Ram Mandir: The Untold Truth
Some political parties and four including Shankaracharyan did not attend this event. Let us understand these things in today's blog, but at the same time I would like to use this opportunity to discuss the qualities of Shri Ram in this blog. Because taking the name of Ram is a very easy task, but it is very difficult to learn the values and principles of Shri Ram and apply them on yourself. Ram Mandir leaders LK Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi were the biggest leaders of the Ram Mandir Agitation Movement since 1990. But he did not come to this consecration. General Secretary of Ram Temple Trust told reporters, considering his age, he was asked not to come to the inauguration. But on the other hand, Bollywood celebrities, Katrina Kaif, Rohit Shetty, Ranbir Kapoor, Alia Bhatt, all of them were given special invitations.
Many people had received invitations from political parties, but they rejected the invitation on the basis of secularism. Shiv Sena's Uddhav Thackeray, who received the invitation just two days before the event, that too through speed post. He rejected this, and his party member Sanjay Raut said that BJP worships Ram, but rules like Ravana. He said that he keeps going to Ayodhya and will go further also. But on this day of 22nd January, he went to Kalaram Temple in Nashik. The temple where it is believed that Lord Ram, Lakshman and Sita ji stayed during their exile.
Many leaders of the Congress Party were invited, some people praised the stance, saying that Congress took a good decision, but on the other hand some people said that it was a political blunder. But the point of inaugurating this incomplete temple was also raised by Shankaracharya. It was about 1200 years ago that Adi Shankaracharya had established four principal sects in four directions. These were in present day Uttarakhand, Gujarat, Karnataka and Orissa.
Shankaracharya Avimukte Shavaranan Saraswati, who is the Shankaracharya of Uttarakhand sect, explained this thing. The temple is considered to be the body of God. The peak of the temple, the eyes of the Lord, the Kalash, his head, and the flag placed on the temple are considered to be the hair of the Lord. So according to them, it is not right to bring alive a body which has no eyes and no head. They say it goes against the scriptures. He could not see the scriptures being violated before his eyes, so he did not go to the ceremony. But because of this one decision of his, the IT cell tried so hard to defame him on social media. Fake news was spread against him, and some accounts even branded him as anti-Hindu. Look at these photos, some accounts shared these photos on social media saying that this Shankaracharya went to Ajmer Sharif. He visited Muslim places; hence he is anti-Hindu. First of all, as the core philosophy of Adi Shankaracharya was of non-duality.
One thing that is repeatedly said in this is the illusion of ego. That means God is present everywhere and in everything. And if God is present in everything, then whether Hindu, whether Muslim, whether Brahmin, whether Shudra, all are the reflection of the same illusion. So according to the philosophy of Adi Shankaracharya, it does not matter if Shankaracharya goes to a mosque, to a Gurudwara, or to a church. God resides everywhere. But the second point here is that this news was fake anyway. Arvin Guru, a person who visited here along with Shankaracharya, then how can it be Ajmer Sharif. But at the same time, he also said that even if he went to the Darga for some reason, it does not mean that he became a Muslim.
The people of IT Cell and Modi Media have declared Prime Minister Modi a bigger Hindu than these Shankaracharyas. Some even call him the descent of Vishnu, but Prime Minister Modi has also gone to Darga, has he become a Muslim by doing this? Another fake news was spread to defame these scammers that they had taken Rs 5 lakh for rejecting the invitation for this inauguration. This news had no head, no legs, no evidence... Shankaracharya himself was surprised to see this. After all, why would someone spread such fake news without any proof to defame Shankaracharya? One thing is clear from this that in today's era, if you disagree with any decision taken by BJP or Prime Minister Modi and express your opinion in public, then people will defame you and abuse you. No stone will be left unturned. Who is Hindu and who is anti-Hindu? To certify this, there's a standing army of incels. And interesting thing is that they don't actually care about ram. They just want to play politics using name Ram. If you ask them anything about ram's principles, they will have no idea about it.
Linguists and historians often prefix the names of great kings with the suffix -great, because they conquered a large territory. Like Alexander the Great is called Alexander the Great. And we accept it without even thinking. But the reality here is that Alexander was a very blood thirsty, short tempered, drunkard, ego maniacal, ruthless king who killed millions of people. Many times, entire tribes were wiped out in one go. But in contrast to this is the story of Shri Ram in Ramayana. When Ram was about to become the king, there was a wave of happiness in the entire city of Ayodhya. But Ram's stepmother Kaikai demanded that instead of Ram, her son Bharat would be the king. And Ram will have to go into exile in the forest for 14 years. What was Shri Ram's reaction after hearing this? Ayodhya Kand Chapter 18, Verse 41 Itiva Tasya Purusharam Vadantyam Nachaiva Ram Pravishesh Shokam i.e. Kaikai's words were very sad, but Ram did not get angry after hearing this, he did not feel sad about this.
The next verse is the first verse of Chapter 19. Shurutva na vivyat O Ram. That means Ram was not happy after hearing this. It didn't matter to them. After this he consoled his father Dasharat and told Kaikeyi that he would go to the forest. Just think friends, if this thing happened to you, how would you feel? You are going to be made the king. But suddenly, not only are you stripped of your crown, but you are told to go to the forest, into exile for 14 years. Many people would be filled with anger after hearing this, but Ram did not even get angry there. Compare this thing with Ashoka, who killed his brothers to gain power. Aurangzeb did the same thing, killed his brother Dara Shiko to become the king. The people of Ayodhya were already in support of Ram, if Ram wanted, he could have said, look, injustice is being done to me. There is no fault of mine here, but I am being sent here to the forest. If he had wanted, he could have become king by putting Kaikeyi and Bharat in jail, but he did not do so. It is important to note here that the people of Ayodhya were in full support of Ram in every sense.
It has been written in the previous Chapter 17 that they wanted to see Ram become the king and wanted nothing more than that. And what is the reason behind this? It is written in verse 15 that how virtuous Ram was. He had compassion in his heart for all people. But Ram decides in a very gentle and peaceful manner that he will go to the forest. It is written in Chapter 19, Verse 20, what Ram is saying to Kekai. O Goddess, I have no interest in wealth. I have to go like a monk. Who has faith only in his religion and his morality. I want to see this world in love.
For Ram, gaining power did not mean that the world should be at his feet. For him, getting power meant that he could serve the forest. But today people's behavior is just the opposite. People say without shame that I am addicted to power. There is no problem in stooping to any extent to attain power. People tell such proverbs that everything is fair in love and war. Salute to the rising sun, whose stick is his buffalo. I will support the one who has a chance of winning. The one who won is Alexander, the one who lost is the monkey. In all these proverbs, power and authority are being exalted to such an extent.
Think for yourself and see who the winner will be here. A person who loses all his morality, all his values, all his principles, then here we get a direct lesson of humility, compassion and forgiveness. If by saving your morality, you have lost something, then what have you lost? And if by giving up your morality, you achieved something, then what did you achieve? Thank you very much!
🙏
ReplyDelete