Originally posted by: lola610
@ Shivang - loved all your responses bhaiya, ati sundar👏 From Shursen to Devaki to Kaushalya... as expected, at the end of the day we agree on everything 😆 And yeah, though you had inspired me to make the Lalita sig quite a bit earlier, I purposely posted it during our Bharat Milaap marathon to inspire a discussion highlighting their shared messages... to shuru ho jaaye 😉 Btw the Ugrasen dialogue post I referred to was the one he has with Kans before he's imprisoned - but I'm thinking you meant the earlier one in that first darbaar scene, the democracy vs. dictatorship one... am I right? If so, I'll do that one first, so we can discuss 😃
So do I love your all posts. Oh yes Lola. You caught it right. I was talking about the democracy vs dictatorship scene of Mathura raajyasabha. And I also had caught about the scene which you were talking correctly but mentioned about another scene too in the context of all the posts giving political messages.
And oh yeah, millions of thanks for the lovely dialogue posts - soooo much to discuss, where to begin! Particularly loved the comments you included in between the Ram-Kaikeyi convo, highlighted some hard to notice but really important details about their tones and mannerisms that deepen its meaning - worth discussing some time, hopefully soon...
So much so much really to discuss really. It requires separate forum for each really like we have on Orkut on Gargacharya scenes purely for discussion. Gargaachaarya ke Surdas scene me bhi apni baat hui thi ki there can be at least 10 different topics generated from that scene.
And on a sorta related note, would love if you could shed some light on this dialogue from Ram-Lakhan's convo after Shri Ram finds out about his vanvaas and Lakshman wants to fight it - "agar kisi ka pita duraachaari bhi ho, chaahe sansaar usse tyaag bhi de, tab bhi putra ka dharm hai ki woh usse bhagwan ki tarah pooje" - how do we harmonize that with our previously expressed views on Meghnaad and Kumbhkarn?
Very very clever question Lola. But I think the answer of it from my side I have already given in the very dialog posts of Meghnad and Kumbhkarna. All these scenes talk about PUTRA dharma. BHAI ka dharma. None of them talk about the scenario when they all clash with a DEVOTEE's dharma as neither Kumbhkarna nor Meghnad were devotees. Lakshman was devotee but the scenario at social level was choosing between brother & father rather than God & father. And Ram has done all leelas to set social ideals and the action which Lakshman was about to commit in his innocence was not just ugly for a son but also not fair and just punishment adjudged by him for his father and not good for anybody's glory - neither him nor Ram's nor Dashrath's nor Raghuvansh. When devotee's duty clashes, he doesn't commit socially dreadful acts but naturally leaves attachment in relations and then his relatives have to uplift themselves to win his heart. Tyajyo pita Prahallad - he actually didn't curse his father while worshipping Hari but only lacked attachment and was spiritually free soul from relation and Hari didn't have to stop or change him doing that like he had to do in case of Lakshman. He could actually see God in his father also and was automatically worshipping him also like God and was able to forgive him every moment and was able to distinguish the soul and nature anytime. What Meghnad did was his PUTRA dharma because he was Ravan's PUTRA as per HIS REALIZATION then and throughout his life and hence was very very appropriate (I didn't disapprove his action in my post but only compared the relative respectable stage of his knowledge and realization with Vibhishan). Prahallad's realization was that HARI was his PITA and HARI was his MATA and his mortal PARENTS were his co-passengers. And he actually lived the entire life with such psychological realization and it was not that he or Vibhishan changed their mental state at the end moment to give excuse of staying away from Putra dharma (Which might have looked to be the case had Meghnad or Kumbhkarna left Ravan at the deciding moment under the shelter of getting realization). So what Prahallad was following was also his PUTRA dharma throughout - Putradharma towards Hari. When all relations are in one entity, there won't be any situation faced in life when there is clash of duties. And you can't automatically do any wrong to any social relation naturally. You will love them all. It's another issue that those relations expect you to love only them with attachment and you have learnt the art of loving them along with all creatures equally without attachment which in fact in absolute terms much higher love to them you are giving than the one they expect you should give them. You are loving them so much that you want their spiritual upliftment as much as you want for yourself. Like Bharat wanted for Keikei. You love them so much that you wish that they start loving your God. You no longer stay in ordinary worries of physical safety of person or professional success or material wealth or like of the same birth but you straightaway wish their highest welfare of soul in the long journey. But they can't understand that. And what Lakshman followed was also his PUTRA dharma after stopping himself from killing Dashrath and following orders of Ram. Not PUTRA dharma towards Dashrath. PUTRA dharma towards Ram. How you take your social defined duties depends upon how you take that relation. In what sense. It is only a matter of actual realization of soul.
Regarding the topic of realization of soul, continuing the topic for indebtedness of Karna. Mitrata ka rin. Even in Karna's case also, it was a matter of realization of soul. Realization of indebtedness is a field of ego (since Karna was not life long devotee of Krishna to surrender to his will), where my point is, there are many indebtedness in life towards some people which can never be repaid or can only be repaid after many births (As per scriptures). And when you are debtor of many people and your duty towards them (And their expectations from you) contradict; whose debt will you repay? All these are matter of the way you realize and upto you realize and when your mind completely starts thinking about God & only God, all these things become subsidiary because who are we to repay debt towards God? All the debts towards different mortal beings ultimately go towards God only. And God has infinite ability to repay the debt of beloved devotee himself. And hence Arjun followed 'Sarvadharmaan parityajya' order. Krishna didn't order Karna because HE didn't want to disturb his thinking IMO. Different situations. Different persons.
If we ignore what Parshuram said that Karn's indebtedness was cleared when he cut Abhimanyu's bow from behind and then he was killed; one might also look at the relation of Duri and Karn in a different way. I might claim from my view point (though only an angle to see - may or may not be correct) that actually it was Duri who was indebted to Karn. Duri made him king from nothing (When he had rivalry thing also in mind against Pandavas) but Karn (Always a noble character deep inside) made his entire life polluted (Sangdosha) in return. He acted throughout his life against his original basic nature many times. He took the pain of observing Lakshagruh shadyantra. He got involved in sin in dhyutkrida. He got involved in making fun of Yudhishthir and Pandava's greatness in the tent while drinking madira when on visit of forest. In love with his friend, he brought him so down (his behavior) in terms of spiritual level which was always higher by nature by birth. He was after all Suryaputra. These were greater returns than what Duri gave to him IMO. Duri never changed or would never have tried to change perhaps his nature for him or would have but slightly but Karn never felt that freedom or openness to try to change Duri (He couldn't explain him successfully about Lakshagruh shadyantra - Duri listened though - Jab tum kehte ho to woh sahi lagta hai parantu jab Mamashri bolne lagte hai to.... ).
The point I am trying to make is that criteria that who gives more in relationship is very complex. What should be the yardstic? Material given? Respect given? Knowledge given? Time given? Own nature changed for others (Acting most of the time against the nature in the company of the other person)? Prayers/Dua made to God for others by heart? Who is greater giver in relationship?
But Karna kept on feeling that he was duty bound towards Duri (though I wouldn't see his thinking to be correct from my realized view point). It's the way you realize your duty and upto you realize (Like Karna also started realizing that he has fulfilled his loyalty debt and didn't continue on that strictly & consistently when Duryodhan wanted him to take Trigart naresh away from the battle field or to protect Jaydrath or to take revenge of Dushasan by fighting beyond sunset) and towards the person you realize the most. Ye subjectivity ke rehete shaastra me un duty following ko objective rules me baandhaa gaya hai. Par usme bhi conflicting situation me better ko chunna praani ke shaastra gyaan aur uske sookshma essence ko samajhne par nirbhar hai. Devotee ko ye karna hi nahi padta. Krishna had minute knowledge about it. Arjun surrendered. Karna didn't. But in both cases, Krishna's efforts, intentions, intensity of tones etc also were different. He found the appropriate ways for welfare and glory of both Karna and Arjun.
comment:
p_commentcount