Monster tales and the fictional reality (Second Part) ⇒ Kirno Sohochari

Ravana was more advance in that context. I tried to discuss it earlier in this article [see: Monster tales and the fictional reality (First Part)]. The Lankan King didn’t try to prove him a saint when he kidnapped Sita. He kidnapped Rama’s beloved with rapturous dares, so accusing his action heinous is unfair. Ravana was the progeny and follower of hostile conflict amid Asura and Deity. They were incompetent of reaching a common agreement for the sake of the creation. Fear and distrust always driven them to the animosity and human were appeared scapegoats of this superlative powers.

The mortal human being was obliged to serve the purpose of animosity on behalf of Asura or Deity in the fictional past. They have utilized them just like the dice to satisfy their blind animosity against each other. Rama’s earthly life was an echo of heaven-king deities. He echoed deity’s discourse in his every action. Rama was motivated to the discourse that, destroying the Asuric Force (negative power) of a Rakshasa is essential to save the creature from the Tamoshick (dark force) manipulation of creation.

Killing appeared legal to the king of Ajodhya, since, this the only way that can release humankind to the sufferings of rebirth. Reincarnation happened due to the sinful acts of a human, which he did earlier in Deity or Asura’s form. On the other hand, Ravana echoed Asuras to test the efficacy of negative force in the creation. His perception echoed Asura’s discourse of what is perfect for a Rakshasa of achieving the eternity so that it can seal the cycle of rebirth in creation.

Monster Tales_2_14
Raja Ravi Varma’s paintings on Ramayana epic

 

… Human race really passed a fictional time in the remotest dawn of Indian civilization. There was a clear difference amid the Human, Animal and the Rakshasa, but the exchange was open to all… All they appeared on the earth according to the law of fictional reality, and later omitted in the same stream of epical reality. They omitted but left the messages of varicolored exchanges between the Human, Animal, and Rakshasa.
… … … 

Rama was a character of duality. His status as a human avatar of God Vishnu was destined to enlighten the creation by true religion. He was coming to the earth to guide and teach people about the real freedom of the soul. Vishnu’s avatar was committed to enriching the creation with pure water of love, which Saint Kabir called the Ramarasa (test of pure, impartial, integrated and egoless love) in his beautiful songs. Ramarasa is the feeling of unification with creation; feel the unification in your mind through your self-conscious mind, and tried to attain Love and Karuna (compassionate lenity) when you observe the entire creation in your mind. Mind-meditation is the only way to see your interrelation with the creation; it helps you get liberty from the egoistic pride and prejudice, which is the reason of all evil acts done by the Deity, Asura or human in the creation.

Ramarasa invited you to leave the searching of God in a knowledge seeking process. Knowledge can give you the perception of God and nothing else more. Perception is a tricky phenomenon, where you obliged your mind in battling against other’s perception about the God or the ultimate purpose of this life. Ramarasa told you to do the reverse, —let omitted the perception to your mind that you have achieved by knowing, let observe the entire creation on kid’s eye and integrated your mind to sip the beauty of it. There is no need to prove anything and tried to live this life with Love and Karuna. Your feeling is enough to realize the truth that, this entire creation acted autonomously without any necessity of anything. Creation is autonomous and purposeless; there is no need of serving God’s desire or any individual. Perception is a mind-made creation of man; he created it to know the purpose of creation, but it cannot help him later liberates his own mind to the perception he created. The only thing he has needed to know that, how can I live this autonomous life like a river, like a tree or the flying birds.

Saint Kabir was naming it Ramarasa in his radiated songs. This rasa can help us to see the integrated bonding of entire creation; Buddha once saw it in his meditated mind; his heart was then fulfilled by the strange feeling of Love and Karuna to the creation. The great Tathagata then opened his eyes to pronounce the words “Nirvana”; shut the lamp of your over consciousness to the world, to the desire of knowledge, to the pride or prejudice of the definition of knowledge, and just breathing on Love and Karuna with an empty mind. The real happiness not stayed in knowledge, it stayed in the mind which is empty and which is flying in the sky only to enjoy its flight in the high altitude. Ramarasa is not so far to the emptiness of mind. Saint Kabir invited everybody to test the ecstasy of Love and Karuna with an empty mind.

Monster Tales_2_12
Vrindavan Das Paintings on Buddha’s Nirvana

… Knowledge is a separation rather than the integration, so tried to realize this and doing your job without any hope or resentence to anybody or anything you have contact. Saint Kabir’s Ramarasa invited us to drink the Rama who is the container of Premrasa (test of love) in his knowing. He stayed in love and Karuna and stayed far beyond the concept or perception of any knowledge-border. Kabir achieved knowledge and soon left it to see the bird’s flight.
… … …

Knowledge and the process of knowing the knowledge is not required when you are in love and sips the Ramarasa bit by bit. It is required when you are not in love and busy with the restless cycle of acceptation and rejection of the perception you have made or achieved by others. Knowledge makes a man seeker and seeking is the inhabited nature of the man. A nature-bonded man confined his inhabited intellect for the answer of his question. Knowledge represents intellect, in where a man stuffed his intellect through the knowing, which helped him to declare his own perception to the others. However, he should care about the fact that, —knowledge is not an answer to his question, nor it is the ultimate problem-solving perception which he has achieved or got by knowledge seeking process. Knowledge is an endless cycle of asking the perception to make another perception, but a question is not able to answer the question that, —can I live this life without relating me to the question or refutation process of any perception? Yes, knowledge cannot settle one’s mind that, how he can live an integrated life without seeking any purpose of the life, how he can live this life sans any perception of it, and how he can shut the lamp before it appeared troublesome to the other beings of the creation.

Kabir’s Ramarasa is reverse to the knowledge-seeking process of human being in that context. A knowledge seeker can debunk the physics of Bird’s flying in the sky, but he is incapable of answering the question that, —how he can fly free in the sky sans any animosity, despair or regret to his fellow brothers and the creation as well. That man can fly free in the sky if he withdraws his consciousness to the dissection of all knowledge he has. The task is hard, but he has to do this if he wants the fearless flight in the sky. Dissection insisted him to make another perception and nothing else, and it confined him in the restless battle of denying his own or other’s perception to build a new perception over and again. It’s a game of hypothesizing which may give him some knowledge but it takes him nowhere to the end. All book or scripture represents the word-game of intellect, it drowns one’s mind in the ocean of perception, which is the root of all despair and egoistic pride or prejudice we see in the human world.

Monster Tales_2_10
Ven Thera Hegoda khēmānanda: Buddha Preaching

… The real happiness not stayed in knowledge, it stayed in the mind which is empty and which is flying in the sky only to enjoy its flight in the high altitude. Ramarasa is not so far to the emptiness of mind. Saint Kabir invited everybody to test the ecstasy of Love and Karuna with an empty mind.
… … …

Knowing might be necessary for some extent but appointed your knowing to get an ultimate answer about the creation simply played a reverse role to the autonomous nature of creation. The creation is meaninglessly autonomous to its autonomy, to its reduction and unknown reincarnation of creation-stuffs. Knowing is not which we called knowledge but when somebody uses the simple Knowing to make his own perception about it, his wording then created knowledge. The funniest thing is that his self-made perception always appeared relative and contradictory to the other man’s perception. That’s why God, Faith or Love appeared confusing or gibberish to us when we confined these in the myriad perceptions. Anyway, what we can say about Ramarasa. Is it perception? Yes, we can say it to some extent but the feeling is enough there to reach the state that, loving the creation without any reason is more truthful than any perception oriented knowledge-debate.

Ramarasa tried to convey the message that, —love cannot achievable through reasoning, questioning or rebutting the perception of love. What needed there is, just pulled out your mind to the dissection of knowing, do what is necessary to live the life, but don’t engrossed your mind in the desire that, —your knowledge seeking processes of life will make you free, unified, integrated or autonomous in the creation. Knowledge is a separation rather than the integration, so tried to realize this and doing your job without any hope or resentence to anybody or anything you have contact. Saint Kabir’s Ramarasa invited us to drink the Rama who is the container of Premrasa (test of love) in his knowing. He stayed in love and Karuna and stayed far beyond the concept or perception of any knowledge-border. Kabir achieved knowledge and soon left it to see the bird’s flight.

Ramarasa is the virtual feeling of autonomous integrity with the entire creation-stuff. The same Rama’s position as a king is fixed in Ramayana, yonder Rama is bound to follow the Kshatriya‘s rule, since, deity’s action in heaven or earth prefers Kshatriya’s tradition. History not agreed of acknowledging Asuras as Kshatriya. The historical narration treated the negative force out of this caste system, even if Asura’s action against deity or human always reminded us their similarities to the warrior caste of an earth. Sita’s incident in Ramayana is one of the many examples. Her kidnapping is truly analogical with Kshatriya’s action and it was a common praxis on that time. Let follow the consequence one. Ramayana told us, Ravana arrived Sita’s yard to take revenge on behalf of his beloved sister. Rama’s brother Lakshmana once ignored his sister’s proposal of lovemaking. He was insulted Surponokha in excuse that, she carried monster’s lineage in her blood and heinous than the divine human.

Monster Tales_2_15
Google Plus: Why are illustrations of holes clay young heart?

… Knowledge is an endless cycle of asking the perception to make another perception, but a question is not able to answer the question that, —can I live this life without relating me to the question or refutation process of any perception?  Yes, knowledge cannot settle one’s mind that, how he can live an integrated life without seeking any purpose of the life, how he can live this life sans any perception of it, and how he can shut the lamp before it appeared troublesome to the other beings of the creation.
… … …

It was insulting for Lanka king and he came here to kill Lakshmana. Rama and Lakshmana both were not present there. If the monster got any of them, he didn’t think twice of swallowed the one. Instead, he got the beautiful Janaki (Sita’s another name) and instantly hypnotized by the fragrance of an attractive woman. Fiction always created space for the good bad and ugly. Ramayana is not exceptional. Ravana kidnapped Sita according to the law which permits a warrior kidnapped the beauty by force. A gallant is always daring of robbing woman’s beauty to fill his desire, it sounds either sweet or sour Rakshasa do not bother about the ethical values of stealth. It was the fictional law in Ramayana and the basis of this law was rooted in the ancient tradition of Indian culture.

Anyway, Ravana kidnapped Sita and he drives his chariot by cutting the wings of Jatayu. He didn’t waste a second to drown him in the ethical duality of good, bad or ugly. What he did was not looking sober in today’s eyes, but his action is not so undesired or contradicted if we think it in light of Kshatriya’s tradition, which was widely accepted at that time. Kshatriya represents the pride of a king, who is born in here to rule the earth and conquer the beautiful creation at any cost. Yes, he is obliged to rule the kingdom with justice for the sake of his tenants and good governess, but he can plunder as a warrior if he wished to plunder anything he likes. The act perhaps sounds shameful or contradictory to the today’s mind, even though it was not a sin in the past. A Kshatriya is a valiant warrior, he born here to conquer the prestigious and not habituated to accept any rejection against his lovemaking lust.

Monster Tales_2_1
Google Profile: Ravana’s Yoga Shadhona: Artist Unknown

… He is obsessed for a crown, for beauty, and for the lovemaking lust to the beautiful women. Ravana followed Kshatriya’s rules in the moment of Sita’s refusal. If he was a Kshatriya instead of the monster king, the society might handle his sinful act softly and justified the heinous act in other ways. However, in that case, Ramayana was not born to teach, educate or entertain us.
… … …

Kshatriya is ordained to conquer the earth by plundering it first. He is not a religious priest, not indebted to follow the acts in case of conquering, robbing or plundering, so the rule of a priest doesn’t fit in his crown. Ravana did the same job what a Kshatriya perhaps not hesitates to do. The world of Indian fiction is utterly liberal to the lovemaking lust of a Kshatriya. It told us, the warrior caste was eager to fulfill their lust at any cost, it sounds either sweet or sour and justified or not, but the Kshatriya is fated to conquer over the lust with great fascination. He is obsessed for a crown, for beauty, and for the lovemaking lust to the beautiful women. Ravana followed Kshatriya’s rules in the moment of Sita’s refusal. If he was a Kshatriya instead of the monster king, the society might handle his sinful act softly and justified the heinous act in other ways. However, in that case, Ramayana was not born to teach, educate or entertain us

Problem is that Sita was mentally not prepared to justify Ravana’s action in Kshatriya’s eyes. Her refusal against Ravana’s lovemaking desire had a different reason, and mainly the imagination of later consequences bemused Sita on that moment. She knew that people will not take it easy, a fear of reproach appeared terrifying to the Rama’s beloved. Yes, she had a grand affection to his beloved Rama and was always truthful to him and it was the vital factor for her to refuse Ravana’s insulting proposal, but yonder factor not told everything about Sita’s rebuttal. Her affection to Rama is pure and it was the main cause of rejecting Ravana’s proposal, but another side be considerable in here that, —how it can be possible for a human flesh being tolerable to the monster’s lovemaking proposal? Sita was just unable to carry this. She was completely unprepared to accept it. If Ravana has appeared to her as a real human and Kshatriya, the story perhaps took another path, but we have to repeat, in that case, the fictional style and dramatic confusion what we see in Ramayana were not been possible.

Monster Tales_2_5
Delhi culture comment: Kala Upasana: The Earthly Lila of Ram

… A difference is inevitable when the world existed in life and when life existed in the world to play its role. Creation is obliged to obey the perception that, —it’s an autonomy to feel the actors of life.
… … ….

Monsters are incomplete to their lovemaking in a fiction. They are inept to hide their lustful desire to achieve the lovable. Lakshmana’s beauty and masculinity provoked Supornokha to make love with a human. Hidimbi felt true passion and lust of seeing Bhima‘s masculine fervor. Lakshmana obstinacy if able to control his ego before cutting Surponokha’s neck, the Lankan king most likely not arrived in Sita’s yard. Lakshmana was a fanatic of that time. The powerful be needed such fanatic for his own sake. Lakshmana played the fanatic rule on behalf of Rama. Today Israel is doing the same for America; always hanging on with the big brother, lobbying, advising or influencing him, even ensured money flow through the lobbying house, and in return, tried to earn big brother’s support for ensuring a safe and secure Israel.

Rama’s devotee Lakshmana has done the same in Ramayana. He draws a border for Sita to confine her beauty and chastity within the yard. Because he believed women’s beauty and chastity keep safe among the fence, it will destroy and polluted if a woman crosses the borderline and going outside to achieve freedom. Lakshmana’s faith confined the femininity of a woman in the prison; it makes contradiction to the early Vedic age, because, there was no restriction of free movement and lovemaking for a woman in that age. His belief driven by the thought that Zar, Zameen and Zara (Gold-Land and Women) are secure within the border, which is required to save Dharma. Lakshmana is Israel of that distant past, as Israel is always trying to keep safe by shrinking Palestine.

Bhima is better than Lakshmana in that context. He is mighty and very frivolous Kshatriya, but his inner habit is closer to the monster. Bhima didn’t hesitate to test the relish lovemaking with Hidimbi, and all we know the relish lovemaking of monster and human was given the birth of great warrior Ghatotkatcha. It was beneficial to the Pandavas and they realized it in the battlefield of Kurukshetra. Ghatotkatcha’s obedience and devotion to his father Bhima were simply incomparable. Hidimbi was a Rakṣasi (female monster) but she was very prudent in her thoughts, fostered her son Ghatotkatcha as Rakshasa (male monster) but not forget to teach him in human virtues.

Monster Tales_2_13
Rukmini Varma’s painting on Ramayana epic

… Monsters are incomplete to their lovemaking in a fiction. They are inept to hide their lustful desire to achieve the lovable. Lakshmana obstinacy if able to control his ego before cutting Surponokha’s neck, the Lankan king most likely not arrived in Sita’s yard. Lakshmana was a fanatic of that time. The powerful be needed such fanatic for his own sake. Lakshmana played the fanatic rule on behalf of Rama. Today Israel is doing the same for America;…
… … …

It’s looking unfair if we forget Moydanav, he was a great architecture and a true artist of that fictional time. Moydanav builds a magnificent palace (Mayapuri) for Pandavas in Indraprastha. The Pandavas have used the palace as a safe shelter for them. Moydanav was not an ordinary architect. People told he has belonged in Ramayana’s time. Ravana’s wife Mondodari was his daughter and he was the main architect of Lankapuri (the elegant palace of king Ravana in Lanka). Lankapuri has treated the most genius artistry in Ramayana’s time.

Human race really passed a fictional time in the remotest dawn of Indian civilization. There was a clear difference amid the Human, Animal and the Rakshasa, but the exchange was open to all. The three musketeers frequently met each other for lovemaking and battling. Yonder era has sunk down according to the pace of time. Those valiant warriors and genius artists have omitted to the earth. They were public celebrities at that time, was being epical due to the dramatic events of their life. All they appeared on the earth according to the law of fictional reality, and later omitted in the same stream of epical reality. They omitted but left the messages of varicolored exchanges between the Human, Animal, and Rakshasa.

The unification somehow existed in the earth with its fictional qualities. It was epical, natural and multidimensional, despite the absurdity of it! There was a difference between the reality and fiction and reversely it was not a difference at all. A difference existed amid the form and formlessness of creations, and reversely there was not a clear difference existed among them. The reality was epical in ancient time and perception was different there. The appearance of real things and the interaction of living objects and their disappearance through the reduction process might be considered as an autonomous game of existence. A difference is inevitable when the world existed in life and when life existed in the world to play its role. Creation is obliged to obey the perception that, —it’s an autonomy to feel the actors of life.

All actors are coming here to act as a separated being and vanished aftermath to the yonder autonomy from where they are coming and they come here acted in life for a shortened timeframe. Creation makes difference and reduction omitted all differences between the created beings. The perception is epical and epic is always fictional, because life is fictional, because it has existed and reversely not existed at all. Human, Animal and the Rakshasa they are existed in life, driven by the life-act, but reversely they are not in life, death omitted their difference by making them shapeless unknown.

Monster Tales_2_16
Delhi culture comment: Kala Upasana: The Earthly Lila of Ram

… Perception is a mind-made creation of man; he created it to know the purpose of creation, but it cannot help him later liberates his own mind to the perception he created. The only thing he has needed to know that, how can I live this autonomous life like a river, like a tree or the flying birds.
… … …

The one and only reality (which seemed fictional sometimes) is, stayed on the unknown surface like a shapeless Naught. It’s an eternal state of formless solid and unknown energy, which might be the only autonomous mind of creation. The difference between myriad shape and action are a real event, fiction is not necessary to describe it, but fiction is inevitable when all differences have shrunk into the unexplainable formless unnamed. A reality is Shogun (with form or shape) but fiction is Nirgun (Formless or shapeless). This perception made the Indian epic in ancient past and this was the key to comprehend the egoless unification with creation. Yudhishthira (the son of Dharma in Mahabharata) realized this when Vanaprastha was appeared inevitable to the great Pandavas.

… There was a difference between the reality and fiction and reversely it was not a difference at all…

Monster Tales_2_5

(Continued to the next part)

First part link: Monster tales and the fictional reality (First Part) Kirno Sohochari
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s