View of Ocean While En Route in the River
(A)
Yesterday was a busy day for me. As soon as I heard of an RT-eye activist filing a case against Mr. Ram Seth Baloney (hereafter Ram-jay for convenience), one of our most senior and honorable member of constitutional body of Janasthan, I immediately got to work. Even though Mr Ram-jay himself is a great lawyer, he encourages junior lawyers like us by letting us help him and grow.
The news ran thus -
"Mr Ram-jay created a fresh controversy when he said Lord Ram, who is the protagonist in the epic in 'Ramayana', was a 'bad husband'."
"Ram was a bad husband. I don't like him at all. Just because some fisherman said something, he sent that poor woman (Sita) to vanvaas (exile)," Ram-jay was quoted as saying on Thursday.
"It's my understanding to mythology. I have serious doubts whether Ram in that sense is a historical figure," he said.
The court has registered the case and has posted the matter for next Saturday. I telephoned Mr Ram-jay for getting the first hand information. I being a lawyer and psychiatrist, I immediately saw what was going on and asked a few questions that can help me prepare our side of story for the court hearing.
Me: Hello, Mr Ram-jay.
Mr Ram-jay: Hello, I was about to give you a call myself.
Me: I have heard about the developments and wanted to ask you a couple of questions myself before I go and fight out for the cause of truth.
Mr Ram-jay: Please ask.
Me: Sir, do you believe in bhoot - pret... That, a dead person may return as a ghost and start troubling people?
Mr Ram-jay: What!?? NO, I don't believe in such non-sense.
[If the answer were to be an 'yes', I would have gone for a plea based on psychological instability grounds. But I had guessed this answer of 'no' was coming.]
Me: Sir, do you believe that in bhoot - pret (ghosts), there can be good ones and bad ones? Ones that can help people and the ones that always give trouble?
Mr Ram-jay: What sort of irrelevant question is that!? I don't even believe that there can be any ghosts at all! Then where does the question of good or bad ones come from?
Me: Thank you Mr Ram-jay. That was just the answer I was looking for. I am now prepared with all the answers I need for the hearing.
(B)
That is the conviction that a strong belief carries. Psychologically, if a mind cannot accept the existence of a certain thing, it cannot contemplate the attributes associated with it. When Mr Ram-jay cannot accept the notion of existence of ghosts, there is no meaning to the follow up question on the ghost attributes like good ones or bad ones.
Same holds good in the case of Ram. If his mind strongly accepted the fact that Ram was not even a historical figure, the comments on whether he was a bad son, bad husband or bad father does not make sense.
But in this case, since Mr Ram-jay does indeed hold on to judging the attributes of Ram, he is implicitly accepting the existence of Ram.
(C)
But he does say that he has serious doubts whether Ram is a historical figure. Note the words - serious doubts - not a conviction. Deep down, his subconscious mind does believe the existence of Ram and that is implicitly proven by his remarks on the attributes of Ram. The serious doubts of His very existence then comes from what is known in psychiatry 'a Willfully Condemned Belief Syndrome'. Well, Mr Ram-jay is almost 90, what else can you expect?
(D)
To explain the scenario further, take the cases of literature, where 'A Willful Suppression of Disbelief' is something that is needed to savour the very literature. Without this preconditioning of mind, one cannot read most of the literature.
i. Sherlock Holmes - You cannot contemplate on whether needle-indulgence was good for him or bad, unless your mind willfully suppresses the disbelief of Sherlock Holmes' non-existence. You got to start the book with the preconditioning of agreeing to what Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the author has to say.
ii. Harry Potter - You cannot debate if there was a better and faster way to subdue you-know-who, if you do not believe magic is a possible science that can be taught at universities.
iii. Same holds good for other literary cases, listed but not limited to, Calvin and Hobbes, Kane and Abel, what-not.
(E)
Indian literary science (Rasa shastra) extends this basic building block of 'willful suppression of disbelief' into what is known as 'bhava' and 'alankara'. 'Bhava' and 'Alankara' are the ingredients of a Kavya/work that can generate what is known to be 'Sthayi Bhava'. Stayi Bhava is a feeling that 'stays' post exposure to the literary ingredients 'Bhava' and 'alankara' and an optimal combination of them.
When you watch a movie and come out, a good movie is supposed to leave an impression behind, in your mind that makes a few of the emotions stay back in the mind for a while. When you watch Schindler cry feeling he could have done more (Schindler's List), or when you watch Andy Dufresne prove that there always is a way out (The Shawshank Redemption), or when just one of the 12 jurors can influence the rest of the 11 to do that which is the right thing to do (12 Angry Men) and come out of the theater, something, some part of emotion, continues to cling in your mind.
That is 'Sthayi Bhava'. An organized ingredient combination of alankara with 8 sthira bhava and 33 asthira bhava can bring in the desired 'Sthayi Bhava' in the people listening or watching or reading the poem/movie/literature.
An intensive series of combination of such (alankara and bhava), brings in a series of Sthayi bhava that can permanently alter the mind and its response to events. That is called 'Rasa' or aesthetic expression in the Kavya (Kavya is a super-set of nataka, gadya, nrutya, sangeeta, chitra, etc). Each of the Kavya variety is a medium that enables the creator/author to equip his creation with Rasa, which when taken with 'a willful suppression of disbelief' can bring in a permanent mood change in a reader/audience that will help him implicitly know the ideal way to lead his life as well as benefit the society be stable with a group of such cultured and learned people.
(F)
But unless you have watched the movies I quoted, you will not be able to relate. If you have watched it, your mind is already influenced and transformed into a state that cannot pass irrelevant comments on the movie or its characters thereof.
But, if you have not actually watched the movie but have only heard a part of the story, you still can say 'Andy Dufresne was a convicted felon and he escaping the Shawshank and being portrayed as hero by the director is WRONG'.
This capacity of brain to willfully condemn something of which we have incomplete knowledge is a syndrome that may creep in as the brain ages with continued confusion, called 'Willfully Condemned Belief Syndrome'.
The root cause of this syndrome can be directly traced back to a mind that is not fully cultured because of incomplete knowledge and has grown old not being able to accept or reject the existence of a notion.
(G)
Since Mr Ram-jay clearly demonstrates this confusion of his about the existence of Ram-ji, and having aged with that confusion that has not been shaped into a strong belief either this way or that, with a full-fledged knowledge of Ramayan, I here by request Rt-eye representatives to take back the case filed against Mr Ram.
When he is talking about not believing Ram of being a good husband, who knows, he might be referring to himself!
(H)
Valmiki giri sambhuta Rama sagara gamini
Punatu bhuvanam punya Ramayana Mahanadi ||
The magnificent river (mahanadi) of Ramayana originates at the peak (giri) of Valmiki consciousness and cleansing the earth, flows and becomes one with the ocean (sagara) of Rama.
Unless the mind starts flowing with the river accepting the bhava and alankara proposed by the momentum from the peak, it may not enlighten itself with the darshana (vision) of the Rama (ocean). And anything you say, you imagine, about the charita (characteristics) of the Rama (ocean) while en-route, is bound to get overwhelmed and dissolved when you actually reach the ocean and see for yourself.