Monday, March 26, 2007

Ramayan vs Mahabharat

All along, I used to think that the Mahabharata is a much more interesting story than the Ramayana because it is so much more a developed plot.

More drama, more action. The villans have a streak of good, the good guys some bad qualities. Like the danaveera Karna,
Like Dharmaraj Yudhishtira who can gamble away his wife ..

God himself is so much more flamboyant as Krishna than as Rama.
Cuter, naughtier....
Varied relationships to different people. The darling baby of Yashoda .. Eternal sweetheart to Radha and the Gopika's .. Different even to his wives .. obedient and almost docile to Satyabhama .. the Lord of her heart to Rukmini ..
The best friend of Arjuna ... Philosopher and Guide to the Pandava's ....
a special friend to Draupadi.
So much variety, so much romance ..
Rama on the other hand (except for a couple of days when Kaikaie lost her composure) pretty much ruled the show. Obedient brothers, obedient wife, sages who respect him and shower boons and divine weapons ...
God he must have been bored !
And bored I certainly was.
Too much of Sattva is not good for us ordinary mortals I thought! Untill today when I saw the episode of Sabari once more.
Sabari's story is like fresh pure honey. A single taste - Sweetness.... Like a pitcher of pure milk, a single colour - White. A single emotion - Love.
Simple pure and intense.
How else can a story of half eaten fruit being offered to the Lord become immortal. Perhaps this is what He was referring to when he said
"patram pushpam phalam toyam yo me bhaktyA prayacchati / tad-aham bhakty-upahRtam aSnAmi prayatAtmanaH "

And then he teaches the "Ninefold path to devotion" to Sabari as follows:

1. Fellowship with saints
2. Fondness for legends of the Lord
3. Selfless service to the Guru's lotus feet
4. Hymns to the Lord's virtues with a guileless heart
5. Chanting the lords name with steadfast faith
6. Practice self-governanace and detachment
7. See the world as one with the lord and rever Saints higher than the Lord
8. Contentment with what one has and not find fault with others even in a dream
9. Simplicity and honesty in everything. Have faith in the lord with neither exultation nor depression


S said...

I still think mahabharatha is more complex .. for example, the way they say Sita and Rama had to go through a lot of hardships in the forest, but draupadi with her gang of husbands endured a lot more what with running around , escaping from plots of murder etc., etc.,
Rama's and Sita's 'ordeal' is more like a honeymoon

Avadooth said...

Hi anagha, i suppose it is the name of sri guru Dattas comapnions name.............

nice blogs...............

is it necessary for me to read all scripts and vedas, or vedantas and do meditation, kriya yoga etc to realize the self

..........are we not missing something..........

is it really that tough and tideous to experience the self..........

what is your very own experience of self and the ways of finding it....

let me know................

Avadooth said...

the difference between neethi sastra and tatva sastra............

Neethi (telugu)is the proper way of living in this world. It is arbitrary and dependent on time, place, and community. It is some set of rules accepted by majority as the way of life that is to be followed.

Where as tatva, it is the science of self and is independent of everything. it is unchangeable. There is no dharma, or rules in tatva. No dualities, no trigunas (not even satva).it is happiness.

Judging people on the way they behaved comes under judgement of neethi, not tatva as tatva can't be judged.

Neethi changes with time and space so the judgement also changes. what is good once will be bad at other times.

Krishna when judged based on neethi is human like anyother person.(it is true for rama , jesus, mohammad, bramha, Vishnu, and Shiva, even the worldly affairs of gurujis even Babaji)

it is utterly futile to judge people or demigods or gods.

Anagha Mudigonda said...

Hello Avaduth .. Welcome to my blog. Yes my name is the name of Sri Guru Datta's companion also. It means the opposite of sin or fault or imperfection ...
So it is in the Sahasranam of a lot of Gods, Lalitha, Shiva .. Krishna one time addresses Arjuna as Anagha too during the bhagawat geeta :)
It is certainly not "necessary" to do anything to realize the self. It is a natural process of evolution and will happen by itself eventually - over a million zillion lifetimes.
Kriya Yoga hastens it ...
Anything new is tough and tedious ... Learning a new subject is tough, taking a hard class is tedious and the soul science is no exception :)
But you could choose the way best suited for you ...
My experience ... I'me really a very basic beginner in this domain but i think this area is very satisfying .. emotionally - the best poerty is in the name of God, intellectually - there are some very scientific works out here and in all ways possible.
And I believe whatever else you do you'll come around here anyways ....

Anagha Mudigonda said...

There is no question of Judging Krishna .. only trying to understand ...
But when He incarnates in a yuga he would follow the yuga dharma .... Else there is no point in Incarnation and setting an example. All evil could just be destroyed by His Sankalpa alone

Avadooth said...

hi anagha,that is a very nice blog again

nice explanations of the meaning of your name too................

first of all i want to thank you. secondly i apologize ( becoz my writtings are not refined and they are rude sometimes).

Finally i like your opinions on this subject.

i have some more questions

What or who is God?

What is its relation to Self?

And what is that i am seeking?

they say all practices and religions lead to one final and same goal. What is it and how is it possible that everything leads to this same point?

Why are there no many end points as are the starting points?

Why should the experience (the final state of God)of all gynanis the same?

is God something that is realized after zillions of years of existence? is it the end point that is God? isnt the path of realization God himself/herself?

"Karanam, kaaranam, karta, vikarta" Vishnu sahasra namam.

The seeker, the path, the goal, the time, the space..........isnt everything God?

God himself is good and evil. Can this be.

Is it possible that there can be no good without evil ( for that matter all dualities are like this only).

isnt all avataras just here to do some work , some mission (as anyone else) and they are demigods and not God completelY?

And i completely agree with your statment " And i believe whateverelse you do you will come here anyways"

i know " there is nothing else than this"

Anagha Mudigonda said...

interesting questions ...
The thing with being Indian is that we know a lot of things before we really "know" them. All the books and conclusions are open and summarized for us .. It's like we know the theory of relativity before understanding newtons laws !
What I prefer is to start from where I am and to go forward .. The resources that are available to us are different than what were available to say Shankaracharya ! I feel we should check it out and come to our own conclusions ! It's like they say - how ever I explain 'sweetness' to you is insufficient - you have to eat sugar to experience it :D And it's also simpler to just eat some and understand what it is rather than read or hear volumes about it ...
I really have no answer to the good and evil paradox. Even as to why God would ever create a universe - perhaps he just got bored on a Saturday afternoon ;)
And realizing God is just another way of living in contentment - just do the things that make you happy - if it takes a zillion years we have a zillion years ..

Avadooth said...

good one again

what is the difference between knowing really and knowing?

Adi shankaras example of knowing about sugar by listening a lot ABOUT IT and tasting it, is although good doesnot really explain the situation.

Here,a person who wants to realize his self, is like sugar wanting to know the taste of sugar.

It is true there will be two conditions called knowing and really knowing with sugar, since the person who wants to experience the taste is different from sugar.(the knower and the known are not ONE and the same)

but, when it comes to knowing about the self, the knower annd the known is the same ......

so the example you said was not correct.

even the example of Rajju sarpa nyayam used by sankaracharya doesnot explain the condition.

the faculty that is used to know about sugar is the same faculty that knows the taste of sugar when it is kept in the mouth.

that faculty is intelligence itself.

The "self" is also nothing but intelligence (my apararoksha,anubhava pramana).

Avadooth said...

inherited sastra and tatva,tarka pramanam kakunda, physics lo chepthanu. i wil try

There is one intelligent reference frame(X), which tries to know about something other than itself,(Y)

What X knows about Y is the reference frame's (X's) version of Y only. it is Y interms of X only.

Or It is Y relative to X only.

What X knows about Y is a function of what Y really is and what X's ability to know is.

This means as long is X is there what it can know about Y is only Y in terms of X but not the total Y.
i.e relative knowledge of Y but not absolute knowledge of y.

but when X tries to know itself. what it can know is the version of X interms of itself (its ability to know)

What X knows about X is a function of what X really is and what X's ability to know is.

that is X interms of X. So only absolute thing that can be known is knowing onself.

let us try maths

let us assume i am X, and the rest of the world is Y.

X learns and knows about Y.

What X learns is determined and limited by what X really "is".

So, what X knows about Y is not "Y" but the version of X on Y.

What X can know about Y is always the X's version of Y only.

what i (X) know(s) about Y (world)
is not the absolute truth but relative truth about Y.

To know the absolute truth about Y
what should be removed is the influence of X (can be done only by completely removing X). But if X is removed completely, there can never be process of learning.

So if X wants to know about Y,what he knows will be relative truth but not absolute truth(100%).

let us say knowing absoulte truth is "KNOWING" and knowing relative truth is "knowing".ok

take a case where X wants to know himself, then influence of X in knowing X is X himself. That means knowing the influence of X adds to knowing of X.

here is the only chance to know completely about anything. this is called KNOWING. this is 100% knowing.

that is why one who knows himself is called gnani (100% knowledgable person) in Indian tatva sastra where as one who knnows a lot about world and everything is not referred as gnani.

Avadooth said...

nenu unnanu ani nenu ala cheppagaluguthunnanu............

anubhava pramanam tho......nenu anubhavisthunnanu kabbati......
IKkada vaada, tarka, viswasa,sastra, prayathnalu avasaram lekundane nenu unnanu ani andaru cheppagalaru........

Brahma,vishnu,maheswarlu, dattudu,adi sankarulu, pasu pakshyadulu, characharalu,anni kooda nenu unnanu ane anubhavam thoti vatini avi anubhavisthu untayi..........

nenu unnanu ani a telivi ayithe cheptundo aaa telive thanani thanu thelusuko galuguthundi.....

This basic resource that is universal to all existences is sufficient to know the self.....

okka nimushamulo nee yadartha anubhava swarupani thelusukovachu

nenu thelusukunnanu......anubhavisthunnanu.......

idi anubhava pramanam suma.....