AN Moorthy Rao
It is possible that at least some
of the myths mentioned above have a symbolic meaning. Whether the authors off
these stories really meant to convey that meaning or they were stuffed with the
significance later, it is difficult to say. Our innocent ancients did not write
essays about what they learnt from life: they embodied it in stories. Perhaps
the story of ‘Kaama Dahana’ is one
such example. But we may, possibly, read too much into these stories. The Dashavatara story seems to depict the
evolution of life very broadly. Beginning with fish which could live only in
water, it traces its evolution into the tortoise (‘koorma’) which lives both in water and on land and goes on to the
pig (‘Varahaavatara') which lives only on land and the half-man and half-beast
,in Narasimha. Finally, life reaches the stage of man - the stunted dwarf, 'Vaamana'.
Then comes Parashurama - who, although a developed human being, is unable to
check his emotions of anger etc. His body is well developed but not his mind.
Then it is Rama who is physically and intellectually well-developed and who has
formulated virtues and values. This process of evolution appears to have
reached its zenith in the personality of Krishna .
In Him we see (in addition to virtues) a perfect blend of a taste for arts, experience
of life and practical wisdom. This is why Krishna
is said to be a ‘perfect incarnation’. Now comes the ascetic Buddha, who
renounced the world. Finally, it is ‘Kalki’, who completes the cycle of life.
Who knows if those who conceived
the Dashavatara stories had these
things in mind! Or, who knows if the stories were written by one person during
a particular period or by different persons at different times? If, on the
basis of these stories and their interpretations, someone comes to the
conclusion that our ancients knew the Theory of Evolution, it is only madness -
not a very rare type of madness. I myself know of a professor who, on the basis
of the story that Rama returned to Ayodhya in Pushpaka Vimana, concluded that
our ancients had mastered the technology of making aeroplanes! We can benefit
from mythical stories only if we remember that they are only myths and not
literally true. Quite often, they tell interesting stories. The particular
meaning that we are attributing to them mayor may not be embedded in them, but sometimes
they do set us thinking. For example: Kashyapa Maharshi married two women -
Dithi and Adithi. Dithi's children were monsters and Adithi's children were
gods. Monsters and gods have the same father. That is, both evil and goodness
have the same origin! Though seemingly contradictory, they are, strangely,
related! The myth of churning the ocean also depicts this curious relationship
- deadly venom (‘haalahala’) and life-giving elixir are both the products of
the same ocean.
According to a mythological story
of Jews and Christians, God created Adam and Eve and placed them in the Garden
of Eden, with the warning that they were forbidden to eat one particular fruit
in the garden. Adam and Eve did not heed the warning and ate the fruit of the
Tree of Knowledge. The minds of those who eat that fruit are set on the path of
knowledge. Why did God forbid it? Could it be that God wants to condemn man to
ignorance for ever? I asked myself this question. It is this myth which
provoked the question.
The answer to my question flashed
to me when news came of the death of millions of people in Hiroshima where an atom bomb was dropped: ‘If
man is provided with knowledge, this is how he will use it’. But after some
time, I felt that this is no adequate answer. Yes, the bomb is a product of
knowledge, just as venom was the product of churning. But, the medicine for the
disease brought about by knowledge is more knowledge! The disease and the
medicine, both are from the same source. We need to keep churning the ocean of
ignorance. Elixir can rise only from that ocean.
Mythological stories can provoke
such thought processes, but only if we keep in mind the fact that they are only
stories and not actual events. Even after admitting this much, some
mythological stories are indeed difficult to digest. The story of Radha and Krishna is said to be a symbolic depiction of the search
of the ‘Jiva’ for and its eventual
merger with ‘Paramatma'. Radha's
husband symbolizes this world. To renounce him is to renounce the desires of this
world. To become one with Krishna is to
conduct oneself according to His instruction 'Sarvadharmam parithyajya maamekam sharanamvraja' (leave aside all
dharmas and surrender to me). Let us take it that this is what Radha did. I
have also felt that it must have been this sentiment which was in the minds of
the authors of stories about Krishna . Other
religions, too, have seen the love between man and woman as symbolic of
devotion to God. But, shoud we lay emphasis on the physical aspect of love?
Stories about Krishna do, at times, go beyond
this limit. It is easy to brand this objection as 'prudery' and dismiss it.
But, consider: if someone depicts us similarly (in today's social environment),
do we accept it? While describing some one whom we hold in high esteem, do we
resort to such depictions? We observe restraint in such contexts; should not
the same restraint guide us when we portray God? Don't we have anything else to
say about God? Even the descriptions of Krishna 's
‘Raasa Leela’, I believe, have crossed
the limits of decency. Referring to someone leading a loose life, we say, ‘Ah!
He played Krishna-Ieele’. And that is
not a compliment.
Recent Stories
Stories of recent origin degrade
God more than the mythological stories. The beliefs concerning Lord
Venkataramana of Tirupathi (said to be an incarnation of Vishnu)do not enhance
His reputation. It is all right if you remain content with the faith that Lord
Venkataramana will take care of your welfare just as He does of all others in
the world. But, if you seek any special favours (like a very good job) from Him
then you must take a vow that you will offer a specific amount or render some
special service. If you do land the job, it is His grace: if you don't, well,
it is your 'karma'! In case you get the job and go back on the vow, you had it!
He will hunt you down for years. You got your job or whatever it was that you
wanted and He will not spare you if you don't pay for it! It is business, you
had better remember!
It appears Venkataramana had borrowed
some money from Kubera for his ostentatious marriage with Padmavathi. (Wouldn't
we be smart to transfer our devotion to Kubera? Kubera is rich, Venkataramana
is a debtor!)That loan has to be repaid from out of devotees' offerings.
Lavishness, vanity, ostentatious display - these are human short comings. Does
even God desire them? It appears He does. We believe - don't we? - that He will
be pleased if we present Him a golden crown or if we cover the towers of His
temple with sheets of gold? This reminds me of our present day politicians.
They will have to spend lakhs of rupees during elections. Once they win, they
must recover the money through dealings in sites and so on, and then repay
their loans. Of course, they need a few more lakhs for themselves, too. We have
placed Lord Venkataramana also in this category!
Lord Narasimha is our family
deity. He is Vishnu's incarnation. Venkararamana is another incarnation of the
same Vishnu. Still, I am forbidden to visit Tirupathi either for His worship or
for any other reason. The reason: we belong to the ‘stealthy lineage’ (‘kalla vokkalu’) - whatever that means.
But, I may visit Tirupathi provided that I accompany someone who does not
belong to the ‘stealthy lineage’ carrying their baggage or umbrella. I would,
then, be their servant carrying their baggage. God does not harass the
attendants of His devotees. I am, in reality, not an attendant. Only, Lord
Venkataram~na does not see through my trick. He can be fooled easily.
Another incarnation of Vishnu is
Sathyanarayana. Narayana is an old God. To name Him ‘Sathya Narayana’ is only a
repetition. He is always the incarnation of Truth. We have given Him this name
only to emphasize Truth. ‘Sathyanarayana
Vrata’ is of very recent origin. I have heard that even three hundred years
ago, such a ‘vrata’ was not in vogue.
But now, thousands of people perform it. Unlike ‘Krishnashtami’ or ‘Ramanavami',
no particular day is marked for this ‘vrata’.
One may choose any day. The food-offering to this deity is called ‘sapaadabhakshya’. This dish, prepared
with soji, sugar and some other ingredients
is very tasty.
Sathyanarayana is a very
scrupulous deity. Those who perform His ‘vrata’
will receive all they desire. This is only half the truth about Him. The
other half, one has to be very cautious indeed. Those who attend the ceremony
must not leave until it is over. And, to depart without partaking the ‘prasada’ is unpardonable, (This stipulation
is excellent - considering how tasty the sapaadabhakshya
is!) One must sit through the reading of the 'vrata'. If you leave before that, you are sure to meet with
disaster!
This is the story: A merchant,
who was issueless, took a vow that he would perform a 'vrata' if he was blessed
with a child, A daughter was born to him and she grew up and was also married
off, But, the merchant did not perform the 'vrata', Lord Sathyanarayana cursed
him. The merchant and his son-in law, who were on a tour, were accused of
theft. The king forfeited all they had and sent them to jail. One day, the
merchant's daughter happened to partake of the 'Satyanarayana Prasada', offered by someone. She and her mother
decided to perform the ‘Vrata’. The same night God appeared before the king In
his dream and instructed him to release the merchant and his son-in-law. After
their release the two left for their town by ship. The merchant's daughter was
performing the Vrata. She learnt that
her father and her husband were on their way home. Elated, she forgot to
partake the 'Prasada' and ran out to
receive her husband. Immediately, the husband's ship sank. A voice from the
heavens announced: “All this is because she has neglected to partake of the
Prasada: everything will be all right if she partakes of it”. She partook of
the ‘Prasada’ and - lo and behold -
the ship surfaced. The family lived happily ever after.
Sriman Narayana Himself, it
appears, narrated this story to Narada, who In turn repeated it to Shounaka
Maharshi and others, whom we are quite familiar with.
Clearly, someone has fabricated
this story with a view to indoctrinating people about devotion to God. Can any
rational person believe this? Can we really enter into contracts with God – ‘I
will give you this if you give me that’? All right. We can suppose that the
merchant had performed the 'Vrata' even
though he did not have a child. Can God mete out such a terrible punishment to
the young girl for such a minor lapse (If at all it is one!)? Even if we assume
that the girl committed a mistake, what is her husband’s fault? Is it fair to
sink his Ship as a punishment for his Wife s fault'? Isn't it only natural that
the girl should have come running to see her husband who had gone on a long voyage?
Sathyanarayana should, indeed, have blessed her smilingly! Is it not He who planted
love in human hearts? This question of Kanakadasa is indeed a legitimate one:
Ninna preraneyanthe nadedu
nudidamele
Ninninde thappo nanninde tappo,
Paramatma!
(When I have spoken and acted
only as you prompted, is it my fault, or your fault, oh Paramatma!)
Ideas such as these which degrade
the concept of God are found not only in our religion but in other religions
also. I have heard some people say that authoritative religious tenets do not
contain such ideas. But, there are, in fact, some religious texts with such ideas.
Still, most of the stories, like the ones narrated above, are those fabricated
by some silly people. Their intentions might have been good but the effects of
their stories are not. There is no substance in the argument that we need not
bother ourselves with the stories concocted by some ignorant 'Dasas' and
performers of discourses. Whoever might have invented these stories, it is not
just uninformed or illiterate people who are influenced by these stories. Even
educated people, scholars and learned scientists supplicate the protection of
the gods depicted in these stories. Some years ago, when I was about to leave a
'Satyanarayana Vrata' without
partaking the ‘Prasada’, it was a
scientist who asked me. Why do you tempt Providence ?"
Therefore, the argument, 'these stories are the inventions of silly people, we
may ignore them' just does not hold. These concepts do exert considerable
influence on our society.
We have talked earlier - haven't
we? - about Vishnu and Shiva. The question, who is superior to whom? has
bothered learned man more than ordinary people. There are stories to suggest
that there is animosity between the two deities. But, the more dominant feeling
is that they exist amicably. The supposed rivalry between them appears to
bother us, - ordinary people and scholars alike - more than it bothers the
deities themselves. In a way, this is only natural; one of them must gain an
upper hand. All religions proclaim - don't they? - that God is omnipotent.
There cannot be two omnipotent entities. The power of one curbs that of the
other: the 'omnipotence' of one ends where that of the other begins.
It is, therefore, logically
untenable to consider both Vishnu and Shiva as equal gods - if we accept the
idea of God's omnipotence, that is. One of them must indeed be superior to the
other. Who could be that 'superior' one? We cannot remain content saying
"Let them resolve this themselves: it is not our business! We will offer
both of them flowers and food". This is because, if we worship one of them
the devotees of the other will be enraged - Hiranyakashipu, a devotee of
Shiva, could not tolerate even his son Prahlada worshipping Vishnu! Leave alone
the devotees, even God Himself will not tolerate it, if we are to go by the Old
Testament saying which urges a man thus: “Kill your brother if ever he cajoles
you to worship other Gods". (Deuteranomy 13, 6-9).
There is another reason why we
place different deities at different levels. Suppose I am more inclined towards
Shiva. Then, Shiva becomes an extension of my personality. He is my deity. Now,
establishing the superiority of my deity becomes as important as establishing
my own superiority. My deity has become part of my ego. This is a peculiar type
of ‘soham’ (saha aham). Here, ‘ham’ (me) is more important than the ‘sahah’ (he).
So, for one who accepts the idea
of the ‘omnipotence’' of God, it becomes logically inevitable to accept one God
and to bring down another deity; even rejecting Him is not a rare attitude.
Purandaradasa displayed no contempt for Shiva, and has even awarded Him the
status of 'Padmanabha's (Vishnu's) Charanadasa' (The humble' servant of
Padmanabha). Shiva, of course, cannot be awarded a higher status than this.
Purandara Dasa has sung in another of his songs, “I do not want even the
company of those who do not think of Hari as the Supreme”. The ‘Shaivas’ reject
Narayana. It seems there is a saying among ‘Shrivaishnavas’ that one must not
take refuge in a Shiva temple even when chased by an elephant.
We may, within out homes, worship
only Vishnu and exclude Shiva, or vice versa;
we may follow one set of religious rituals and leave out others or vice versa.
Any way our deity is omnipotent and loves His devotees - if even Shiva means
any harm to us, Vishnu will take care of it or vice versa. Let us grant others
the same freedom of faith and worship that we enjoy. We will leave them and
their deities alone. Why quarrel?
It is perhaps a curse to humanity
- we are never willing to grant others the same freedoms that we wish for: as I
said earlier, our deity becomes a part of ourselves, our ego. We must rush to
defend His status and position. Couldn't He, the omnipotent god who is supposed
to protect all, defend Himself? We never think of this. Fundamentalists and
political leaders exhort people to 'take up arms to defend your religion, your
God'. We dance to their tune and what follows is fighting, bloodshed - all in
the name of God!
Two or three centuries ago, it
appears, a renowned scholar called Appaiah Dixit (he is remembered even today)
had established that the word ‘Narayana’ could also be interpreted to mean ‘Shiva’,
if only the last syllable were slightly changed. Based on this, the scholars
got into the act and came up with a whole host of interpretations. During the
last century, it seems, another scholar by name Kunigal Ramasastry established
that the word ‘Narayana’ could only be interpreted to mean Shiva. The other
side arranged a debate, but had decided that, in case they lost the debate,
Sastry would be thoroughly thrashed. The Resident at Bangalore , who got wind of this plan, ordered
the cancellation of the debate.[i]
Even if Rama Sastry had triumphed
in the debate the various deities would not have merged into one: nor would his
defeat have meant that God who was one would have split into many deities. In
fact, what goes on in such debates is only a display of linguistic and
grammatical acrobatics of the scholars and not any meaningful assessment of the
reality or otherwise of God. Rama Sastry himself, it appears, stated that his
work concerned rules of grammar and not God.
The sensation of such debates and
interpretations is not much in evidence now. But, the stories concerning the
superiority of Shiva or of Vishnu are very much in circulation. There is no
dearth of people who believe them to be literally true.
“When Rama (that is Vishnu) tried
to bend Shiva's bow (Shivadhanus), it
broke, so much for your Shivas' power!”
“When Rama killed Ravana, He came
to be haunted by the sin of ‘Brahmahatya’ (the sin of killing a Brahmin). If He
had not offered special worship to Shiva at Rameshwar, the sin would have
swallowed him. Who, finally, saved Rama?, Shiva, of course!”
“Shiva has Himself conceded that
Rama is superior to Himself.[ii]
This is the only ‘Manthra’ that can save you. What is that 'Mantra'? Rama
Mantra!”
All of us have heard this kind of
talk at one time or the other.
[i] I read
this in M.S.Puttanna’s work ‘Kunigal Rama
Shastrigala Charitre’
[ii] I can
recall only the first half of the relevant verse ‘Sri Rama Ramethi Rame Rame Manorame’. I know people who repeat
this like the Gayathri Mantra.
His
popular book, Devaru (God),
won (1992) the Pampa
This is from the Chapter III (Stories about God) of the book, which was translated
into English by Prof LS Seshagiri Rao and published by Kannada Sahitya
Parishath, Bangalore
2 comments:
Very interesting to know the grammar and God..belif which aletmately matters...
Very interesting to know the grammar and God..belif which aletmately matters...
Post a Comment