22 July 2004: ICPR: Nala-Damayanti

Q: If you were in Damayanti’s place - and if Nala had done this to you, how would you have reacted?

It’s a very difficult question. You can never be in somebody's place first of all actually, but I think the question is a deeper question. There is a feeling, a complaint against Nala in this question. It seems as if Nala had done something very wrong in regards to Damayanti. So let me first of all ask somebody here: if anybody feels Nala did something wrong to Damayanti. Anybody here who also feels the same way? You all have read the story? All of you?

Is it true that Nala did something wrong? Let us analyse the situation in which Nala found himself with Damayanti in the forest. The complaint seems to be against Nala’s leaving Damayanti in wilderness all alone. It is almost like Sita being exiled by Rama. It’s a similar question. In the case of Rama, there was some great justification as we discussed in the morning. Is there a justification for Nala having done what he did? The author himself gives two reasons and you have to judge the story in the light of those two reasons.

Nala told Damayanti repeatedly, please go back to your father's house. The future, as he foresaw, was full of danger and difficulty, and he told her to go to her father's house where she could live in peace relatively speaking and in safety. But the Damayanti was not accepting this request of Nala, saying I shall be with you and I will share with you all the difficulties of life. Was Damayanti right in insisting on this? Was she not increasing the troubles for Nala by being with him? He had to look after himself in danger. He had also to look after his wife, who was often a great danger. Was she not increasing the burden on Nala and even if it was so, the question is: why should he not bear that dutiful burden? It was the duty of the husband to protect the wife and the wife had the right to be with the husband and to share his company, and it seems that Damayanti was quite right in insisting that she should join and keep company with her husband. She should not be sitting in the palace enjoying the comforts of a palace and allowing the husband to go on as he was doing. That’s the first issue.

The second point is that Nala was already subject to Kali. Now this is an invisible force and this aspect of the story may seem to be purely mythological and therefore it may not be appreciated by many people, but we have to give value to the author and his imagination. This story is setting up the story. He explains that there was an evil force which was at work, Damayanti knew it, Nala knew it and both were aware of the evil designs and evil fortune that had befallen them on account of the action of the kali.

Now, when kali is at work, there are situations which are created which are extremely trying. In the morning we had a question whether one is tested by God or not, and I said God does not test you, but there are many others who test and one of them is evil force. The evil force certainly aims at torturing you through a process of testing. This is one of the marks of a tyrant.

So he was put into a very, very difficult situation, because the wrong suggestions would come, wrong ideas would come and one becomes subject to these wrong ideas. On account of these two reasons, I think Nala left his wife in the wilderness. He thought that if she were left alone then indeed she will go back to her father's house, as it really happened ultimately. And there was no other way on his part by which he could have sent her to a place of safety, but surely it was not an ideal solution and to that extent, certainly we can blame Nala.

The only mitigating factor is that he made mistakes because there was a force of kali working in him, now Damayanti understood the condition of her husband quite well and that is why she reacted to Nala in the way in which she did. She did not despise Nala. She did not criticise Nala, she understood the real message of Nala. She went back to her father's house and in her agony of the heart, she shared the difficulties of Nala.

This is what I think would explain the plot of Nala and Damayanti at this stage. I cannot say that this was an ideal condition, an ideal answer to this situation, but I would put that counter question: how would you react and how would you do the right action in that situation. If the questioner were present, I would have pressed this question but since the questioner is not present, I will not press this question further. We go to the next one.

Q: Why did Dushyanta not legally marry Shakuntala and take her back to his kingdom?

Very good question. His marriage to Shakuntala was a legal marriage. You cannot say that he did not legally marry her. Gandharva marriage was regarded as one of the acceptable marriages in India. The exchange of garlands was enough to perform marriage, even today in India exchange of rings or garlands in the civil marriage act is considered to be enough. But there are many deeper questions which will come up now.

Q: Why did not Shakuntala fight back, and why did she accept Dushyanta's decision without protests?

This is a question put by Harihita Kumar. Actually the merit of the story of Shakuntala is that she did fight back. In fact, there is a film produced by V Shantaram. He produced two films on Shakuntala, one was called Shakuntala and another was called Stree the woman. In both the films as he depicted the story of Shakuntala, Shakuntala is shown a very brave woman. Perhaps some of the authors who have written stories on Shakuntala have not brought out a powerful dialogue between Shakuntala and Dushyanta at the time when Dushyanta rejects.

She indicts all men in fact. She protests vehemently against the treatment given to her by Dushyanta. Also, she could have gone home back. That would have been a weakness on her part. She refuses to go back to her mother's house. She regards herself to be a married woman, a married woman rejected by a husband and she accepts all the consequences of that status. And thirdly, it is only when Dushyanta recognizes his fault, repents for it and asks for pardon from her that she reconciles herself with him. When again some other question comes up. I will make further comments on it.

Q: Why didn't king Dushyanta legally announce Shakuntala to be his wife and why instead involved her with him in a type of secret marriage? If such a type of celebration was easily accepted by Maharishi, the father then why such relations are considered illegitimate in the present time.

It’s a question similar to this question, which was answered by Dr. Vyas, but there is one important point here which I wanted to emphasise. The fact was, it was a secret marriage in a certain sense, but it was a legal marriage. He could have waited for the father's return to get the permission from the father and there could have been an immediate marriage. There was an emotional outburst at that time, which could not wait and they wanted to be united legally. So, on the one hand, when you cannot wait and yet you want to be legal, this kind of marriage was accepted and there was no question of betrayal on either side. The difficulty arose only because of a very important event which occurred, and that is Dushyanta's forgetfulness. He forgot.

Now, this is the central question of the whole drama. How can one forget such an important event in life? This is the central question. We must remember that this story of Shakuntala is to be read at a very deep level of human existence. Most of the tragedies of life arise out of forgetfulness. The greatest forgetfulness is man's own forgetfulness about himself. We all have forgotten ourselves. This is the basic plot on which the story pivots has been self-forgetfulness.

Yesterday I was talking to you about the soul and soul’s forgetfulness about itself when it comes into the body and the whole life is nothing but a recovery of one's own memory about oneself. The story of the Mahabharata, in which this story is narrated is a story of the soul in his forgetfulness, but told in a very dramatic manner to such an extent that you may ask the question: is it ever possible to forget such an intimate event which had occurred as between Shakuntala and Dushyanta, and the answer is: yes. The whole drama is entitled abhijnana. Abhijnana is the recognition of Shakuntala.

The story is of a soul which is born on the earth, which forgets itself in this particular drama the forgetfulness comes because of the curse of a rishi, but in every case, in our own forgetfulness, there is a long explanation as to how we'll forget ourselves and how we live life as if in a condition of forgetfulness. As a result, the message of the story is that we all live tragically, our life is a continuous tragedy, which can be remedied only when you've attained self-recognition. It's an allegory of the soul, the soul's journey on the earth.

There are two questions from Bulbul Roy. Is she here?

Q: What is tapasya and what is its significance in our lives. What qualities we have the power to lift us above the vulgarities of life?

Tapa is a process of incubation, incubation is a process of giving warmth, heat. Every process which lifts you up is a process of heating up. To the Vedic knowledge the most important element in the human history is Agni. Important event in human life is attended by the manifestation of Agni.

We become cold in life, inert, negligent. that things go wrong in our lives, to be heated all the time and to feel the heat of consciousness, application of heat, that is tapasya. In ancient times, the aspect of tapasya was easily accepted and in Indian life, Indian culture tapasya is even artificially generated. People undertake fasting, they take some kind of vows. It is called some kind of infliction upon oneself of something that is uncomfortable. So that due to the discomfort, one is reminded of what one has to do. This is an artificial method. But when one concentrates deliberately on the object, then the true real tapasya begins. The real meaning of tapasya is that of concentration, to apply the force which are concentrated upon the object and to continuously radiate your concentration upon the object, when you do that the object is fulfilled.

Even when you want to study a subject - and you don't understand a subject, it is said - you just take the name of the subject and go on concentrating only on the word. I don't know what is algebra, for example. I don't understand it at all. You just think about algebra. Do nothing just concentrate, one day, two days, three days, you make an experiment in your life. The meaning of the word Algebra will begin to unfold itself either from within or somebody will come and speak to you about it or you will come across a book in which the word algebra is explained.

The circumstances will begin to vibrate around you and the meaning of the word will be revealed to you. This may look like a magic, but basically all life is magic. Everything in the world is denied because we are not concentrating. The secret of all achievement is concentration and tapasya is nothing but concentration of energy, steady concentration, continuous concentration, even to the extent that you feel great discomfort, continue on and on and on.

One of the greatest examples is that of Parvati. That is also written by Kalidasa, the author of Shakuntala. Kumarasambhava that is another big epic written by Kalidasa which shows the tapasya of Parvati, the attainment of Shiva, mere concentration upon Shiva, ultimately melts Shiva and she gains Shiva. He wants to say that tapasya is connected with temperature. All life is basically Agni and Agni is temperature, but also light. Agni has two aspects: it's not merely temperature, it is fire as heat, but also light. Mere temperature is not enough for every tapasya there should be a continuous flow in which knowledge also is added to your movement. You concentrate and more knowledge comes, more temperature, you applied, the greater knowledge begins to unfold and vice versa, physics and metaphysics work together.

In the Veda we have got a very good word kavikratu. Kratu means movement of act. It is from where the word karma comes. The intention to act, motive to act is kratu. Kavi is a state of wisdom. When the motive of action is motivated by wisdom, when there is a unity of wisdom and action. When the two are combined together, then there is perfection. Very often we act without knowledge or we have knowledge, but we don't know how to act. That is how many philosophers may know a lot of things, but in practical life they are very often zero and vice versa. Many people who are very dynamic may be leaders but at the time of action, a real decision, they find themselves in a great quandary.

This is what happened to Arjuna, a man of great action, dynamism, but when he was confronted with a very important issue in his life, he was bewildered. There was vishada yoga of Arjuna, he is bewildered. He does not know how to decide what is right or wrong. So he turned to Krishna to get kavi, good, and when the two combined together when knowledge and action are combined together, that is why Bhagavad-Gita is called the science of union of knowledge and action, synthesis of yoga. You synthesise knowledge with action, action with knowledge, the two when united together, gives you perfection, and that is the real message of the Bhagavad-Gita, and this also answers the question: by what can we be lifted upwards from the vulgarities of life. It is by combining knowledge and action that you can lift yourself from the vulgarities of life.