It has been almost a month since my last post. Here we go again :-)
If we consciously analyse our daily activities it should surprise most of us to find out the varied types of behaviour which each of us exhibit as individuals. In a class we are "students." At home each of us is a "son" or "daughter" etc. In a stadium each is "a player of a team."and so on.
And each of the above mentioned activity requires us to conduct ourselves in a particular way. Does it mean that we are hypocrites?
Certainly not, if each of our action, under the varied circumstances, is guided by the same principle. For example, if BEING GOOD is a principle we follow, what constitues "GOODNESS" is subject to other factors like social, intellectual etc.
To a policeman, goodness constitutes "nabbing the wrongdoers."
To a Sannyasi, goodness constitutes "forgiving the wrongdoers."
Therefore to compare the actions of a Police to that of a Sanyasi, is as meaninglss as comparing "an apple" to "a lemon" and trying to decide the better. Each has his own place in the scheme of things and hence needs to behave/ and be behaved with accordingly (Of course as mentioned earlier, being guided by the same principle.)
Now,this is the inference I use as the basis for my further elaboration. Often, when we study the lives of Great men, we find that they would have spoken apparently contradicting ideas. And a natural reaction from our side is to get confused and to start doubting the genuineness of that person. If, this is the result, it is only "ourselves" that we are depriving. For, the situation demands some deeper thinking and some broadmindedness. Often in our eagerness to "feel right about ourselves," we are happy until the particular author's/speaker's ideas match with those of our own. And when they seem to diverge, most of us take the "speaker to be wrong."
In such times of confusion, it would better for us to remember the following story told by Sri Ramakrishna
"Once a man entered a wood and saw a chameleon on a tree. He returned and told his friends that he had seen a red chameleon there. The other person went and saw the same animal as green, the third as blue, and the fourth as yellow. All the four started quarreling amongst themselves, each one claiming that the chameleon was of the colour he had noticed. To settle the dispute they all went towards the tree. They saw a man sitting under it. On being asked he replied, "Yes, I live under this tree and I know the animal very well. All your descriptions are true. Sometimes it appears red, sometimes yellow, and at other times blue, violet, grey, and so forth. And sometimes it has no colour at all."
In a similar way, we all need to understand that TRUTH though absolute, is understood by men in a relative sense based on their intellectual, social, spiritual upbringing. So, when a Prophet addresses people, he clothes the truth so that people are able to accept it, understand it and then digest it and from there move on to be able to grasp higher ones. The way they(Prophets) deliver the same truth is influenced by the audience, but the basic principle always being to aid their(audience's) progress in search for truth.
So, a true Prophet can be compared to a Versatile Cook who cooks out of love for humanity, just to be able to feed the starving many. He has the resources and the ability to cook innumerable number of dishes. But what he cooks depends on the person who is going to consume it. But "the Cook" in our case has the ability to gauge what is best for the consumer and decide upon the number of calories and the taste of the dishes.
So, next time when you see innumerable dishes, just remember that the "Prophet(Cook)" was meant for the whole of "Humanity" and not to be our "personal cook". hence, it is in our best interests to just choose the "Dishes' we need and consume them and not starve unnecessarily by focussing on criticising the Cook. And we also need to remember, that there are innumerable people who "love" the dishes we do not want.
regards,
Anikethan
