Ravana 3

I had said in the post before the last that I would narrate a story about Ravana. This is the sthalapuraanam of a place called Gokarna in Karnataka. A film called Bhookailas was made in Telugu starring N T Rama Rao, which forms the basis of my narration.

Ravana's mother Kaikasi used to make a linga out of sand and worship Siva. Indra was told this was the source of Ravana's power and hence he made the sea destroy the linga when she made it. Ravana was infuriated when he heard his mother's complaint and decided to get the aatmalinga which is said to be inside Siva himself. He went off to perform penance. However when Siva finally appeared in front of him Vishnu subjected Ravana to the effects of his maaya. In that state Ravana fell in love with Parvati and asked Siva to grant her to him. Siva agreed and Parvati had no other option but to follow him. Parvati came to know that it was because of Vishnu that she was separated from her Lord and cursed him to suffer the same fate (we see this happening once in the uttara kaanda of the Ramayana). Finally Ravana came to his senses after some time and resumed his penance. He finally appeased Siva who granted Ravana his aatmalinga. 

Narada egged Vinayaka to take back the linga, who takes the form of a young boy grazing his cattle. Ravana was a brahmin. So he had to perform the sandhyaavandana ritual. When Siva gave Ravana the linga he had told him that under no circumstance was it to touch the ground. If it did, the earth would attract it with so great a force that nothing would be able to move it. Mindful of this, Ravana gave the linga to the disguised Vinayaka and told him not to let it touch the ground. Vinayaka agreed on the condition that if he found it difficult to hold he would call out for Ravana thrice and then put it down. As Ravana was performing his ritual VInayaka called out twice. Hearing that Ravan came running back but by the time he could come back, Vinayaka called out for the third time and kept it on the ground. Unable to move the linga Ravana decided to end his life there and started dashing his head against the linga. Finally Siva appeared in front of him and blessed him saying that this place would become famous as bhookailaas or Kailaasa  on the earth.

Thus, even if it was unwittingly, Ravana was responsible for the establishment of a holy place of pilgrimage which is said to house Siva's aatmalinga itself.

To Own or to Create?

The (weird) poet in me has once again awoken. My reader, I put this creation of mine in front of the eyes of thine :D

One day, when I sat tired of all the dissembling and debauchery,
There came along a whiff of fresh air, so sweet,
It rejuvenated my faith in the world,
But when I tried holding it in the palm of my hand,
For I wished not to be parted from the fragrance,
Away it slipped, reminding it belonged not to me but to the world,
Make your own fragrance, it said, for I only carry it,
Blessed I am that I spend some time in the maker's presence,
That is the only true way to possess me,
So my dear, yours is only to attract but not to capture me,
It is I who will come to you, but before that be worthy of me,
Since that day I have toiled, that I be worthy of judgement,
Woe is me, that dawn is yet to come....

The Expendables

There are no spoilers here, so anyone who has to see the movie need not worry. I had to write this post. I decided that in the hall itself. I saw the first show on the first day of the movie. First of all a warning to the womenfolk - STAY AWAY. This is strictly a guy movie. There might have been around 30 people in the theatre, there were hardly 3 ladies in the audience.

First of all, why did Stallone make this movie? Was he bored of sitting at home and not killing people? I am sure the number of kills has surpassed that in the latest Rambo movie. Nothing to this effect has been said on Wikipedia yet but I am sure it is only a matter of time before this is affirmed. The sheer range of weaponry used to take human lives is staggering - right from knives to guns that blow up people. I was chuckling to myself, literally. After a point it becomes funny. Twards the end there is a scene where the bad guys are literally being blown away! The way people are killed in the movie is simply unbelievable. If a guy and a girl watch this movie, I am sure both will scream - the guy out of pleasure and the girl out of fear. The movie is an orgy of violence. There are plenty of explosions and gunfights to keep the guys happy.

The cast is also like a dream - Stallone, Statham, Jet Li. Bruce Willis ad Schwarzzenegger are also there, but they have a mere token presence. I don't think they were even credited in the beginning. Stallone and Arnold take potshots at each other which makes for some funny remarks. Remember Kambakkht Ishq (I don't know if I have the spelling right , blame the producers' faith in numerology, we have Kkusum, Kambakkht Ishq, Karzzzz etc)? The time Stallone spends on-screen in that movie must be similar to Arnold's (his surname is too confusing for me, so I use his first name) in this one (disclaimer - I have not seen KI, I saw a Youtube video).

So there are guns, explosion, gore and oh yes, some hot chicas. What more can a guy want out of a movie?

Ravana 2

I come back to the story about Jaya and Vijaya. They opted for three births as enemies of Vishnu. They were born as Hiranyaksha and Hiranyakashipu, Ravana and Kumbhakarna, and Sisupala and Dantavaktra. So Ravana was in a way looking for liberation from his birth so that he could progress to the next one and thus come closer to his Lord.

Now Ravana was a brahman by birth. If not for his lust for women and power Ravana was an eminent personality. He was a great devotee of Siva, an exponent of the Veena (which was in fact the symbol on his chariot's flag, the way Hanuman was on Arjuna's flag). Ashok Banker (who in my opinion has been seriously influenced by the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter) in his Ramayana series says that the meaning of Ravana is "he who makes the universe scream". In fact I believe it is the other way round. Once Ravana tried to lift the entire Kailasa mountain with Siva and his retinue on it. Siva pressed down his toe crushing Ravana's hands under the mountain. The roar of pain that Ravana let out was supposed to have been the reason why he was named so. He was probably born as Kaikasi Brahma (I am most probably wrong about the name, if anyone knows his birth name, please tell me).

As he was a brahman Rama incurred brahmahatyaapatakam and had to perform some ceremonies to compensate for the sin. Rama is said to have worshipped Siva and hence the term Ramalingeswara. The temple at Rameswaram is the place where Rama is said to have performed his pooja.

In the next post, I shall write about a story from Ravana's life. The source is a Telugu movie. By the way, Wikipedia has a nice article on Ravana.

Ravana 1

A reader is apparently a fan of Ravana and has asked me to write something on him. So this post is an attempt in that direction. First of all, I wish to narrate a story about Ravana's origin. Most of you might know this already, but anyway...

Jaya and Vijaya are the gatekeepers of Vaikuntha, the abode of Vishnu. One day some sages came to visit the Lord when they were barred entrance. Angered they cursed the duo that they would lose their positions (I am not sure about the exact curse). When the duo approached Vishnu for deliverance he said that he could not go against the curse of the sages but then gave them two options. They could either be born as his devotees for a hundred births and then return to Vaikuntha at the end or they could be born as his enemies for three births and then return to him. As the duo could not bear to be separated from their Lord for a very long time they opted for the latter course. Here I shall narrate a different story (a story inside a story inside a story :)).

The story I am narrating now is from the Telugu movie Mayabazar. There is a magical chest in the story. When one opens it the chest is supposed to show the person who thinks of the person the most. When Krishna opens it against everybody's expectations Shakuni's face appears. Everyone is shocked. The explanation is that even though Shakuni keeps thinking of Krishna in order to plot ways to work against him, he is by that very act itself keeping the Lord continuously in his thoughts. Thus not only a devotee but an enemy (if one may use that word) of God also keeps Him in mind always. The rest of the narration shall continue in the next post(s).

A Tale about Shakuni

Though this may not be directly related to Yuganta I was reminded of this and hence am posting it here. My sources are an old Telugu movie (I am not sure which one) and a Telugu Mahabharata.

When Gandhari was born astrologers had predicted that there was widowhood in her horoscope. As an alternative before her wedding with Dhritarashtra she was apparently married to an animal (a goat I believe) which was killed then. One day when the Pandavas and Dhaartarashtras were playing Duryodhana insulted Bhima by taunting him that he was not the son of his father. Bhima retorted by saying that Duryodhana was the son of a widow. Angered he went back to the palace and found out the truth. He imprisoned his grandfather (Gandhari's father) and all her brothers. Every day they used to get one grain of rice per person. Shakuni was the youngest of them all and so the grandfather and his sons decided that they would contribute their grains to feed Shakuni everyday. Ultimately all of them died of starvation except Shakuni. He made a set of dice from the bones (probably vertebrae) of his father. For some reason Duryodhana released him from prison and Shakuni remained at Hastinapura. But Shakuni did not forget the treatment meted out to him and his family and secretly plotted his vengeance. Thus all the time Shakuni was helping Duryodhana against the Pandavas he was in fact plotting the downfall of the Kuru dynasty itself. It was Shakuni who helped Duryodhana win the game of dice that sent the Pandavas into exile. This was the basis for the Kurukshetra war.

Yuganta - Bhishma

On reading my earlier post a reader had suggested a book which I am assuming is Yuganta by Irawati Karwe. I found a version online and downloaded it and am reading it now. It is an analysis of the various characters in the Mahabharata. I have nothing against women per se, and I am all for equality between men and women. In fact I support women's empowerment (conditions apply). Somehow two articles on the epics I read, both by women, have raised my hackles. One was an extremely feminist view of the Ramayana where the author(ess?) lambasts the treatment meted out to Sita - how she went to the forest at such a tender age, her banishment to the forest etc). I wish to point out that Sita went willingly against all advice for her to stay back in Ayodhya. I cannot totally explain the banishment part but let me just say that I would probably like to have a discussion with that lady (the writer).

One of my colleagues is from IIMA's agri business program. Apparently Yuganta was recommended reading by their ethics faculty member. The writer raises some questions about Bhishma - did Bhishma accomplish anything via his vows consiering that a lot of strife happened anyway, why did he accept the general's position for the war etc. I am not a scholar of her level but I shall attempt to answer her questions on the various characters in my next few posts.

Krishna says in the Gita to do one's work because it has to be done, without expectation or concentrating on the results. I would answer her question about the utility of Bhishma's vows via this sloka. Tomorrow the Prime Minister can say that given our history with Pakistan the Kashmir issue will never be resolved and give up peace talks. Is that justified. Here I must confess that my argument can be given by some as an example of the concept called reductio ad absurdum introduced to me by Sheldon Cooper of the sitcom, The Big Bang Theory. 

She asks why he was silent when Draupadi was being humiliated. There is a story I read in a Telugu children's magazine. I do not know whether it exists anywhere in Hindu literature or is a fabrication but it provides an answer. When after the war Bhishma tells the Pandavas some good practices to be followed an angered Draupadi questions him as to why he was silent when she was being humiliated and is spouting advice now. He answers her that as a subject of Duryodhana/Dhritarashtra he could not go against his liege. Why Bhishma took up the generalship can probably be answered by combining the logic of the present and the previous para. 

I think I shall have quite a few bones to pick with the author.By the way, after reading Ashok Banker's version of the Ramayana I posted a comment on his site expressing my anguish. It does not seem to have been approved (will it be?) and is not visible now. I shall post a link to it if it does get approved.

Duality in a Sloka

Most if not all have heard of the sloka asato maa sadgamaya. This is a sloka from the Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad. It goes as follows.

असतो मा सद्गमय 

तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमय 

मृत्योर्मा अमृतं गमय

ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः 

Meaning - Lead/direct me from untruth to truth, from darkness to light, from death to immortality. Om peace, peace, peace.

Now this is what people know in general. I was thinking about this the other day when an interesting duality struck me. The word मा in the above sloka means 'me'. For those aware of shabdas in Sanksrit, it is the prathama purusha ekavachanam of the yushmad shabda. However, the word can mean something else also. It can also mean 'do not'. I will explain. The following lines are from the Bhaja Govindam written by Adi Sankaracharya.

मा कुरु धनजनयौवनगर्वम्

हरति निमेषात् कालः सर्वम्

मायमयमिदमखिलं हित्वा 

 ब्रह्मपदं त्वं प्रविश विदित्वा 

Meaning - Do not pride yourself over wealth, friends (or people support) and youth. Time takes away all of them in an instant. Understand that all of this is maaya  and attain the abode of Brahma (moksha actually, not literally the abode of Brahma).

The first word here mean 'do not'. If I extend this logic to the first sloka it will mean do not lead me from untruth to truth etc. So does this mean that man should strive to attain these for himself than be dependent on anybody, even God? Ramakrishna Paramahamsa talked about the concept of absolute surrender to God. My idea seems to be in direct contradiction to his viewpoint and I do not consider myself anywhere worthy enough to question his logic. So probably it means that man should work on his own after a point rather than be dependent on his guru or anyone else. Complicated thinking, eh?