Chapter 13 - Embers Covered In Ash 

Day 66

There is not much difference between you and an enlightened person. If you consider his external knowledge, actions and moods, you may not see much difference between your actions and his actions. 

But it is difficult to understand the enlightened. We have made up different measuring rods for the enlightened. We think that it is one who does not sleep or does not smile or cry. 

Krishna describes the special qualities of someone who is established in wisdom. An enlightened person is always equanimous. He does not cry, laugh or become distressed. 

Yet we impose all the qualities that we want to see on the enlightened. Take a look at the Gods and enlightened saints of the past. 

Rama became so upset and lost his mind after losing his wife, Sita. Do we not consider a person mad when he starts asking questions to leaves and trees?

These days, what would you say if you saw someone who lost his scooter keep on asking, "Oh doors, tell me did I leave my scooter in front of you," or "Oh gate, tell me if I left my scooter parked in front of you."

And if he continues and asks the street signs, "Have you seen my scooter?" what would you say about him? You would admit him into a mental hospital. Rama was in the same state, more or less. 

As soon as Sita was lost, he started crying for her and questioning the trees, birds and other creatures on the way, asking whether they saw her. 

If anyone had seen Rama in that state, they would have wondered what happened to him. But we have faith in Rama and do not pay any attention to this story. Instead, we call it a play.

If you look at Rama's actions closely, you can find many flaws, and sometimes you might feel that you are better than Rama. You may think, "What is this? 

He should have advised Sita in the first place : This golden dear is not real, and I am not going to get it. You can cry if you want to." If he were really God, he could have ended the matter by saying so. 

What were all the problems for? Dasharatha did not intend to send Rama to the forest. He felt he had made a mistake and was trapped in his promise to Kaikeyi. 

In certain moods, everyone does this, even to one's wife and Dasharatha had three wives. It was difficult for him when Kaikeyi asked him to send Rama on an exile to the forest. 

In his mind, Dasharatha wanted Rama to refuse. He thought, "As king, I cannot break my promise. I would be held accountable, but Rama, as a young boy can say that he will not go, and the whole matter will end there." 

If something like this had happened, if Rama had firmly refused to go into the forest, there would have been no Ramayana. However, Rama, who understood his father's words, but not the feelings behind them, caused his father to face so much difficulty and pain. 

Then, he went on to create more problems when he set out to catch the golden deer that Sita wanted. Is it not? Was it proper to kill Vali while hiding behind a tree? 

Look at each of Rama's actions. He did not have a kingdom when Vibhishana came to him, but was wandering in the forest and himself needed help. 

Still, he made Vibishana sit in the sand and pronounced him king of Lanka before the war even started. This is nothing but politics. And just because a washer-man said something, he sent Sita, who was pregnant, back into the forest. 

Is this protecting the family's honour? What could be lost? It is laughable to be so concerned about caste and family. Seen in this way, you cannot see any virtue in Rama, but only flaws.

Similarly, look at Parashurama. What good qualities can you see? You cannot find anything. First and foremost, we say, "Matri devo bhavah," meaning "Mother is the first God." 

But just because his father told

him to behead his mother, he went to do so. A warrior king who was a little insane created some problems, and so Parashurama set out with an axe to cut off the head of every king. Is this intelligent? 

Is it not foolish? Look at Krishna's life. He did not follow the rules throughout his whole life. His mother and father were tortured before his birth, and when news of his birth became known, they were locked up in jail. 

Before Krishna was even born, all the children who had been born to his parents before him were killed. And after his birth also there was no happiness. He put up with so many difficulties. 

Nobody else could have lived Krishna's life, putting up with so many miseries. Even as a small boy he had to face the demon Putana who tried to kill him, and he also had to fight with his own uncle and kill him.

In Krishna's life, there was no non-violence or truth at all. He told lies from the very beginning. Where can you find the principle of not stealing? 

Krishna stole everything from butter to his wife, Rukmini. Nothing was acquired in a proper way. What about brahmacharya (celibacy)? He had 16,000 wives. 

And as for aparigraha, this was not one of Krishna's qualities. Aparigraha means I do not want anything, and I will not take anything. In the Gita he says, "Offer everything to me." 

Nobody in the world can be greedier than Krishna. He says, "Give me your mind, intellect, and not only what belongs to you, but also your soul and everything else." 

He tells Arjuna, "Be careful. Do not look anywhere else. If you do, I will not look at you again," and "Give whatever you want, but offer everything to me - leaves, flowers, fruits, water - if you cannot find fruit, then offer leaves. 

And if you do not have leaves, then water. Give me something." Where is aparigraha? If you look at it this way, then Krishna has not followed any rules, is it not? 

Yet we worship him as an avatar, an incarnation of the Divine. So do not analyse the enlightened by their actions.