Though every Indian religious tradition has its own reason for celebrating Diwali, mostly it is associated with the story of Lord Ram coming back to Ayodhya after defeating Ravan and is looked upon as the victory of good over evil. However lately, the authenticity of the popular version of this epic story and the morality of certain events described by Sant Tulasi Das in the 'Ram-Charit-Maanas' have become questionable and a matter of debate.
Instead of searching for the historical facts and its authenticity, let us examine the metaphorical meanings of certain events to draw some useful conclusions for our own advancement.
By carefully examining the nature of the two main characters of this larger-than-life story, Lord Ram could be considered a symbol of Gyan; full of wisdom, tolerance, patience, love, kindness, and sympathy along with a sense of morality - and Devi Sita, a symbol of Bhakti or devotion.
During the exile, after leaving the palace, they lived in forests without any luxuries or even simple household facilities. Though they did not have much, they seemed to be quite happy and comfortable for the most part of their exile; meeting ordinary people and enjoying the company of learned Rishi's and sages as well.
But then… one day Devi Sita saw ‘the golden deer’ and the problems started when she became obsessed with the desire to have it.
The ‘Golden deer’ is obviously a symbol of ‘Maya’. Lord Ram, ‘Gyana’ tried to convince Sita, the Bhakti, that the Golden deer is a mirage; it’s illusion and she should not get attached to it. Looking at it, enjoying and admiring its beauty would have been alright, but Devi Sita wanted to possess it. She eventually convinced Lord Ram to go after it and bring it to her.
For practical purposes, even today, this story could be related to the life of many spiritual seekers. When a Gyani Bhakta becomes obsessed with Maya, Gyana tries to constrain him by reminding that all Maya is transitory and its obsession may become a distraction and take him away from his aim to achieve the Moksha, the ‘Ultimate Freedom’. The desiring Bhakta tries to find logic to justify his desires; by reasoning that Bhakti does not mean living in isolation with no desires or comforts. That a Bhakta can be very rich and own everything he desires, live a luxurious life and still maintain his devotion and spirituality.
In fact, this logic is absolutely right. We can find many Gurus, Rishis, Avatars and highest spiritual icons such as Maharaj Janak, who lived a rich and luxurious lifestyle and some of them even ruled as kings. Undeniably, this ideology is true, but, if used as a justification for the excessive desires and wrong means to achieve them, it becomes a problem.
Lakshman was always guarding and protecting both; Lord Ram and Devi Sita with his watchful eyes. He drew a circle; a boundary line around Sita to protect her. And the moment Sita Ji crossed that ‘Laxman-Rekha’, she got kidnapped.
Contentment is an important part of Bhakti.
Desires and wants, and the means to fulfill them must remain within the ‘Lakshman-Rekha', the 'Maryada'.
Desires and wants, and the means to fulfill them must remain within the ‘Lakshman-Rekha', the 'Maryada'.
However, ‘Lakshman Rekha’ or 'Maryaada' does not mean just to control desires and attachments. It is actually the means; the ways how we try to achieve and fulfill our desires. Baba Avtar Singh Ji used to emphasize the virtues of honesty and truthfulness in how we live; how we earn and spend our money. In his discourses, he often used to say: “Do not lie, do not cheat anyone, earn your money with honest means. Do not try to harm anyone – even if they have done some wrong to you”.
I remember him and Bhai Sahib Amar Singh Ji Patiala quoting this verse from the Gurubani many times:
"हक़ पराया नानका उस सूअर, उस गाय"
“Haq paraaya Nanakaa, us soo-ar us gaaye”
Meaning: To take away what rightfully belongs to someone else, is like a Muslim eating pork, or a Hindu eating cow.
Unfortunately, we are hardly reminded anymore about the importance of keeping these codes of conduct, the Maryaada to make our spiritual journey smooth and to maintain our Bhakti in its pure form.
If excessive desires and attachments, and the ways to fulfill them are wrongfully justified with the Gyana, then the Gyana itself gets lost. When Lord Ram, persuaded and convinced by Sita, goes after the Golden deer, their happy and peaceful life in exile turns into chaos. Devi Sita is kidnapped and Lord Ram is also lost; wandering from forest to forest searching for her.
To be reunited - to bring Sita back, the golden Lanka had to be burnt and Ravan had to be defeated.
Without each other – just like Ram and Sita, Gyana and Bhakti cannot achieve Divine Bliss - ever happiness and Moksha; the ultimate freedom. They have to stay together in their purest forms.
To bring the Bhakti back, the golden Lanka, a symbol of Maya has to be burnt, and Ravan; the symbol of Ego has to be killed.
Happy Diwali To All
Happy Diwali To All
" Rajan Sachdeva "
Awesome ❤
ReplyDeleteRev Rajan Ji,
ReplyDeleteI do not know if you have ever come across the text: 'Lankavatara Sutra', which is an ancient Mahayana Buddhist text. It occurs as a discourse not between Lord Ram and Ravana, but interestingly Ravana and Lord Buddha. Here, Ravana is revealed in a totally different context from the classic ramayana portrayals of his character. In this text, Ravana is depicted as a hero in the highest spiritual sense due to his complete self realization. In this sutra and account, Ravana invites Lord Buddha into his palace and receives the highest instructions from Lord Buddha about the supreme truth. Here is a small excerpt from the discourse of Buddha to Ravana on the notion of Maya:
"Lord of Lanka, beings are appearances, they are like figures painted on the wall, they have no sensibility [or consciousness]. Lord of Lanka, all that is in the world is devoid of work and action because all things have no reality, and there is nothing heard, nothing hearing. Lord of Lanka, all that is in the world is like an image magically transformed. This is not comprehended by the philosophers and the ignorant. Lord of Lanka, he who thus sees things, is the one who sees truthfully. Those who see things otherwise walk in discrimination; as they depend on discrimination, they cling to dualism. It is like seeing one's own image reflected in a mirror, or one's own shadow in the water, or in the moonlight, or seeing one's shadow in the house, or hearing an echo in the valley. People grasping their own shadows of discrimination uphold the discrimination of dharma and adharma and, failing to carry out the abandonment of the dualism, they go on discriminating and never attain tranquility, By tranquility is meant oneness (ekagra), and oneness gives birth to the highest Samadhi, which is gained by entering into the womb of Tathagatahood, which is the realm of noble wisdom realized in one's inmost self."
Thank you for the insight into 'Lankavatara Sutra' which I never knew about.
DeleteIn the world of religions, I have found that many stories, especially about the famous characters or the founders of those religions are extremely similar. Many similar miraculous stories are told about Lord Ram, Lord Krishna, Lord Buddha, Jesus Christ, and Guru Nanak, and nowadays the same are being told about some Sufi saints as well. So, it’s no wonder that Ravan is mentioned in Buddhist texts also.
Secondly, the ideology presented here by Lord Buddha is exactly the same as the ideology of Non-Dualistic Advaita, Sankhya philosophy. Many scholars argue that Buddhism is basically the extension of the Sankhya school of philosophy. However, some Buddhists claim that the Sankhya is a copy of Buddhism. Who is right, is a matter of debate.
The same can be said about the 'Lankavatara Sutra'. Many questions can be raised - is it the same king Ravan as mentioned in Ramayana or a different one? If it is the same person, then did he meet Lord Buddha before fighting with Lord Rama?
We may never be able to find the truth about these historical or mythical figures and the authenticity of these stories.
However, I believe that the message is more important than the individuals. But, for most religious people - ‘who said it’- is more important than the message or ‘what is being said’. Perhaps, that is the reason that some writers, preachers or motivational speakers change the names of the characters of a story to send a ‘good message or a new ideology’ – so that people of the same faith can accept it more willingly.
I thank you again for your comments and the information, and it would be nice to see your inputs regularly in the future also - as you seem to be quite a knowledgeable and learned person.
And I also wish you had mentioned your name at least.