this question to me.
So, I don’t know how to answer. You will be the right person to answer this question. She was asking me like, why did Lord Ram left Sita when she was having a baby? So, when I was, I tried to answer her.
I was telling that it is his dharma as a king that he has to do. And she was asking me this question like, as a husband dharma, he is supposed to protect his wife, but why did he didn’t do that? So, I don’t know how to answer this question. So, I thought to ask you, Prabhuji.
Yes, this question will require a whole class, but I’ll try to answer as briefly as I can. Yes. So, certainly.
So, Ram’s abandoning Sita. I prefer the word abandonment rather than exile. Because while he sent her to, he sent Sita away or he abandoned Sita, it was not exactly exile the way it was for himself when Ram went to the forest.
It was basically, he was in Valmiki, Sita was in Valmiki’s ashram and Valmiki’s ashram was more or less near Ram’s kingdom. So, he was indirectly under Ram’s care and shelter only. But let’s come to it.
So, the first point is we need to acknowledge that it is unfair that for a man, for a husband to abandon his wife, especially when she is faultless and when he’s pregnant, it is undoubtedly unfair. There is no point in trying to defend that. So, try to say that it is not.
But then if it is wrong, then why would the Lord do it? Is the Lord wrong in doing it? So, that is where, see when the dhrishta does not make any sense, we need to move towards the dhrishta. We need to move towards some bigger exclusion, some bigger perspective or a different perspective. So, let’s look at it from various perspectives.
You pointed towards one particular perspective. But what are the various perspectives possible? So, one is people say that it was his reputation that was important. And as a king, he has to have a flawless reputation.
And if it is shown that he’s attached to his wife, then people will think that, okay, the king is attached, we all will become attached also. But if it is only reputation, if reputation has been the only consideration, then why did he not remarry? Why did he not remarry? Not only that, he kept a golden effigy of Sita during her sacrifice, during when later he performs sacrifices. Many sacrifices require a husband and wife to be together.
And when the wife is not there, then he did not see any other wife, he got and kept her. So, it was kept her effigy. So, normally in a sacrifice, if a person is kept or a person is brought, it is understood that the sacrifice is pure.
So, therefore, the person who is brought there is also considered pure. So, it was not that Lord Ram didn’t believe the accusations. That is clear.
It was not that he thought that, oh, this person accused me, accused me to be attached to my wife, the wife is impure and abandoned. That was not the reason. Now, then what is the reason? So, basically, there are two main principles over here.
The first is when things do not make from this life perspective, we have to look from a bigger perspective. So, there is in the Ramayana only a story described that there was once a demon who was terrorizing the Devatas. And when he was terrorizing the Devatas, the Devatas finally called Vishnu and Vishnu got the better of this demon, was about to kill him.
But that demon ran away and took shelter of Bhrigu Muni. He went to Bhrigu Muni’s ashram. Bhrigu Muni was not there.
So, Bhrigu Muni’s wife was there. And Lord Vishnu came over there and told, you know, he’s a terrible demon. We need to kill him.
And there’s only a particular time that demon had various benedictions that he cannot be, he has to be killed in this time duration only. His wife said that, no, he has come under my shelter. I will not let him be harmed.
So, Vishnu said, no, he is a danger to the whole universe. He has to be killed right now. So, when she said, no, I will not let him be killed.
So, then Lord Vishnu, he decided that he has to kill the demon. So, in a completely painless way, he silenced his wife. So, basically, she said that you will have to go over my dead body only if you want to reach me.
So, Lord Vishnu, what he did was, he just, you know, without attacking her with any weapons, but he silenced her, he stopped her. She got liberated by Lord Vishnu’s actions. And then Lord Vishnu freed the world from that particular demon.
And then Bhrigu Muni came back and he said, what have you done, Vishnu? If you’ve done this to me, I curse you. Just as I am separated from your wife, you will, I am separated from my wife, you will be separated from your wife. So, now that curse got enacted over here.
So, now the Lord does not have to accept any curse, but the Lord respects the Brahmins. And therefore, he honored that curse. So, now we could say that Bhrigu Muni’s wife, had she done something wrong? She was only thinking that, okay, somebody’s come to my shelter, I’m protecting.
But the result was wrong. It’s a whole unfortunate situation. So, from the context perspective, the previous life sentence also doesn’t make sense.
Why exactly would she suddenly, she didn’t even know this person, offering him protection and risking her life for that purpose. And when he told, she told him that even still, she didn’t know. So, one of the famous fiction writer, who says that the only difference between, there is a difference between facts, between reality, life and fiction.
The main difference between life and fiction is that fiction has to make sense. That means life many times does not make sense, unfortunately. So, basically, this was Bhrigu’s curse.
It became enacted in this life, enacted through the Ram-Sita separation. So, that’s the explanation. So, it is not that Sita was condemned by Ram.
So, that is more, another perspective here is the devotional perspective. See, devotional perspective means what? That instead of seeing that Ram sent Sita away, you consider the whole mood. Okay, let’s put one more perspective over here.
It is the selflessness perspective and I’ll, let’s look at the devotional perspective, I’ll explain it. See, selflessness perspective is what? Right in the beginning of the Ramayana, before the main drama happens, Dashrath and Ram. What happens is Dashrath sends Ram to exile.
Now, in today’s world, from today’s morality, we can consider that why should even Ram accept the exile? Why should Dashrath have to even say, do that? Okay, he may have given a promise to his wife, but his wife is actually abusing such a promise. She is taking the promise and ripping his family apart. He could have come up with some excuse and not done that.
Now, when Dashrath sent Ram away, was Dashrath doing an injustice to Ram? Well, yes. Did Dashrath want to do that injustice? No. But based in that cultural context, Dashrath had to honor his word.
So, that same spirit actually applies to Ram and Sita at the end of the Ramayana. No, it is not that Ram is a victimizer and Sita is a victim. Dashrath is not a victimizer and Ram is not a victim.
It is Ram’s greatness of character that Dashrath, when Dashrath told him to go away, Ram went away. Dashrath needed him to go away, Ram never told him, but Ram went away. So, similarly, Sita is not a victim.
If you think of, it is Sita’s greatness of character that Sita understood, although Sita’s heart broke when Lord Ram sent her away. But did she become resentful? No, she did not. And how do we know that she did not? She did not poison her children’s minds against Ram.
Normally, whenever there is any kind of separation or any kind of bitterness between husband and wife, and say there is a separation, then often each of the party who has custody, quite often they poison the mind of the child against the other party. So, Sita never did that. So, it is a different culture.
In that culture, there were certain values, and those values, one of the specific reasoning, just as, does Dashrath really have to honor that word that he has given to Sita? Does Ram really have to be concerned about the perception that he is attached? Well, in that particular cultural context, that was important for Ram, and Sita understood it. She accepted it as well. Unless he was heartbroken, but she accepted it.
The principle there is the common value is the value of selflessness. That when some higher cause is there, we need to give up something which is immediately important for us. So, that’s what Lord Ram has done over there.
So, that’s the perspective of selflessness. The whole Ramayana is a mood of sacrifice, mood of putting, the right thing to do is often to put a higher cause below some immediate comfort or pleasure. And the last point is a devotional perspective is that between Ram and Sita, there is love in separation.
That actually in life, like I said, one of the themes of the Ramayana is to demonstrate how to face adversity, how Lord Ram faces adversity gracefully. Now, there are different kinds of adversities that can come in our life. But say some people whom we love, they hurt us.
Some people who we don’t know, they hurt us. There are different ways in which you can be hurt. But probably the most devotionally devastating form of hurt is when God himself seems to hurt us.
That generally when we are hurt, we go to God. But when God himself hurts us, where do we go? Like the Gopis of Vrindavan, they give up everything for Krishna. And then Krishna gives them up and goes away.
And they have every reason to give up Krishna. And yet they don’t. And that makes them glorious.
That makes them the greatest of all devotees. Now, of course, Krishna never gives up the Gopis. Krishna enters deeper into the heart of the Gopis.
And Krishna becomes an ever-living presence over there. So similarly, when Lord Ram gives Sita up, there Sita has every reason to reject Ram. But Sita does not reject Ram.
And that is a testament to Sita’s supreme devotion. That sometimes even when a person is rejected by God, they don’t reject God. That now this is an extreme devotional lesson.
And only Sita can teach such a lesson. Nobody else can actually teach such a lesson. So that if we look at the Ramayan tradition, what are the values that have been inspired by it? Is it that a family member, smallest suspicion, abandoned them? That is not the value that has been taken by the tradition.
The value is that, you know, just as say Ram followed his father, that Lakshman followed Ram, this is Bharat. And Ram were fighting not to grab succession, but to give the succession to others. So the values that have been emphasized in the tradition are the values which we need to emphasize.
Sometimes when the Lord teaches something, the Lord and the associates may teach through some extreme examples. So the last point I’ll conclude. Now, there are often extreme examples in scripture.
So the purpose, the extreme examples mean, say, Ajamil chanted one name of Narayan and he was saved from all sin. Or Bharat got attached to one deer and because of that whole lifetime of renunciation was undone and yet to take life as an animal. So extreme examples, that is not meant to standardize the extreme.
So it is not that we all think that, oh, we all just will chant one name of Narayan, we’ll all bid the world. No, Parikshit Maharaj himself doesn’t think like that. Parikshit Maharaj doesn’t say, okay, seven days, why should I hear the Bhagavatam? When the poisonous word comes, that time I’ll chant Narayan.
Shukadeva Goswami will shut up, I don’t need to hear Bhagavatam. He doesn’t say that. So extreme examples, the purpose is not to standardize the extreme.
It is to emphasize the standard through an extreme example, through an unforgettable extreme example. So the extreme example is not to be replicated. So Ram sending Sita away is not something that is to be replicated.
Just as there are many things in the Ramayana which are not to be replicated. Just as, say, Sita’s going with Ram to the forest is something which is to be replicated. But Ram’s going with, sorry, Lakshman’s going with Ram is not necessary to be replicated.
That Lakshman had a duty towards Urmila and Urmila is an extraordinary soul because of whom Lakshman was able to go. But that is not a normal standard for everyone. So basically, to summarize, that at first glance, it is undeniably unfair.
And then why would Lord Ram do something unfair? So in the immediate context when something seems unfair, we look at bigger context. So the bigger contexts are threefold. There’s a previous life curse which is being enacted over here.
And the Ramayana is demonstrating selflessness and everybody has to do great sacrifice to demonstrate dedication to higher virtue. Just as Ram did in his relationship with Ashrath and similarly Sita does in relationship with Ram. And similarly, lastly, from a devotional perspective, it is that there is the ultimate rejection is rejection by the Lord and the greatest devotee will not reject the Lord even when the Lord seems to have rejected them.
And the conclusion that these are extreme examples in scripture, they are not meant to standardize the extreme. It is meant to just teach a standard principle, but through an unforgettable example. Okay, any other questions? Yes, Mohini.
Thank you, Prabhuji. Thank you so much. Thank you.
Hare Krishna. Hare Krishna, Prabhuji. Thank you so much for the wonderful class.
Prabhuji, in one of the lectures on Ramayana, I heard that Darshad was really upset with Bharat and on his last breath, he told Vashishtha Muni that Bharat shouldn’t come near him. He can’t offer his last rites to Darshad. So I just want to understand how do you deal with such a situation, Prabhuji? Well, this is not said in the Valmiki Ramayana, so I don’t think that should be taken very literally because Darshad was definitely upset with Kaikeyi and in fact, he told her that you have demanded this from me and I am bound to give it to you.
But after this, I reject you as my wife. I want nothing to do with you. But whether his anger extended to that Bharat is open to question because Bharat was not actively involved in the conspiracy and Bharat was away from it at that time.
So I would suggest that this is a dramatic retelling which is not in harmony with the original text and that’s why I think it has to be taken with a little bit of suspicion, not just like a pinch of salt, maybe a bucket load of salt. So now, but the other question is of, is your bigger question, how to deal with such situation means, how to deal with the bitterness or what are you trying to ask? Yes, when like when someone close to you, I mean you are being misunderstood, how do you, you feel very hurt. So how do you deal with that? Well, yes, that’s a good question.
I think there are, what Bharat does is, Bharat comes back to the kingdom. So his, he is considered guilty by association. So he is aghast to hear this.
So he is completely shocked. So how does he actually win back the trust of the citizens after this? So when falsely accused, broadly speaking, there is three C’s. First is condemnation.
He unequivocally condemns country. He doesn’t hesitate. He says, you cannot be my mother.
The woman whom I know as my mother, whom I worship, would never have done anything like this. You must be the goddess of destruction, Mahakali, entered into our family to destroy our entire dynasty. You are not my mother.
He unambiguously, not just privately, he publicly also distances himself from it. Then he offers clarification, the condemnation of the wronged word. If we are associating something wrong with me, clarification to all the stakeholders, all the people who are hurt over here.
So again and again, Bharat has to assure, he has to assure Vasishtha Muni, he has to assure Bharatwaj Muni, he has to assure the courtiers that he has no desire for the kingdom. And we can say words are cheap. Anybody can say anything.
But then the last part is correction. So Bharat goes to the forest and he takes all the representatives or the representatives of the various branches of the citizens with him to add weight to his appeal as well as to demonstrate the earnestness of his request. So when Lord Ram refuses to come back, then he begs and he has made a plan B. He doesn’t come back and say, okay, Ram refused, what can I do? I’ll be the king.
He has already thought of and taken as a plan B with him that he has Ram’s padukas and he uses those padukas and places them on the throne and he sits below the throne. So the position in the court reveals the disposition in his heart. So basically, when as appropriate, we do these three things, correction of the wrong, condemnation of the wrongdoer, clarification with all the concerned people, the stakeholders, and we do our part to correct the wrong.
Then the false accusation, that will gradually be dissipated. Some people may still hold on to that belief, but most reasonable people will be ready to listen to reason. Okay.
The last question. Thank you so much, Prabhuji. Prabhuji, just one clarification on the previous answer on Lord Ram abandoning Mother Sita.
So this particular curse, which is from the past life, can we not consider that as the first time when Mother Sita was taken away, that at that point of time, the curse came into effect? Like, how do we know this is the after effect of that curse or if the previous one was from the curse? Well, there is no description that Bhrigu Muni was reunited with his wife, as far as I have seen. So maybe he was in a future life or maybe in another kalpa. But the point is that Bhrigu Muni got angry, even if the Lord revived him.
Once a curse is, there are different renditions of the story, different places. But even if he is revived, the point is that Bhrigu Muni was upset and he cursed. And that curse led to separation.
So when he cursed, he thought that his wife is dead. So therefore, he cursed that this will be a permanent separation. It’s not a temporary separation.
So when the abduction was there, it was a permanent separation. So that’s how, that is generally associated with that. Now, yes, it could be associated with this also.
But I don’t think that’s the, that’s the, that’s one of the ghana karmanogati, we say, that which past action which will lead to which present action, that is difficult to understand. But in general, when the separation is much more painful, it’s a cloud of suspicion, it’s much more long lasting. That’s, that’s a far more severe curse which leads to that.
Okay. Okay. Okay.
Thank you, Prof. And there’s one more question which some devotees have requested to be asked. We have often seen this in the English literature, that, you know, they put, when it comes to Sanskrit and the pronunciation, there’s a lot of emphasis put in the names of the Lord that we are chanting. But then in English, like Arjun becomes Arjuna, Ramayana becomes Ramayana.
So that A is put at the end. So this is the question is like, why do we do that? And does it bring down the effect in any way when we are trying to address the Lord or any particular personality? Well, good question. I’d say two different things.
I’ll talk about from a devotional perspective as well as from a historical perspective. Now, from the grammatically grammatical perspective, there might be one particular pronunciation. But grammar is not necessarily the supreme truth.
From a grammatical, from a devotional perspective, there are well-known words that Murukobati, like we say, Om Vishnave Namaha. So it’s not Om Krishnave Namaha. It’s Om Krishnaya Namaha.
So there’s a verse in the Purana that says that So from a devotional perspective, the Lord sees the bhav, the emotion. And that’s important to understand. Don’t get caught in technicalities.
Now, from a historical perspective, there is always this debate. When we study language study, those who study languages called linguists, linguistic study of linguists. So is their job prescriptive or is their job descriptive? That means, is their job to describe this is how the word is used.
This is how the word is pronounced. This is how the language is used or is it described. This is how people use it.
Well, there is always a tension between both of them. Now, we could say our grammar rules. Some of us study Pranayama Vati or some other grammar book.
They say this is the way this grammar is written. Don’t end a sentence. Don’t use a split infinitive or don’t end a sentence with two or something like that.
So many times those rules are violated in actual usage. And sometimes what is considered wrong by grammar today will become so widespread that it will be accepted by grammar tomorrow. So, okay, Vishnaya, Vishnaya and Vishnavesa, not Krishnaya, Vishnaya.
Thank you for that reference. So, there is in the comment, the words also is mentioned. So, if you want, you can look at it.
But if you consider languages that are too prescriptive, too much, basically, they become extinct. Because if the language as the rules become very different from the way common people speak, basically, common people stop speaking that language. Now, that is what happened to Latin, for example.
Latin was such an influential language. At one time, it was considered a sacred language in which many of the great wisdom of the past was given, especially in Europe. Now, if it is, if a language becomes too descriptive, there’s a problem that it just becomes disconnected from the way people speak.
Sorry, if it’s too prescriptive. Now, if it is too descriptive, then it becomes chaos. That, okay, these people use this word this way, these people use this word that way, these people use that word that way, and that’s all.
Then nobody understands what is being spoken. If any word can mean anything depending on how who uses it, then the language will become chaotic. So, English is itself a good example of a language that has survived and thrived for many hundreds of years, and has survived because it has had this balance between prescriptive and descriptive.
So, it has been quite open to taking in words from different languages, like in English, it’s a difference of tomatoes and tomatoes, potatoes and potatoes, whatever. That is a minor pronunciation differences. There’s British English, there’s American English, there’s an Australian English, there’s Indian English.
There’s some variants, but it’s English. So, Sanskrit is now thankfully becoming, there’s a reawakening in Sanskrit. So, Sanskrit never became extinct.
Sanskrit was still always spoken and generated and respected, but Sanskrit was not anyway widely used. But now, thank is to the revival and the rejuvenation of Indian spirituality, Sanskrit is becoming more and more an object of interest and study, and even to some extent, conversation for people. So, we, especially in the medieval times, 12th, 13th, and 14th, 15th, 16th centuries, what happened is Sanskrit became very ornate, very complicated rules of grammar, very complicated compositions, word formations, and all that.
And because of that, Sanskrit became more and more distanced. Sanskrit was always the language of the wise people, of the Brahmins, but Sanskrit became further and further away from the common masses. And that’s why we see that even the Bhakti tradition, most of its most significant literature are, most of its most widely read literature, not necessarily significant.
The Valmiki Ramayana is the most significant, it’s the original Ramayana, but the Ramcharitmanas, the Kamba Ramayana, and others have been retold and cherished much more. So, we don’t want Sanskrit to go towards the direction of Latin, where we become so prescriptive that it becomes extinct. So, yes, I think that this kind of variation between Ramayana and Ramayana, or Arjuna and Arjuna, if we make too much of an issue of it, we are going so much in the direction of prescriptive that we will end up endangering the, or at least substantially limiting the rise in the spread of Sanskrit.
And we may, in the name of protecting the language, we may end up reduce it to just an extinct language, a dead language that was spoken in the past, like has happened to Latin. So, thank you very much. We’ll continue tomorrow and we’ll discuss about how to see Krishna and Krishna, that Buddhi Yoga, what does it mean and how to apply it in our lives.
We’ll discuss in tomorrow’s session. Thank you, Prabhu, Hare Krishna. Thank you, dear devotees.
Jai Bhila Prabhupada. Thank you. Thank you, Hare Krishna.