TRANSLATION OF THE BOOK 'MARANAM-PARAMANANDATHINTE THAKKOL' WRITTEN BY ANAND UNNITHAN. TRANSLATED BY:KRISHNA(KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR).copyright@anand unnithan(author of the book)
TO BECOME A DEVOTEE DOES NOT MEAN BECOMING A MONK
An impish boy lived in the neighbourhood of an aged philosopher. One evening the attention of the philosopher fell on the boy who was throwing stones at a tall mango tree.
As a result of his aimless throws, tender leaves and flowers were falling down.
Seeing that the philosopher thought: “It is really deplorable. This naughty boy has destroyed those flowers which were the mangoes to have become the food of so many lives.”
When he could not make even a single mango fall down even after so many attempts, he withdrew from making further efforts.
And the philosopher too withdrew, thinking contemptuously about the futile attempts of the boy.
Next morning the philosopher woke up hearing the din of ceaseless throwing of stones.
Slightly angry, yet with a desire to advise the boy, although there was no scope of his getting virtuous, he hurried out. And what he saw there doubled his anger.
Below the Mango tree, tender leaves, flowers, mangoes, small branches, and tiny sprouts were spread everywhere. Stopping the boy, he asked: “You have made more mangoes fall than what you can eat. Then why do you destroy the remaining mangoes too by pelting stones at the tree?”
And the answer of that mischievous boy was like this.
“I am trying to make that mango fall, which is on the other side of that branch. What use I have with other mangoes?”
Is it not real Sadhana (ascetic discipline)?
The naughty boy is engaged in action to achieve his aim. He is using his mind and body and soul and everything for that purpose.
When a person does action using everything, in order to achieve the result, he is Sadhaka and his actions are Sadhana. He is not bothered about the consequences of his action. He is the symbol of vitality.
Energy overflows in him. But the old man is the symbol of something else. He is making canons from anything and everything. The blind man who elucidates an elephant is better than him.
Yes. Karma and Sadhana are different.
Any action done within the limitations of space and time by the doer is Karma.
But it would not become Sadhana.
When that is the case, a Sadhaka may be doing any work. He may be a spiritualist or materialist, a poet or a painter, a public figure or a lover. Anyone.
The subjects of Sadhana may be different and diverse.
But a Sadhaka is like the great archer Arjuna (A character from the Indian epic Mahabharata), with bow and arrow held ready to shoot. Apart from the target, there is nothing in front of him. If the Sadhaka is a poet, his Sadhana is poetry.
That is that and only that.
Does it mean that a poet should not draw a picture?
No.
Even when a poet is engaged in drawing a picture, the subject of his Sadhana is poetry.
Because, the picture which develops from his imagination will be in accordance with the level of his understanding, where he would have reached through Sadhana.
Even the experiences which he may gain while drawing the picture will become the theme of his poem.
And if he is scrutinizing a picture drawn by someone else, he will be able to give it a poetic explanation.
So, a Sadhaka utilizes everything in front of him for his Sadhana.
A Brahmachari (A man who decided for spiritual reasons never to marry and has overcome carnal desires) and a lustful man will be utilizing a sensual woman in different ways.
Her smell itself will be enough to awaken the sexual desire of the lusty one. But the learned Brahmachari will not allow his mind to control his consciousness and it will enable him to convert the sexual energy to meditative power.
But I do not mean by this that the lustful man is lowly or the Brahmachari is great.
If a person is doing Sadhana in Rathy (The extreme, rapturous, splendor of sexual union, where the partners lose their identity and their souls become one with the Universe), then it becomes his meditation.
Its concealed depths are being sought. He searches for it everywhere. And he becomes Rathi.
Many a times, there are the laws and boundaries of customs and manners which become obstacles to a Sadhaka.
For example, take the example of a person, whose Sadhana is in Rathi.
The society declares that sexual relationship between a man and woman is permissible only after marriage and so the question of marriage comes up.
The second path is to disapprove the society and its laws and customs.
By taking the first path, he can enter the state of Rathi through the institution of marriage. But he will always exist in incompleteness.
Only from bodily relationship with different types of woman that he can evaluate the common nature.
While the physiology and beauty of some women may not attract him much, some other women may madden him with lust. He may desire women of a particular age group than of other age groups.
The idea about sex in the mind of an adolescent girl will be different from the sexual desires and approaches of a middle-aged woman.
Why to say more. Even his own thoughts about sex will be different at his different ages.
At times, he may feel disagreement and hatred towards sex. But at other times, he may be inexhaustibly passionate.
Yes. Only after passing through different women of different nature that he can at least get some idea about the phenomenon called Rathi, which is the subject of his Sadhana.
But the Social laws and disciplines are there in front of him as obstacles.
But a Sadhaka is one who will neglect everything else.
For his individual freedom, he has to break the laws without harming others.
Yes. Without harming others.
Because, the right to live is there for them also.
But he too has the same right. The right to live.
Society does not get born, does not live or does not die.
It just gets structured and organized. Only the individuals live.
It is the freedom of each individual, which is more important than the society.
Yes. One individual should not interfere with the freedom of another individual.
But interfere – Only if it questions his freedom.
Even if it is Bhakti (An intense faith in God) instead of Rathi, there is no difference in the conditions.
The Society makes restrictions as to how a Bhaktha (One who has Bhakti) should be. Otherwise, he will not be approved.
Even if it is a public figure instead of Bhaktha, the story is the same.
It may not be possible for a person to function in an organization without slaying his personal interests. Because, rules are dearer to the organization than persons. The organization may say: “It is all for public interest.”
But what is after all this ‘public interest?’
When my interest is not even your interest, how can it be ‘our’ interest?
How can a religious person, who meditates on Bhakti, can work in an institution, which opposes religion?
For him, working there means cheating himself!
Either he has to pretend as sadhaka of their principle. Or he will have to give more importance to the institution, than his own interest or at least he will have to pretend like that. In both cases, he will be cheating himself.
What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? (Gospel -Mathew 16: 26). Yes. Never be a cheat to your own self.
If that is so, A real sadhaka may be bound to utter ‘mattuvin chattangale’ (change the rules) like the great Malayalam poet Kumaran Asaan.
Yes. To become a sadhaka does not mean severance of all attachments and to become a monk.
Sadhaka believes in freedom.
He is not a person who harm others. But he is not inactive or inert. He works to safeguard his own soul.
To him, his interests are of paramount importance. At the same time, he is not against any other person’s interests.
It means that he wants to be free rather than in a cage of restrictions.
Yes. Only a sadhaka can become something and get the pearls of wisdom.
Others will learn about it only from hearsay. To experience the heat of fire by touching it and to hear from others about that quality of fire are different experiences.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
TO BECOME A DEVOTEE DOES NOT MEAN BECOMING A MONK
An impish boy lived in the neighbourhood of an aged philosopher. One evening the attention of the philosopher fell on the boy who was throwing stones at a tall mango tree.
As a result of his aimless throws, tender leaves and flowers were falling down.
Seeing that the philosopher thought: “It is really deplorable. This naughty boy has destroyed those flowers which were the mangoes to have become the food of so many lives.”
When he could not make even a single mango fall down even after so many attempts, he withdrew from making further efforts.
And the philosopher too withdrew, thinking contemptuously about the futile attempts of the boy.
Next morning the philosopher woke up hearing the din of ceaseless throwing of stones.
Slightly angry, yet with a desire to advise the boy, although there was no scope of his getting virtuous, he hurried out. And what he saw there doubled his anger.
Below the Mango tree, tender leaves, flowers, mangoes, small branches, and tiny sprouts were spread everywhere. Stopping the boy, he asked: “You have made more mangoes fall than what you can eat. Then why do you destroy the remaining mangoes too by pelting stones at the tree?”
And the answer of that mischievous boy was like this.
“I am trying to make that mango fall, which is on the other side of that branch. What use I have with other mangoes?”
Is it not real Sadhana (ascetic discipline)?
The naughty boy is engaged in action to achieve his aim. He is using his mind and body and soul and everything for that purpose.
When a person does action using everything, in order to achieve the result, he is Sadhaka and his actions are Sadhana. He is not bothered about the consequences of his action. He is the symbol of vitality.
Energy overflows in him. But the old man is the symbol of something else. He is making canons from anything and everything. The blind man who elucidates an elephant is better than him.
Yes. Karma and Sadhana are different.
Any action done within the limitations of space and time by the doer is Karma.
But it would not become Sadhana.
When that is the case, a Sadhaka may be doing any work. He may be a spiritualist or materialist, a poet or a painter, a public figure or a lover. Anyone.
The subjects of Sadhana may be different and diverse.
But a Sadhaka is like the great archer Arjuna (A character from the Indian epic Mahabharata), with bow and arrow held ready to shoot. Apart from the target, there is nothing in front of him. If the Sadhaka is a poet, his Sadhana is poetry.
That is that and only that.
Does it mean that a poet should not draw a picture?
No.
Even when a poet is engaged in drawing a picture, the subject of his Sadhana is poetry.
Because, the picture which develops from his imagination will be in accordance with the level of his understanding, where he would have reached through Sadhana.
Even the experiences which he may gain while drawing the picture will become the theme of his poem.
And if he is scrutinizing a picture drawn by someone else, he will be able to give it a poetic explanation.
So, a Sadhaka utilizes everything in front of him for his Sadhana.
A Brahmachari (A man who decided for spiritual reasons never to marry and has overcome carnal desires) and a lustful man will be utilizing a sensual woman in different ways.
Her smell itself will be enough to awaken the sexual desire of the lusty one. But the learned Brahmachari will not allow his mind to control his consciousness and it will enable him to convert the sexual energy to meditative power.
But I do not mean by this that the lustful man is lowly or the Brahmachari is great.
If a person is doing Sadhana in Rathy (The extreme, rapturous, splendor of sexual union, where the partners lose their identity and their souls become one with the Universe), then it becomes his meditation.
Its concealed depths are being sought. He searches for it everywhere. And he becomes Rathi.
Many a times, there are the laws and boundaries of customs and manners which become obstacles to a Sadhaka.
For example, take the example of a person, whose Sadhana is in Rathi.
The society declares that sexual relationship between a man and woman is permissible only after marriage and so the question of marriage comes up.
The second path is to disapprove the society and its laws and customs.
By taking the first path, he can enter the state of Rathi through the institution of marriage. But he will always exist in incompleteness.
Only from bodily relationship with different types of woman that he can evaluate the common nature.
While the physiology and beauty of some women may not attract him much, some other women may madden him with lust. He may desire women of a particular age group than of other age groups.
The idea about sex in the mind of an adolescent girl will be different from the sexual desires and approaches of a middle-aged woman.
Why to say more. Even his own thoughts about sex will be different at his different ages.
At times, he may feel disagreement and hatred towards sex. But at other times, he may be inexhaustibly passionate.
Yes. Only after passing through different women of different nature that he can at least get some idea about the phenomenon called Rathi, which is the subject of his Sadhana.
But the Social laws and disciplines are there in front of him as obstacles.
But a Sadhaka is one who will neglect everything else.
For his individual freedom, he has to break the laws without harming others.
Yes. Without harming others.
Because, the right to live is there for them also.
But he too has the same right. The right to live.
Society does not get born, does not live or does not die.
It just gets structured and organized. Only the individuals live.
It is the freedom of each individual, which is more important than the society.
Yes. One individual should not interfere with the freedom of another individual.
But interfere – Only if it questions his freedom.
Even if it is Bhakti (An intense faith in God) instead of Rathi, there is no difference in the conditions.
The Society makes restrictions as to how a Bhaktha (One who has Bhakti) should be. Otherwise, he will not be approved.
Even if it is a public figure instead of Bhaktha, the story is the same.
It may not be possible for a person to function in an organization without slaying his personal interests. Because, rules are dearer to the organization than persons. The organization may say: “It is all for public interest.”
But what is after all this ‘public interest?’
When my interest is not even your interest, how can it be ‘our’ interest?
How can a religious person, who meditates on Bhakti, can work in an institution, which opposes religion?
For him, working there means cheating himself!
Either he has to pretend as sadhaka of their principle. Or he will have to give more importance to the institution, than his own interest or at least he will have to pretend like that. In both cases, he will be cheating himself.
What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? (Gospel -Mathew 16: 26). Yes. Never be a cheat to your own self.
If that is so, A real sadhaka may be bound to utter ‘mattuvin chattangale’ (change the rules) like the great Malayalam poet Kumaran Asaan.
Yes. To become a sadhaka does not mean severance of all attachments and to become a monk.
Sadhaka believes in freedom.
He is not a person who harm others. But he is not inactive or inert. He works to safeguard his own soul.
To him, his interests are of paramount importance. At the same time, he is not against any other person’s interests.
It means that he wants to be free rather than in a cage of restrictions.
Yes. Only a sadhaka can become something and get the pearls of wisdom.
Others will learn about it only from hearsay. To experience the heat of fire by touching it and to hear from others about that quality of fire are different experiences.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
No comments:
Post a Comment