The Ramayana Blog – I (Lakshmana’s ego – the root cause)

We all heard stories about Rama’s exile to the forest. Fourteen long years, they say, passed by in a quick kaleidoscope of events. While Rama should have spent this time in peace with nature and soaked in the essence of life – he was compelled to spend the time finding his abducted wife.

We even hear jokes where people say that Rama was unable to protect his wife from being abducted – how will he save his billion disciples. And I dare say there is an element of truth in this. Perhaps this is the reason why we have more Krishna temples than Rama … but that’s a story for some other blog. For now, we know that Rama could neither refuse his wife’s craving to own a certain musk deer and his inability to protect her from getting abducted once he started running after the deer. But is that really all that the Ramayana is about?

The truths/myths/stories of both Mahabharata and Ramayana are about teaching people lessons. In today’s context it matters less where or whether Rama (or his temple) existed. What matters is the lessons that we learnt and continue to learn from the teachings of this epic saga. The true temple is always inside the mind and it’s very personal. But I think I should stop digressing and return to the topic.

I try to analyse one aspect of the Ramayana – how immaturity leads to tragedy, and the learning that comes forth. My villain, for this blog, is Lakshmana. It is true that history is written by the winners – for in the versions of Ramayana that we know, Lakshmana was this dutiful brother who was willing to lay down his life for the sake of his elder brother. Well that is also true – because in reality there are no villains and heroes. There is only choice. Small choices of how we use our powers shapes the destinies that we are subjected to endure. The choice of which bend of the road we take decides the destination where the road takes us.

Ravana was arguably as great or greater King than Rama himself. While Rama was in the forest, he was just a king in exile and Ravana was still a king. Soorpanakha, the sister of Ravana, was a princess in her own rights. While sauntering in the forest, her gaze fell on Lakshmana – a handsome lad with a princely demeanour. Soorpanakha, the princess, so used to getting what she demanded, now desired Lakshmana himself – and went on to profess her feelings for him. As things turned out, our Lakshmana was not impressed by her and he refused. Being sister of the greatest king of the era – Soorpanakha was not used to hearing no, and she persisted in her attempt to woo Lakshmana.

Lakshmana has many choices then. To marry her and befriend a kingdom, or to politely but firmly refuse her advances. Maybe that would have been that. Maybe Lakshmana could even have run away. But no!! Our immature Lakshmana chooses to take out his bow and arrow and cut off Soorpanakha’s nose and ears!! For a young lady of marriageable age of that era, this meant she would never find a suitable groom. In the entire Ramayana, after that incident, Soorpanakha is seldom mentioned or seen. She must have ceased to even feel like a princess and therefore faded away into obscurity. Lakshmana’s foolish and immature decision had laid the foundation stone of the Ramayana as we know it today.

Which brother can hear of someone chopping off his sister’s nose and ears, and remain unmoved - and Ravana was king and one of the most learned names of that era. He had to make Lakshmana repay. Whether he abducted Sita thinking that Sita was Lakshmana’s consort or out of sheer rage is not known. But this is for sure that he would not have bothered with Rama or Sita had Soorpanakha’s nose and ears not been chopped.

Love has been spurned many times in history, and it is not necessary that every love professed must meet with an equal positive response. There are cases of obsession and punishment – but probably no reaction as violent as what Lakshmana had meted out to Soorpanakha.

• ·         That was an immature act showing total disdain for the fact that Soorpanakha was a lady
• ·         The act was foolish. Lakshmana chose to react without ever trying to find out who he was getting up against.
• ·         That was an impulsive action because Lakshmana had many other ways to prove his manhood and superiority.

History, and the popular version of the Ramayana, may choose to bypass or ignore this key turning point of the Ramayana – however, in the temple in our heads, many shall continue to think and form their own conclusions … as I have made mine. Life has never been black and white – there are many shades of grey – and then there is colour which makes everything so beautiful. Lakshmana, immature as he was, chose black. Can we credit (or discredit) much of the Ramayana saga to Lakshmana, just we can credit (or discredit) Draupadi for igniting the Mahabharata? (The Kurukshetra Trigger)

How to fight depression ... my unique method. Read and get surprised !!

I really admire this Arnab Goswami fellow and his channel... allow me to explain why.

I was having trouble being myself tonight - and I knew sleep would elude me at bedtime. Today was one of those days when life’s responses seemed to have been designed to stack up against my mood. All and sundry were against me. Office was bad. Travels were filled with traffic. And when I reached home, the entire family seemed anti-me. Everyone at home seemed to be shouting. I had to hide behind the closed doors of my study.

Then respite came in the form of of dinner-time and I got temporary control of the remote. I went straight for republic channel and right into the much touted Arnab Goswami debate.

Boy ... what noise, what commotion, even screeching garnished with a dash of bellowing … everyone was shouting at each other while Arnab playing with the volume levels of guests to make a certain faction seem louder.

In Arnab's channel, there is no truth or canard ... either you are with Arnab (your mic gets a louder volume) or he is lock stock and barrel against you. Your volume is reduced... and you are at the butt end of his judgement. I could endure fifteen minutes of incessant perplexity interluded by Arnab’s decrees - designed in a way that only his judgements are deciphered while rest of the show remains obfuscated in an addle of sheer cacophony !!

Finally, my dinner was over. My family had long left the living room. I now switched off the TV.  

SILENCE. At last !!!

My life seemed so very peaceful. My family's noise from the other room was now dulcet tunes to my ears. I had found my peace with the world again.

I can go off to sleep!! 

Thanks to Arnab's (whichever channel he uses). 

Here's my mantra: Whenever sleepless and depressed, switch on the Arnab-debate for 15-20 minutes. Once this is switched off, you will realise there is so much peace in the real world - and your life will be back on track!!!

Zzzzzzzz !!

(Image link from mid-day ... the only image depicting Arnab in his debating avatar)

Mirror Mode

My response to a friend who stereotyped me as a Type-C friend ... going on to explain why I am not a close friend etc etc. I am quite amused at the notion that people even do such things. Here's my response. 

“

I am, in fact, a mirror.

What I have inside me, my feelings, my emotions, my everything ... these are sacred to me and like my religious books, I keep them in a proper sacred place at home - away from public consumption and away from getting sullied or hurt by public comments (least of all via Facebook, WhatsApp, MMS and text messages)

My mode of operation is to be a perfect mirror that reflects most of what comes my way. Different people perceive me differently and have different things to say about me - they are actually discussing some aspect of themselves. This Mirror-Mode is my failsafe against so many kinds of people that touch my life in so many different ways. And no - I refuse to typecast people into categories. I respect everyone's individuality - irrespective of whether I agree with them or not.

More often than not ... “Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear”

”

Picture was downloaded from www.publicdomainpictures.net via google images as "royalty free for non commercial use" 

This "State-of-the-mind" thing ... part 2

Link to my earlier blog: "This state-of-the-mind thing - part 1"

Comfort Zone is a wonderful thing. It is home to us – and if the home is as we want it to be, why should anyone venture outside at all?

We know of management stories about people refusing to move out of their comfort zones. I think all of us also create an emotional comfort zone where we like to stay. This much of “happiness” … mixed with that much “melancholy” … add a wee bit of anger – and we have our perfect mood. That is where we always want to be. This position need not be the happiest one – it’s the one where we are most comfortable. Our Emotional Comfort Zone ! Let’s call it ECZ for short, and since we create it ourselves ... it is the perfect parking place for our train of emotions.

Put a sad-ECZ person in a very happy situation, and he finds his way to become sad again. Put a happy-ECZ person in the gutter and he will end up seeing how the dirty water hits itself upon the rocks and creates coloured bubbles … find optimism … and finally he will find a reason to be happy in the gutter. Happiness is not a result of what is happening around us. It is a sub-conscious choice of our favourite ECZ … where we want to be.

Sub-conscious?? Well … maybe – till we realize the truth in the cliché … ‘happiness is a thing of the mind’

The depression patient in my earlier blog became well with a pill. That was temporary – because once the effects wore out, he would be back into his depressive shell. If a constant dose of pills is given to him, he will slowly learn to wear out its effects till the dosage needs to be increased to make him happy. His tendency would always be to go back to his ECZ. More often than not – the choice of friends we make and the company we keep is motivated by who will help us remain in our ECZ.

So how do we break out of our ECZ?

Honestly, I know not. I am trying to understand where my ECZ lies and trying to position myself differently. Maybe that will work. I do find that I am very less “sad” and more “happy” with the simple realization that it’s all about the chemicals in my mind and the ECZ that I have chosen for myself. A start – if I may say so.

I have decided to be more vocal about my ECZ and ask friends and acquaintances where they think my ECZ lies – and try to work on that. And once I know where my ECZ lies, I can probably evaluate my actions in a more unbiased way and break the jinx.

Wish me luck !!

The Mahabharata Blog - II (The Kurukshetra Trigger)

Link to "The Mahabharata Blog - 1 (Karna's Mistake)

The Mahabharata drama, if it happened, happened between people – and the dynamics of relationships were similar then as it is now. This is the reason why this centuries old epic has relevance even in today’s scenario – and the lessons learnt from the Mahabharata apply even to his date ! The Mahabharata centres around small things that we all know and acknowledge – but seldom practice in real life.

At a certain stage in the Mahabharata, the Pandavas and the Kauravas had achieved peace. Pandavas moved to Indrapastha and Kauravas got Hastinapur. Both sides accepted this – and the Pandavas built a great palace for themselves. It was as if finally, the cousins could live in peace. Then why did this escalate into a war again?? What made Duryodhana decide that he would not part with even an inch of land for the Pandavas? How did peace transform into war and what was the underlying reason for that?

We are told by conventional writers that Duryodhana was a greedy one and his greed fuelled the situation back to a warlike situation. But then why did he accept and yield Indraprastha to the Pandavas in the first place? Something here does not seem to add up. Everyone is a mix of good and bad … surely something must have ignited Duryodhana’s dark side to an extent that he went back on all earlier treaties and pacts that were made. What was this?

Let us go back to the time when the Pandavas had built Indraprastha and invited Duryodhana to visit their palace. Now, here was a king who felt he had willingly “given” a part of his kingdom to his cousins – now visiting them from a position of strength and expecting to be received royally. But what happened? It was strange that the people receiving him did not have the foresight to see what was to come…

 

Duryodhana entered the palace and saw a pool of water in the path. He carefully avoided that pool – only to learn that this was actually not a pool, but an illusion. At this stage, he appreciated the way this palace was constructed. The people with him were also in jest. All was well.

Next – Duryodhana saw another similar pool and started to walk over it, thinking that this was a similar illusion. None of the people accompanying him stopped or warned him at this stage – and he walked right into a real pool and got wet. This is against the way guests were supposed to be treated at that time. And more importantly, if the Pandavas had made such a palace – the least expected was to warn Duryodhana in advance. It turned out as if the whole set-up was pre-planned to make Duryodhana fall in the pool of water.

Even at this stage – all would have been well, had not another event accompanied Duryodhana’s fall into the pool of water … Draupadi laughed. And she laughed her heart out, making Duryodhana look like an absolute fool in front of all present. The Male Ego can take a lot … but when they are mocked by the Female in public – it is the final insult they can take. Males take it as a challenge to their manhood – and this was Duryodhana … the King who felt he had given a part of his kingdom away to ensure peace. Surely, this would be the last insult that Duryodhana would take !!

In the TV show, they tweaked this and showed that Duryodhana was warned by a maid before he fell into the water. However – Darupadi’s laugh is more insulting as it comes with a dialog “The son of a blind man is also blind”. Now which king will digest that meekly??

As Duryodhana left – he must have already made a decision to take back what he gave and avenge the insult. Thereby started the issue of calling Draupadi names and pointing out at the fact that she had five husbands. The issue of Vastra-Haran (disrobing) her in public stemmed from this need for revenge that Duryodhana had. And once the vastra-haran took place, the only recourse left was the war and we all know what happened.

Most issues in this world tend to arise from two manufacturing defects that we are made with. The male is infested with an ego that is much larger than his abilities … inviting situations where this ego will be dented and the male will lose his reasoning. The female is made flippant by nature – tending to take things more lightly and laughter is a natural end result of this flippance. This is naturally given to the two genders so that they attract each other. The same, if misused, can lead to Kurukshetra.

Kurukshetra started the moment Draupadi laughed and made Duryodhana look like a buffoon in front of people he considered inferior. A foolish thing that could have been avoided in many ways. The elders on the Pandava side should have advised Duryodhana and prevented him from falling into the water. At the very least – an unconditional apology should have been tendered to Duryodhana for what happened. Or did the Pandavas pre-plan all this to insult Duryodhana. History seldom records the dark side of winners or the brighter side of losers. I hold my views that there was good and bad in all involved.

Following up from my Mahabharata Blog-I, Duryodhana was sure he had a legitimate reason to seek revenge. Perhaps Karna had worked hard to broker the peace that was achieved by yielding Indraprastha. However, when he learnt of this insult to his friend by Draupadi, be needed to support his friend and remain neutral during the vastra haran. Result: Kurukshetra!!