Lachhaman’s Story

http://www.talkingmyths.com/lacchamans-story/

 Ramkatha painting by Gond tribals. Courtesy: www.ignca.nic.in

Celibate Hero, Brother of Ram

http://www.talkingmyths.com/blog/celibate-hero-brother-of-ram/

Both published in Talking Myths Project 

Knowledge Transfer – Lessons from Mythology

Many organisations that I come across seem to have one problem (amongst many) in common and that is Knowledge Transfer (KT). People don’t want to share knowledge and at times people don’t find the existing knowledge worth taking (typical of the Gen X, who have just passed out of elitist colleges), or people not being able to collate and ‘hand-over’ a clearly articulated body of knowledge.

KT is the transfer of knowledge, expertise, skills and capabilities. Is KT a new subject on the horizon or is it just a new phenomenon due to insecurity of the modern day workplaces? KT in its basic form has existed from time immemorial in the form of Gurukuls, and then schools and colleges of present day. Teachers have taught and passed their knowledge to students, some of who have added to the body of work and passed it down to others in the subsequent generations.

Organisations too have seen such transfers earlier. Be they in the form of an Associate, an Apprentice, or just a junior who goes on to learn the tricks of the trade and take on the mantle one fine morning. Sons have been natural heirs, but others too have been honoured with the knowledge and have moved on to start on their own.

But transferring knowledge in an organisation is not as easy as it is in schools and colleges or small set-ups. In a modern-day knowledge based organisations, knowledge is critical. Besides managing knowledge which is in the minds of its employees, transferring the same on their leaving is a critical aspect where many seen to fail, and in many cases, the organisations are not even aware of the failure.

So how does KT become effective and a viable practise for organisations? How do they ensure that nothing is lost or at least substantial is retained before an employee leaves or retires?

KT is effective when the receiver is aware that there is knowledge worth accepting. When the leader is held in awe because of the knowledge, then the transfer is effective. In the epic Ramayan, Ravan was an able administrator. His rule was a golden period for his kingdom (which figuratively was referred to as sone-ki-Lanka, or the land of the gold). When Ravan was on his death-bed, he passed his knowledge of able administration to Ram, which in future came to be referred as Ramrajya. Ram who had dealt the deadly blow to his enemy, accorded Ravan the position of a Guru, and sat down to hear the words of wisdom from the dying asura-King. Knowledge should never die with the person who either created it or mastered it.

In the epic Mahabharat, Vidur has been shown sharing his knowledge of administration frequently with the Pandavs, which is also known as Vidur-niti. This is never done with the Kauravas, since they were never found receptive. Bhishma too promises not to die till he has imparted his knowledge of ethics, morals and values to Yudhishtir and the same was meticulously done from his bed of arrows after the tenth day of the war of Kurukshetra.

Knowledge Transfer is effective, when it is done by the person who is acknowledged to be in a superior position because of the knowledge. His elevated position is because he has some skill, knowledge in his possession. This is akin to the typical guru-shishya parampara where people have gone to acquire the said art or skill. It could be similar to Dronacharya, as a teacher who is willing to pass his skills to all the students in return of some favour, or Parashuram who is willing to pass down his knowledge to Karna in return of no favour.

Knowledge transfer is very effective when it comes in the form of need-of-the-hour. Krishna in his epochal Gita had transferred a huge body of knowledge at the right time to Arjun, which enabled him to fight the war of Kurukshetra. This knowledge till date is translated, interpreted and taught in different ways and the relevance of which seems to be reinvented with changing times.

Knowledge transfer is meaningful, when we know that the said knowledge emanates from reliable sources. The Vedas, Upanishads, etc. are all troves of knowledge which have been recorded for use. Some say, they were passed on by gods through seers for future use, while some say these are learning of the past recorded for generations to come. Even the epic Mahabharat is supposed to have been dictated by Vyas, but written by Ganesha – where is the reason to doubt such an epic which has been written by a god with his own piece of tooth?

Finally what makes KT most effective is the method of the transfer. Many a times, if it is passed down as tomes of knowledge, it is ineffective. Let me tell you a story here. Once upon a time there lived a king who had three sons and according to the king all his sons were idiots and he wondered how could he ever leave the throne to any one of them, when none of them were worth anything? His worry was solved by a person, who promised to educate his sons and make them worthy of the throne. This man focused on the wisdom of the scriptures rather than the scriptures itself. He created stories which would teach a lesson or a moral and make the learning more interesting, instead of didactic or moralistic. Soon the Princes were a Kings delight and each one of them was eligible to occupy the throne! This man was none other than the famous Vishnu Sharma and what he wrote for the princes is known to all of us Panchatantra! The Panchatantra or the five treatise cover all aspects of management, personal life and the cunning that one needs to have to face life.

Just as lessons are easy to impart, but not-so-easy to understand, so is the case with Knowledge Transfer. It is easy to speak about it, even easier to lay down

Courtesy Dilbert.com

the processes that govern the transfer, but very complex to execute. The biggest impediment to the process is the fear of redundancy. In an ever increasing competitive environment, ones knowledge is perceived as ones asset acquired over a long period of time and to pass it down as a process does not settle well with an individual who is feeling insecure in the first place. Needless to say, that the same cannot be done overnight too, after all KT is not a case of divine revelation!

KT needs to be part of an organisational process from day one. Every process or step in an organisation should aid the Knowledge accumulation leading to its dissemination. It has to be a top-down approach. A Bhishma needs to be visible to the system who is willing to share his knowledge or a leader like Ram needs to be seen in all humility willing to accept knowledge from even his enemy.

The day, sharing knowledge becomes a part of an organisations DNA, Knowledge Transfer will be seamless and as normal as any other regular process of the organisation!

Sage Rishyasringa

Let me tell you an interesting story with a slight twist to the tale at its tail-end!

Pic 1 - A sculpture of Sage Sri Rishyashringa in the temple at Kigga

This is the myth of Sage Rishyasringa. Sage Rishyasringa was the son of Sage Vibhandaka and apsara Urvashi. Once Urvashi was sent by Lord Indra to seduce Sage Vibhandaka and disturb his penance, by which he could have attained powers which Indra perceived as dangerous to the gods. Having broken Vibhandaka’s penance, Urvashi manages to seduce the sage, and from their union, begets a child who strangely, was born with a horn on his head. (Another version says that the child was born out of a doe, who had consumed the life-giving fluid of Vibhandaka which fell into the river on seeing Urvashi, and thus the horn) The child was thus named Rishyasringa (rishi – sage, shringa – deer horns). Sometimes he is even referred to as Ekshringa, implying that he had one horn.

Soon after giving birth to the child, Urvashi goes back to the heavens, her task accomplished. This leaves Vibhandaka very bitter and he takes a dislike to the entire woman-kind. Since, his penance was disturbed by a woman, and he was left with a motherless child, he decided to bring up his son in the absence of any woman. Vibhandaka set up his hermitage in the midst of a jungle and started living there with his son, Rishyasringa, who was educated on all the scriptures and Vedas, but had not seen any human being (read women) besides his father.

Once there was a famine, in the nearby kingdom of Anga (present day Bihar), ruled by King Lomapada. The King was advised that there would be rains in his kingdom only if a Brahmin who had observed absolute chastity visited the kingdom and was referred to Rishyasringa. The king sent beautiful damsels to fetch Rishyasringa from the jungle and Rishyasringa was surprised to see the lovely ladies as he had never seen such beauty in his life. Fortunately, Sage Vibhandaka was not in the hermitage and on hearing the need, Rishyasringa, came along with the ladies. No sooner had he stepped on to the grounds of Anga, there was a heavy downpour. The King was pleased and so were his subjects.

The king decided to offer his daughter, Shanta, to the sage as a wife. Later Sage Vibhandaka came to know about the ploy and was extremely angry. But he accepted everything as fate and concluded that this was inevitable and that the principle of male and female forces can never be separated, no matter what. Rishyasringa and Shanta got married and stayed on at Anga, till it was time for their vanaprashtha, retirement to the jungles.

King Dasharath of Ayodhya was a friend of King Lomapada and was without any heir, in spite of having three wives. When Dasharath was advised to perform a Putra-kameshti (for begetting a son) Yagna, it was decided that they would invite Sage Rishyasringa to perform the yagna. If was after this yagna, that Dasharath was blessed with the birth of his four sons, Ram, Lakshaman, Bharat and Shatrughan.

Pic 2 - Royal queens of Dasaratha in front of Sage Rishyasringa; sculptures on outer wall of Ramachandra temple in Hampi,Karnataka,India

Did I hear, so what is the twist?

This daughter of King Lomapada, Shanta, was actually the daughter of King Dasharath! It is said, that Dasharath and Kaushalya, the first wife of the King (and Lord Ram’s mother) had a daughter who was born with a defect in her legs. The medics of the times could not do anything to remedy the defect, till Sage Vasishtha suggested that the daughter be ‘donated’ or given for adoption to some divine couple. Thus Shanta was given to King Lomapada and soon Shanta was cured of her handicap and later married to Sage Rishyasringa. This means that Shanta was none other than Lord Rama’s elder sister and the first born of King Dasharath.

Some versions do not mention anything about the handicap. The Queen of Anga, was Vershini who was also the elder sister of Kaushalya. Once in Ayodhya, Vershini asked for an offspring, in jest, since she too had no child. To this King Dasharath agreed to allow his daughter, Shanta, to be adopted. The famine in Anga is also partly blamed on Shanta. According to this version, once when Shanta and King Lompada were busy talking, a Brahmin approached the King for some help for the forthcoming monsoon. The king was too busy to speak to him, which infuriated the Brahmin, who left the palace. This further angered Lord Indra, who decided to withhold the rains!

This raises a few questions. Why has there been no focus on Shanta in the entire Ramayana, except for some obscure places prior to the Putra-kameshti yagna to be performed by King Dasharatha and that too not at the primary level, but with reference to Sage Rishyasringa? Is the handicap attributed as the main cause for adoption an afterthought or was it true? The adoptive parents were to be a divine couple, but there was nothing divine about King Lomapada and Queen Vershini. Does this in any form say something about the unwanted-ness of the girl child or is it something not worth debating? Though Valmiki Ramayana does not focus much on Shanta, except for a conversation between Dasharath and Sumantra prior to the yagna, Bhagvata Purana talks about Shanta.

Shiva-Linga of Sage Rishyashringa 

    

In the town of Kigga, near Sringeri in modern day Karnataka, India, is a temple of Sri Malahanikareswhwara. ‘Shingeri’ also derives its name from Rishyasringa. The shiv-linga in the temple is supposed to be the linga which was worshipped by Sage Vibhandaka and later Sage Rishyasringa. After living his life, Rishyasringa is supposed to have disappeared in the linga and thus the linga is supposed to have a horn. There exists another such temple in the Kullu district of Himachal Pradesh which has the idols of Rishyasringa and Shanta!

Picture Courtesy -

Pic 1 & Shiv Linga - Courtesy - www.sringeri.net

Pic 2 - The Hindu 

Ravan – Concluding Part

So yesterday on the occasion of Dusherra, Ravan was burnt with all the fanfare and celebration that goes with the victory of good over evil. In my last couple of articles, we have seen that Ravan was quite a good King and his subjects were very happy under his rule. He was also religious, as he was ardent devotee of both Lord Brahma and Shiva. In his previous births, he was in service of Lord Vishnu.

Legend has it that when Ram had to conduct a puja before the war with Ravan, the rituals were presided over by none other than Ravan himself as there were no Brahmins in that area. Knowing well, that the rituals were to be conducted against his own self, he followed his duty of a Brahmin well. Ravan is supposed to have parted with his knowledge of administration to Ram before he breathed his last. Ram is supposed to have accepted Ravan as his guru for that brief moment and what we know as Ramrajya (rule of Lord Ram) is nothing but based on Ravan’s knowledge of administration. Finally, Ram had even to undergo penalty for killing Ravan, as killing Ravan was akin to brahma-hatya, killing of a Brahmin, a grave sin in those days.

Then why is Ravan still the villain of the epic? Why do we still burn his effigy every year, year after year with such joy and élan?

Ravan was the epitome of manhood but in the epic he has been shown as what a man should not be. Despite all the good qualities, the major error in his character was his hubris. He was a walking embodiment of pride and arrogance. In Hindu mythology, folklore, etc. pride and arrogance has been treated with a lot of contempt and has always been looked down upon, even amongst gods. Many a god has been humbled when pride sets in him. Why are we so averse to Pride? Pride and arrogance steals humility from man and when he loses his humility, he loses his ability to distinguish between right and wrong.

Ravan had lots of good qualities for which he was awarded with boons and recognition too. But all the virtues are what they are only when they are accompanied with humility and not arrogance. He is a stark contrast to the maryada-purshottam (man among men) Lord Ram.

With reference to the epic Ramayana, however vile be the act of Lakshaman in mutilating Surpanakha’s face, the same cannot be justified with kidnapping of another man’s wife, as an act of retribution. What the author of the epic might be trying to establish is the difference between the way of the civilised and the rule of the jungle. What Lakshaman did was not a civilised act, but then Ravan was a King and an extremely educated and well-versed one at that. Where did all the education and knowledge go when faced with a personal crisis of sorts? Was it fair for a King to endanger his entire kingdom for what was apparently a personal problem? A good King and an able administrator must distinguish between what is a threat to his persona as against his nation. It is not that he did not have good advisors – Mandodari, his wife did advise him to give up his claim on Sita and so did many others. But Ravan was consumed by his hubris and thus could not distinguish between what was wrong and what was not.

The long and short of it all is, that yes, Ravan was unparalleled in his stature, but such characters whose vision is impaired by pride and arrogance can be annihilated by even a mortal. No matter how virtuous one is, a single vice can be fatal and unpardonable. In Ravan, we see the fatal in abundance and thus all the boons and virtues are of no help during the final act.

The burning of Ravan’s effigy is not to be seen as burning of the character of Ravan, but burning of the evil in the character. When we burn Ravan, we burn all that’s evil in ourselves and around us. If we are not doing that, then we are simply following a ritual, and not participating in the act. There are a number of temples in India dedicated to Ravan, as a hero; I sincerely hope they are worshipping what was good in him and not doing so as an act of being anti-establishment or anti-Aryan!

With this I conclude my series on Ravan. I hope I have done justice to the character who had the capability of heroism in him, but due to a significant error in his character, ended up being an ant-hero in the epic Ramayana.

Ravan – Part 2

Many scholars have said many things about Ravan’s womanising ways, but that too is a contradiction in the opinion of many. Many have said that though he had many wives, which was probably a norm for Kings in those days, he always respected women. This can also be understood by the fact that his subjects were both happy in his regime and respected him as a King. A kingdom cannot be happy and content, if the women in the kingdom were insecure. Besides, many felt that his kidnapping of Sita, had less to do with his womanising ways or lust for women, than revenge for the wrongful mutilation of his beautiful sister, Surpanakha. However, there are different opinions on this matter, based on different versions. Let us understand this in a slight detail.

According to one version, a sage-woman by the name of Vedavati was performing penance to propitiate Lord Vishnu and gain him as a husband. Ravan was moved by her beauty which seemed to have been enhanced due to the penance, but she rejected his advances. When Ravan tried to force himself on her, she is supposed to have ended her life by burning herself. Before dying, she had vowed to be the cause of his death in her next birth. Later Vedavati is reborn as the first child of Ravan and Mandodari. It had already been prophesied that Mandodari’s first born would be the cause of Ravan’s death. On the birth of their daughter, she was ordered to be killed. However, Subahu, who was given the task of killing the child, was unable to kill the baby-girl and abandoned the child and lied to Ravan that he had killed her. The child was later found by King Janak, who brought up the child as Sita (also known as Vedavati, sometimes) and the rest as they say, is history.

There is another version of his alleged womanising ways. According to this version, Ravan tried to force himself on Rambha, an apsara, who was already engaged to Kuber’s (Ravan’s elder brother) son. Rambha pleaded to let her go as she was like a daughter to him, but Ravan could not be deterred. Seeing this, Kuber’s son cursed him that if he ever tried to force himself on any woman, then his ten heads would fall of his head. Some scholars also say that it was for this reason that Ravan could not violate Sita’s chastity when she was in his custody, and not necessarily due to his strong character and will, which many of Ravan’s admirers feel.

As I mentioned there are different opinions about Ravan’s womanising ways, but his strong will and the strength of character cannot be questioned. Many have also opined that he was well aware of the fact that Sita was his daughter, and it was due to this that he never even touched Sita. His only objective was to avenge his sister’s insult. Or was there some other objective?

Let me tell you a story here –

Once, when Vishnu was in his abode, Viakuntha, there were two dwarpal (gatekeepers) by the name of Jaya and Vijaya. Once when the Sanath Kumars (sons of Lord Brahma, who were born out of his mind, and thus are also known as Brahma’s manasputra) were visiting Vishnu, they were not allowed entry, as the Kumars were in the form of small children, and thus were not recognisable. However, this denial by the dwarpal angered the Kumars and they cursed Jaya and Vijaya that they would be expelled from Vaikuntha and would be born on earth. Vishnu however, agreed to mitigate the curse, after all they were just doing their duty. Vishnu gave them a choice. They could take seven births as devotees of Lord Vishnu or three births as enemies of Lord Vishnu. Jaya and Vijaya chose the option of enemies as this could bring them back to Vaikuntha and serve their Lord earlier than as devotees.

 Jaya & Vijaya on the Eastern gate at Jagannatha Temple, Puri, Odisha, India

In the first birth, Jaya and Vijay were born as Hiranyakashipu and Hiranyaksha, who were killed by Vishnu as Narasimha and Varaha. In the second birth, they were born as Ravana and Kumbhakarna, who were killed by Vishnu as Ram and in the third birth; they were born as Sishupala and Dantavakra, who were killed by Vishnu as Lord Krishna. After these three births, Jaya and Vijaya return to Vaikuntha to serve their Lord.

Ravan Kidnapping Sita - Raja Ravi Verma

Coming back to Ravana, could his kidnapping of Sita (aka Lakshmi) be a way to come face to face with his Lord Vishnu and enhance the end of his second birth? Is this another case of pre-ordained destiny?

Well as they say, gods have their own ways and who are we mere mortals to understand them!! Leela, as they say!!