When we hear the word image what comes to your mind first is probably, a picture. But I just want to bring your attention to the fact that it also is bring into life a personality trait associated with it. Especially when it is an image of a person.
It is intriguing to know that many of the images that we consider worship worthy were probably impressions that where perpetual reminders to tell us about the kind of life we should choose. Which means, were they, Statutory warnings ?
Consider the image of kamadhenu. When I say kamadhenu I hope many are able to to imagine a picture of a cow with a number of deities drawn all over its body. People probably spun stories around this cow which could over lactate and make its milk available two other species. Initially maybe an overflowing udder started pouring out milk and people would probably have begun using it. But today dont we look at the whole thing as a commodity. A billion dollar industry functions with this misconception that the cow willingly wants to share its milk with human beings. Is there any other species in animal kingdom which would consume milk of another organism?
The pictures of Krishna and Rama were probably posters to remind us how not to lead a life. Like that test paper our parents would pin up on a board, to tell us, you should never get lower than that. But somewhere down the line probably the idea was forgotten but the image began to be shared. Today an ideal wife cannot be like Sita. Today basic human rights in any country is far more empowering than the one that Sita experienced. If the kingdom had been the ideal one that everybody looks forward to why was basic human rights denied to a women, as significant as the queen of that country? Was the picture of Rama created to give us a reminder about how not to be? Somewhere in between are we forgetting to transfer the information correctly, when we always spin stories around it?
When we think of the caste system and Manu Dharma are we taking Pride of being born in a caste or are you feeling ashamed? How many of us are reading deeply? Our texts never say anything about gotra. There are two words, Kula and gotra. Whenever we talk about an offspring in the family we call it kulavadhu. Why aren’t we calling at gotra Vadhu?
During the Upanayanam ceremony an extensive procedure which involves the mother releasing the child from the umbilical ties and represent that through the sacred thread and the child is then sent to a Gurukula where the child learns a field that would suit its capacities. During the wedding ceremony the same thread ceremony is repeated for a boy and for a girl, a naming ceremony is repeated. Have we wondered why?
Are these not indications that the couple of those ancient times had the the broad minded attitude of letting their birth children choose a field different from the family’s traditional job, and were willingly accepting another child in adoption if that child showed potential to take a traditional job forward. Therefore gotra referred to your ancestry and Kula referred to a job.
Were these not thoughts of a progressive community? Would it not enable us to think of all human beings as equal. The texts probably weren’t as evil as the person who interpreted it.
In this regard I would like to bring to your attention the concepts of kula Brahmana kula Vaishya. Brahmana kula kshatriya, shudra kula Brahmana, vaishya kula Brahmana etc… These were terms which were attached to some characters in many of the epics. Thus the epics were probably the first set off texts where the reluctance to to give away birth children began
For people who still believe in birth based caste system, isn’t it crazy that they believe in a hunter’s (Scheduled caste / scheduled tribe) story about a righteous king when they read Valmiki Ramayana? Do you still believe in “Idol “worship ?
krithikagokulnath 