Narada Muni – Valmiki

As the story goes, Ratnakar was a robber who had taken to robbing and would loot people passing from one village to another. During one such incident he came across Narada Muni and threatened him with dire consequences if he did not part with all he had. Narada got him chatting and asked him the reason of this profession, to which Ratnakara said that he was doing this for his family. Did he know that the means were wrong, to which Ratnakara said that he did, but he had no option as he had to take care of his family too.

Then Narada asked him, if his family would be party to his sin, to which Ratnakara felt, that they obviously would. On Narada’s insistence, Ratnakara went home to check with his family. To his horror and surprise, both his wife and children felt that it was his responsibility to take care of them, but they could not be hold responsible for the sin he was committing. Heart-broken, Ratnakara came back to the waiting Narada and broke down. It was then that Narada taught Ratnakara how to meditate and chant ‘Rama’.

Ratnakar got so engrossed in his meditation that he did not even realise that ant-hills had formed all over him. Later Narada, came and removed the ant-hills from his body and named him Valmiki, (Valmika meaning ‘from the ant-hill’) and gave him the title of Brahmarishi and in due course of time, motivated him to pen down the entire Ramayana, after narrating the story to him.

Here too, we find that Narada was instrumental in seeing the potential of Ratnakara and through the correct means transforms him into Brahmarishi Valmiki. This is thanks to his being aware of the fact that Ratnakar was the long lost son of Rishi Prachetasa, who was lost at childhood and brought up by a hunter, and in due course took to looting. This internal information was put to good use and channelized into making him a rishi and a great author. Narada’s being aware of critical information, making good use of it and influencing in the most positive manner enabled Valmiki to write the epic, Ramayana.

Narada Muni – Lord Dattatreya

According to a myth, earth was chanting the greatness of Sati Anusuya and her chastity was a topic of discussion on heavens. The three prime goddesses, Saraswati, Lakshmi and Parvati, decided to put to test Sati Anusuya’s chastity and made their husbands, the Holy trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva to do what they wanted. They insisted that they go to Anusuya and seek ‘Nirvana Bhiksha’, i.e., giving alms in a naked condition.

Much against their wishes, the gods did what their wives had demanded of them. On hearing the request from the three Sanyasis (the form taken by the Trinity), Sati Anusuya, was aghast, to say the least, but turning down such a request would be nothing short of sacrilege. So she sprinkled some water which she had used to wash her husband’s feet, on the three gods, which changed them into three kids. At that moment, she found milk accumulating in her breasts and she fed the three children her milk. While feeding the milk, in a nude form, she thought of them as her children, and thus, her chastity was intact.

It was at this stage that Narada Muni went to the three goddesses and related the whole incident and also informed them that their husbands had been changed into children, and the only way to get them was to beg for them from Anusuya’s husband, Rishi Atri. On begging, the Holy trinity were restored to their original form, and the three children were merged into one god – Dattatreya, a single bodied lord with three faces, in the likeness of the holy Trinity. The three gods then blessed the child and said that the Dattatreya would become a well-known sage and will equal the status of the three gods.

It was Narada Muni who used his influence to get the goddesses to bring out their concerns and get to test Anusuya’s chastity and also to get them to understand that they were not unique and that the earthlings could at times pose a threat to their heavenly status, which had been taken for granted. The envy of the goddesses was instigated by none other than Narada Muni himself, as he was also secretly aware of the fact that Sati Anusuya had a desire to beget children like the holy Trinity. Thus Narada, ensured that Sati Anusuya’s wish be granted while the goddesses pride be grounded. In this example, Narada is instrumental in many of the results that were achieved.

Narada Muni – the Celestial Lobbyist

The technical definition of Lobbyist is – a person or organisation that practices influencing legislatures toward passing bills that favours or helps their interests.  The term has gained larger meaning to include contracts, positions, personal interests, big-bucks, etc.! Lobbying is now the latest buzz word in terms of profession and seems quite a great job, if you don’t get embroiled into controversies, that is! So what does it take to become one?

Here are some qualifications of a Lobbyist –

1.     Great contacts

2.     Influential enough to get things done.

3.     Domain knowledge

4.     Accessibility to all doors

5.     Be well informed

If we remove the label of a ‘Lobbyist’ and deglamourise it a bit, then we can see that such people have been in existence from the times of yore, except that they were not labelled as Lobbyists. Narada Muni from Hindu mythology was but a Lobbyist, if we remove some of the existing labels attached to his persona.

Great Contacts – Narada was the son (mansaputra) of none other than Lord Brahma himself. He was considered to be the greatest worshipper and follower of Lord Vishnu and could present himself at his abode without prior permission.

Influential enough to get things done – Narada Muni’s unique position of being Brahma’s manasputra and Vishnu’s biggest follower and his ‘non-curse able’ personality made him extremely influential in Heavens, which was the main arena of action and the place to get things done.

Domain Knowledge – Nara means man, and da means giver, thus the very name Narada, stands for someone who gives, knowledge (useful) to mankind in general. He was well versed with Vedas and Upanishads. He had an extraordinary proficiency in Samaveda which is dedicated to music. He knew the art of articulating each syllable and was also well versed in semantics. He also knew the precise use of each word.

Accessibility to all doors – Narada Muni had access to all the three lokas, and as mentioned earlier, there was no place on both heavens and earth, that he didn’t have access to. There was no place on either, which he could not visit, and no matter what, he had the ability to be just everywhere at all times! I guess that’s probably why, he was not just a rishi, but a Maharishi.

Be well informed – Narada Muni was known as Trikal Vedi, one who was aware of the past, present and the future at any given point of time. He was well informed of the happenings of all the lokas and knew exactly when to be where and get something to happen. He was a perfect catalyst for many a great things that happened, as would see.

It was thanks to Narada Muni’s influence, or insistence and his being aware of the happenings of all places that we have read about the timely saving of Bhakt Prahalada from the hands of his father Hiranyakashipu and the Narasimha avatar of Lord Vishnu. Or the avatar of Lord Rama and Sita vanquishing Ravana with the help of Hanuman too is thanks to a ‘curse’ by Narada to Lord Vishnu, who was accused of fooling Narada during one his bouts of arrogance. Similarly Narada Muni was instrumental in Ved Vyasa writing the Mahabharata, just as he helped Thyagaraja achieve his epitome as a musician, and Valmiki writing the Ramayana. Narada Muni was also responsible for ensuring that Dhruv got his place in the sky and on the lap of Lord Vishnu, just as his timely intervention ensured the creation of God Dattatreya.

All the myths might have the basic ingredient as Narada the mischief maker, but if we dilute the element of his being Kalaha-Priya or the lover of quarrels, we can see that, at the end of it all, Narada Muni was an individual who was instrumental in many an action. He lobbied with the powers-that-be (gods in heavens in this case), all through the intrinsic knowledge of all that he had, to set a few actions (be it recognition to some or awards to some), needless to say that all for the positive good at the end.

Did he not play the role of a Lobbyist well? Is he not a good benchmark of an ideal Lobbyist?

[During the next few days, we will discuss some of the myths of Narada Muni in greater details.]

Self Sacrifice from Mythology to Modern Times

Concluding Part – Self-sacrifice in the Modern Times

In the earlier series, we have read about the concept and examples of self-sacrifice from different mythologies. Let us see how the meaning of self-sacrifice has changed in the current times

The reason of taking up this aspect of sacrifice is more due to the current misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the word self-sacrifice. In recent times we have heard about soldiers who have died at the borders being referred to as given up their lives or sacrificed their selves to the nation. In a worse scenario we have seen many a terrorists using the word as a justification for all the barbaric acts of terrorism. In televised tapes by terrorist groups, we have seen that the acts of terrorism are referred to as acts of self-sacrifice by a few of them.

Just as the word ‘myth’ today implies ‘lies’ and is very commonly used by one and all, the worry is that self-sacrifice is a much misunderstood and misquoted word, which is used loosely today. Be it the authorities or be they terrorist organisations.

The meaning of self-sacrifice today is blurred with the meaning of ‘martyr’. The word martyr derives from the Greek, mytros or witness. Martyrs are those who are willing to die, to sacrifice their lives in this world, in order to be assured a place in the next world and a guarantee that they will not be condemned to hell.

The early Christians, who were tortured to death for their witnessing for Christ, became the martyrs memorialized on icons. These iconic images proved a powerful attraction both for group memory and for exciting new followers. Islam adopted the martyrdom image. The grandson of Mohammed stated that it is better to die in dignity than to live in humiliation. Those who die on the path to Allah become martyrs in Islam. Similarly, Pope Urban II recruiting for the Crusades promised that all who died in the reclamation of the Holy Land from the infidels would be forgiven all venal sins and ascend immediately to Heaven (paradise). There is historical precedent on all sides.

In the ‘60s, there was a popular and rather accurate saying that “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” The British, for example, had to deal with many forces they labelled “terrorists”: the Americans in the 18th century, the Indians in the 1930s, the Jews, in Palestine in the 1940s, and the Argentinean’s Falkland Islands in the 1980s, as each was fighting for their independence from imperialist Great Britain.

Thus I feel that this is so very contextual. Freedom-fighter’s for a nation or for a religion? Crusade or Jihad? Can the dying of a soldier at the border due to a nation’s act of blunder be called a sacrifice or simply call of duty? Can a soldier’s knowingly going to fight a bunch of terrorists having sophisticated weapons with his archaic weapons be referred to as an act of sacrifice or simply a lack of choice? Can the shooting of the Mahatma for an individual who does not try to escape be considered an act of sacrifice for one’s own thought process or philosophy? Can the act of a suicide-bomber’s killing a Prime Minister be called an act of sacrifice for the cause of a movement? Is this a case of an angular vision, depending on which side of the ‘movement’ you are?

I don’t have answers to these. In this lies my dilemma – can today’s murderers be called heroes who sacrificed themselves for a cause in days to come? Who knows that hundreds of years later Nathuram Godse, Beant Singh and Satwant Singh, Dhanu, James Ray, Lee Harvey Oswald,* and the faceless perpetrators of 9/11 could just about turn into icons of self-sacrifice. Here I sincerely hope that none of us stay alive to see that day!

*Nathuram Godse assassinated Mahatma Gandhi

   Beant Singh and Satwant Singh assassinated Indira Gandhi

   Dhanu assassinated Rajiv Gandhi

   James Ray assassinated Martin Luther King

   Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated John F. Kennedy

Self Sacrifice from Mythology to Modern Times

Part 2

Yesterday, we read about self-sacrifice and some examples from Indian Mythology. Today, we will read about the same in other mythologies –

Christian Mythology

According to the Christian mythology, god became incarnate in Jesus Christ and his death is considered to be the ultimate sacrifice. According to a view that has featured prominently in Western theology since early in the 2nd millennium, God's justice required atonement for sin from humanity if human beings were to be restored to their place in creation and saved from damnation. However, God knew limited human beings could not make sufficient atonement, for humanity's offense to God was infinite, so God sent his only Son to become the sacrifice of the everlasting covenant.

The concept of self-sacrifice is central to Christianity. Often found in Catholic and Orthodox Christianity is the idea of joining one's own sufferings to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

Greek Mythology

The Greek mythology includes several stories of persons greatly honoured because they offered themselves as sacrifice for principles of altruistic love, for conscience's sake or for the country's honour and freedom. Deaths as a heroic ideal, can be traced back to Greek mythology whose moral principles influenced Greek history and culture. The demi-god Prometheus was condemned to a form of crucifixion because his great philanthropy for humanity led him to disobey Zeus and bring fire and the arts to humanity.

Alkestis, for example, the wife of Admetos, the King of Thessaly, became legendary because of her self-sacrifice in order to save her husband's life. Her offer to die in her husband's place became a symbol or an ideal that can be realized when one offers oneself for sacrifice so that others may live. Alkestis was fully aware of the nobility of her sacrifice, which saved not only her husband but also her family and country.

There are many examples in classical Greek literature of persons who sacrificed themselves on behalf of honour and freedom of their homeland. The altruistic devotion to patriotic principles that led them to self-sacrifice became the subject of several dramas by Aeschylos, Sophocles and Euripides. Iphigeneia surrendered herself to be sacrificed for the unity of Hellenes and the successful expedition against Troy. Makaria, Hercules's daughter, sacrificed herself to save Athens; Menoikeus, the father of Creon, sacrificed himself to save Thebes; and Antigone preferred to die rather than violate the divine law and obey the rule of men.

Nordic Mythology

There isn’t any major reference of self-sacrifice in the Nordic Mythology, except for the self-sacrifice that Odin made to gain Knowledge. I will recount that in brief below.

The most impressive of the myths concerning Odin is that he hung for nine days and nights on the World Tree, even as his own victims used to hang, while he was pierced with a spear. He hung there as a sacrifice, ‘myself given to myself’ and fasted as he endured in agony, until at the end of the time he was able to bend down and lift up the magical runes which brought secret knowledge to men. This experience is described as if by Odin himself in the poem Havamal (Words of the High One). Thus Odin underwent something which closely resembles the visionary experience of death and resurrection endured by the shamans of Siberia and elsewhere as part of their initiation, and as a necessary preliminary to achieving powers of prophesy.

Tomorrow – we will see how the meaning of self-sacrifice has changed in the Modern times.