Devlok With Devdutt Pattanaik

by Devdutt Pattanaik

  In the story, when Valmiki hears about Hanuman’s Ramayana, he visits him and asks to see it. Hanuman shows him the banana leaf on which he has written it. After reading it, Valmiki bursts into tears. Hanuman wants to know if it’s that bad! Valmiki says that, on the contrary, it is so good that nobody will care for his Ramayana after reading Hanuman’s version. On hearing this, Hanuman tears up the banana leaf, chews it and swallows it. When Valmiki asks him why he did that, Hanuman says that his reason for writing the Ramayana was different from the rishi’s. While Valmiki composed the Ramayana so that people would remember him, for his own fame and fortune, Hanuman wrote it to remember Rama, to discover Rama. This is a loka katha describing Hanuman’s complete devotion.

  This concept can be applied to everything. What is the reason for doing any work? Is it for one’s own name and fame, like Valmiki, or to discover god, Rama, in the work itself, like Hanuman? It is a story of bhakti, dedication and devotion.

  Turning to the Mahabharata, was it narrated by Vyasa and written by Ganesha?

  This is a popular story. When Vyasa conceived the story, he realized he needed a writer to write such a vast, complicated narrative with so many verses. He prayed to the gods and they sent Ganesha to write it for him. Ganesha agreed, but on the condition that Vyasa would narrate the story non-stop. Otherwise, Ganesha would leave. Vyasa agreed but put a condition of his own, that Ganesha would write only when he understood a verse. And so, Vyasa would intersperse his narrative with such complicated verses that made even Ganesha pause and think. That would give Vyas some time to breathe! It became a sort of competition between them.

  Who first narrated the Mahabharata?

  In the Mahabharata, it’s said that the story is being told to rishis in a forest called Naimisha Van by a sutradhar known as sauti (simply, the storyteller). Those who listen are called shaunak. The sauti is Ugrasrava (one with a booming voice) who had heard the story from his father, Romaharshana. Romaharshana got his name from the fact that he told stories in such a moving way that his listeners got goose pimples (rongte khade hona). He in turn had heard it at a yagna held by Janmajeya. The yagna was called Sarpasatra, where one of Vyasa’s students, Vaisampayan, narrated the story of the Mahabharata.

  The story goes that Janmajeya is trying to find Takshak, the snake who killed his father, King Parikshit. He is told that Indra is shielding him. Janmajeya decides to hold the Sarpasatra yagna, which will destroy all the snakes in the Brahmand. Rishi Astika comes to visit him and asks him to stop the yagna, because it’s immoral. He then tells Janmajeya that a week before his death, Parikshit had broken the tap (deep meditation) of a rishi by garlanding him with a dead snake. The rishi cursed Parikshit, saying he would die of snakebite.

  When Janmajeya’s grandfather, Arjuna, had burnt down a forest to establish Indraprastha, many snakes’ homes had been destroyed. So, Takshak had sworn revenge and bitten Parikshit. The rishi warns Janmajeya that the cycle of revenge and counter-revenge is unending. His ancestors, the Pandavas, fought the Kauravas not for revenge but for dharma. And yet it was the Kauravas who attained Swarga, and the Pandavas, Naraka. He counsels Janmajeya to hear the story of his forefathers and learn from it.

  In this negative atmosphere, where snakes are being burnt to death, Vaisampayan narrates the Mahabharata to Janmajeya to drive home the truth that hinsa (violence) does not solve any problem. So, Vaisampayan tells Janmajeya the story that Romaharshana hears and tells Ugrasrava who tells the rishis, and then we hear it.

  So we are the shaunaks?

  Yes.

  How was Vyasa a participant in the Mahabharata?

  In both the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, the narrators participate in the story. In the Ramayana, Sita stays at Valmiki’s ashram after being abandoned by Rama, during her second exile. In the Mahabharata, Vyasa has intercourse (niyoga) with Vichitravirya’s widows, Ambika and Ambalika, who give birth to Dhritarashtra and Pandu, respectively. The Kauravas and the Pandavas are thus Vyasa’s descendants, and he is watching his own grandchildren fight and destroy the dynasty over land and property. Perhaps he composed the Mahabharata to show that violence does not solve problems. He narrates the stories to his disciples Vaisampayan, Jaimini, and his son Shukamuni.

  Jaimini’s story comes from the Markandeya Purana. Jaimini had some doubts about the story so he went looking for Vyasa who had taken sanyas by then. So he went to Rishi Markandeya who was considered chiranjeevi (immortal). But he had taken a vow of silence (maun vrata). There were four birds who had witnessed the Mahabharata, and Jaimini was directed to clarify his doubts from them.

  The story of the birds is quite fascinating. During the war at Kurukshetra, one of the arrows hits a pregnant bird who was flying overhead. The bird drops dead but its eggs are saved by an elephant’s bell that falls over them like a protective covering. The birds thus hear and witness the entire war, and they know the reasons for it, the inner thoughts of all those involved.

  Jaimini is famous for writing the Jaimini Ashwamedha Parva, which is about Yudhishtira’s Ashwamedha yagna that takes place after the war. The parva is a long poem in itself.

  Did Shiva hear all these stories of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata from Brahma?

  Interesting question. These stories are told in the time–space continuum of the yugas. The Ramayana is set in the Treta Yuga and the Mahabharata in the Dvapara Yuga. Shiva is beyond, outside this continuum. He is timeless or outside time (akaal). He watches the world at all times. Because our time is cyclical, the Ramayana does not happen just once. It’s an eternal (anant) story, which happens again and again. In one story, when Hanuman goes to Naga-loka (the land of serpents), the king of snakes, Vasuki, asks him, ‘Which Rama has died?’ Hanuman is taken aback. Vasuki then tells him that a Rama is born and dies in every yuga, after which a Hanuman comes to Naga-loka, just as he has now.

  So Shiva has heard the Ramayana many many times. There was a Ramayana, is a Ramayana, and the Ramayana will continue to happen, over and over again. Similarly, the Mahabharata. This is what is itihaas (history).

  18

  Lakshmi and Saraswati

  Have Lakshmi and Saraswati been mentioned in Vedic times?

  Yes, but these words have several meanings. The Vedas have a poem called Sri Sukta. Sri is Lakshmi’s first name as in sriman or srimati. In the Sri Sukta, the yajman (patron of the yagna) prays for the goddess to come into his life with cows, horses, wealth, grain, etc.

  Saraswati is associated with rivers in the Vedas. There are two schools of belief: some believe that there was a real river, and others, that it is a metaphor for gyan (river of knowledge). The word for her is Vagadevi, where ‘vak’ means language. If you go deeper into Vedic samhita, you see that language is given a lot of importance. Today, we associate Saraswati with knowledge, but in the Vedas, she was mainly associated with language.

  What is their story in the Puranas?

  In the Puranas, they acquired roop, physical form. In the Vedas, they were mentioned in the mantras, and you had to imagine what they might be like. The Puranas had a visual culture of darshan (seeing), which followed the Vedic culture of shruti (aural). In that, statues and pictures are made; they appear as characters in stories, are described. You learn about the Brahmand and prakriti (nature) from their behaviour. Other characters, such as Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Durga, Indra, asuras, rakshasas and yakshas appear in the stories. A new ecosystem is created and we acquire knowledge from their relationships and interactions.

  How was Lakshmi born?

  There are two ways of looking at this: one, from the philosophical or evolutionary angle, and the other through stories. In the beginning, there was no prana (life) in prakriti, no living creature, only the pancha mahabhut (five elements—earth, fire, water, ether, wind). Lakshmi appeared along with the first organism because every living being is hungry and looks for food. Food is ‘laksh’; from laksh came Lakshmi.

  From the need for food arose the need for power—to enable the acquisiti
on of food and to protect oneself from becoming food for another being. For instance, a deer needs power to protect itself from the tiger, and a tiger needs it to hunt for food.

  What human beings seek is meaning; we try to understand the nature of the world, who created it, and so on. We seek knowledge, and due to this Saraswati is born.

  Thus, Lakshmi is born with the first living organism, and Saraswati, with the first human. This is the philosophical, evolutionary route of understanding this.

  According to the stories, Lakshmi is born during the Amrita manthan. When the gods and asuras churn the Kshir Sagar and wealth and grain emerge, Lakshmi emerges too. She is called Varunaputri, daughter of Varuna, the sea god. She is also called Paulomi, daughter of Pulom, an asura king—so she is also an asuraputri. Asuras live in Patala (under the earth) and mineral and grain come from there—this makes her a Patala nivasini, a resident of Patala. So, she is a daughter of the asuras, who is pulled out by the gods and becomes the wife of the gods. These kinds of metaphors and allegories are used to explain a concept.

  The story of the origin of Saraswati is a bit vague. One story mentions that she emerges from Brahma’s head since knowledge comes from the head. So she is Brahma’s daughter, which suggests that knowledge is the child of man. That she has been born from within us, not outside of us. In the Shakta parampara, like in Odisha, Bengal and Assam, Lakshmi and Saraswati stand on either side of Durga; Saraswati is considered Durga’s daughter. The idea is that Durga is nature (prakriti), and from nature arise both Lakshmi (wealth) and Saraswati (knowledge). Brahma does not birth Saraswati, or knowledge—he gets it from outside. This is a different concept which suggests that knowledge is outside a human being and he has to look for it.

  In pictures, Lakshmi usually wears a red sari while Saraswati, a white one. Why is that?

  A red sari is associated with red earth, blood, with life. It refers to the worldly, material life. White, on the other hand, refers to the spiritual world, intellectual, nirguni—formless—world. Tantra gives the colour red a lot of importance, while sanyasis, ascetics, give importance to white.

  Lakshmi is the goddess of the material world, so she wears red, and does shringara, wears jewellery, which depicts wealth, power. Saraswati’s ornament is knowledge, understanding, wisdom. Real jewellery has no value. She wears a white sari, crystal as jewellery and white flowers. Lakshmi (wealth) can be possessed and exchanged like cash; one chases Lakshmi. You can’t hand over Saraswati (knowledge) in the same way; you have to acquire it, learn it. Once you acquire knowledge, it stays with you. And even if you impart it, you don’t lose it; in fact it multiplies. If you impart knowledge to someone, your own knowledge improves.

  Their personalities are very different. Lakshmi is whimsical, demanding—asthir, or restless. Saraswati is autonomous, aloof, sthir—in repose. Some say that white is the colour of a widow; here, it suggests that she’s not interested in men. In the Puranas, by men they mean humanity. So it means that knowledge does not need human beings; human beings need knowledge.

  Both these paramparas—Lakshmi and Saraswati—are important in India, one of knowledge and one of subsistence.

  A story goes that a child, Ramakrishna (later to be known as Tenaliraman), chants a mantra taught to him by the rajguru of Vijaynagara, and Goddess Kali appears. She asks if he wants a boon from her. While he’s thinking, she produces two bowls, one filled with honey and the other with milk, and asks him to choose one. If he picks honey, he’ll get Lakshmi; if he chooses milk, he’ll get Saraswati. He’s torn between choosing wealth over knowledge. Finally, he mixes the two and drinks it all up.

  It’s said that Lakshmi and Saraswati cannot live together.

  This is a concept that emerged during the medieval period, from the tension between baniyas and Brahmins. The children of baniyas, or traders, entered business very young, and didn’t get time to study. So, while their wealth was there for everyone to see, they would be deprived of education. Brahmins would study all day—Jyotish-shastra (astrology), Vastu-shastra (geomancy)—do puja, conduct prayers in temples, and so on. They did not have money, so they had to serve and get dakshina (alms). In temples, they would subsist on leftovers of the food offered to the gods as bhog. They felt they had Saraswati, but not Lakshmi; baniyas felt the opposite. This does not mean that if you study you will not get wealth. Today, in fact, if you don’t study you won’t get a job. It is also not true that just because you are rich you won’t be able to understand poetry or can’t be educated. In the software world, especially, with the knowledge economy, these two come together. There’s another sophisticated idea behind this. Lakshmi satisfies the hunger of the body but cannot bring the meaning, peace and happiness that a human being needs. Only Saraswati can bring that. So Lakshmi provides food, and Saraswati provides happiness.

  Sentences like ‘where Lakshmi resides, Saraswati doesn’t’ have various meanings. The most powerful meaning is that when you have knowledge, you will appreciate the true value of money. You will realize that value does not come from money, but from the soul, that money is required only for the material life, for running the household—so your attachment to it will reduce. You will not be obsessed with it. It is said that Saraswati sits by Vishnu’s head, and Lakshmi at his feet. He enjoys both—he participates in the material world, but is peaceful because of Saraswati. Indra, on the contrary, does not have Saraswati, so while he enjoys material wealth, he does not find happiness.

  Today, for the sake of symmetry, we associate Brahma with Saraswati, Vishnu with Lakshmi and Shiva with Durga. Brahma is looking for knowledge, chasing after it, so Saraswati sits with him. Vishnu has found meaning but needs wealth to manage society, so has Lakshmi; but he knows her place in his life. When you acquire a lot of knowledge (Saraswati), you value Lakshmi less, because you know you need it only so much; it does not become an obsession. That’s why there is always a clash between the two.

  We worship Lakshmi during Diwali. When do we worship Saraswati?

  Good question. At Dussehra, all three goddesses are worshipped, where one day each is devoted to them. During the puja for Saraswati, students take their books and pens to the goddess. But it is Vasant Panchami that is especially associated with Saraswati. At the onset of spring (Vasant), writers, poets feel inspired. It is said that in earlier times, poets and writers would wear clothes the colour of sarson, mustard flowers (yellow), and compose paeans to Saraswati in her temples. In eastern India, during Vasant Panchami, they also bring an image of Saraswati.

  19

  Mothers

  A mother gives birth to a child. But did god give birth to the mother or did a mother give birth to god?

  As interesting as the question is, the answer is not quite as simple. In a temple, the space where a god’s image is kept is known as the garbhagriha; the god is residing inside the garbha or womb. Whose womb is this? A temple itself is considered a woman, a mother. Spiritually, prakriti is everyone’s mother. Prakriti has given birth to sanskriti (culture). God’s mother is also prakriti.

  According to the Rig Veda, Daksha gave birth to Aditi and Aditi gave birth to Daksha; that is, the father created the mother and the mother created the father. When you go way back in the past, the division between father and mother collapses. With god, this concept does not hold because god is svayambhu—he has given birth to himself; he is his own mother. Two words are used often in the Puranas—yonija (born of the womb) and svayambhu (who gives birth to self). God is always svayambhu, but his avatars are yonija; they experience birth and death. For instance, Rama is an avatar, so he is born—to his mother, Kaushalya—and dies. Krishna, likewise, has a mother, Devaki. Shiva is svayambhu.

  In the Tantra parampara, where goddesses are given a lot of importance, the stories and folk tales speak of how in the beginning of the world there was only a devi, prakriti, called Adimayashakti. She gave birth to three eggs from which were born Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. She is therefore called Triamba (one who gave birth to three chi
ldren). This does not happen in Puranic stories. In the Shakta parampara, god does have a mother. In the Vaishnava parampara, god gives birth to himself, and creates the world and its creatures from himself. In the Shaiva parampara, Shiva gives birth to himself; he is svayambhu, doesn’t have a mother, but gives birth to all mothers.

  Devi is sometimes called kumari (virgin) and sometimes mata (mother). How is that?

  In Christianity there is the virgin mother who is Jesus’s mother. The word kumari, in India and in the world, does not necessarily mean virgin. It means a woman who is independent, who has no husband, and no man has a right over her. She has no ties and is completely liberated. She is both mata and kumari, that is, an independent mother. Her hair is always depicted untied, to symbolize her freedom. No one can have dominance over prakriti.

  In Vaishnodevi and Kal Bhairava temples, Bhairava is her guard. The story is that Bhairava wanted to have a relationship with the goddess; the goddess refused and cut off his head, saying, ‘You cannot control me.’ In another story, when Brahma’s fifth head wanted rights over her, Bhairava cut it off. Such are the violent stories associated with the kumari.