Hello, friends! Recently on 22nd January, Ram Mandir was inaugurated in Ayodhya In the Praan Prathistha event. Praan means life, Pratistha means establishment. This is the ceremony where an idol is installed inside the temple. For the last few weeks, this ceremony has been discussed exhaustively
in the newspapers and media. This aroused many controversies too. "The devotees all over the country are waiting for the time when Ram Lala's life
will be established in the temple." "My flying chariot has brought me to
the Lakshman Fort now." "Pakistan is chanting Jai Shree Ram too!" "He is only drinking coconut water for 11 days." "He worked tirelessly for 18 hours only then did Modi find Ram." Some political parties and 4 main Shankaracharyas did not attend this event. Let's understand these events in this video but at the same time, I would like to use this opportunity to discuss the qualities of Shri Ram in this video. Because it is very easy to talk about Ram but to learn from the values and principles of Shri Ram and to apply them to yourself
is very difficult. I have already made two videos on Ramayana. In the first one, I talked about how some people try to justify Ravana. And in the second one, I talked about the allegations made against Ram by some people. How he killed Shambhuk, a person from the lower caste. How he abandoned his wife Sita. I presented a lot of evidence to show that the Uttar Kaand is a later addition to the Ramayana. Along with that, I also talked
about the history of Ramayana. Is Ramayan based on a true story or is it just a literary work? Both the videos are linked in the description below. For those who haven't watched them already. In this context, in this video I would like to tell you about the qualities of Shri Ram. And how it can change your life. And it doesn't matter whether you are a Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or even an Atheist. And as always, I will quote the sources
from Valmiki's original Ramayana. But before that, let's talk about this event. Who went to this inauguration ceremony, who didn't, and why didn't they go? The senior leaders of the BJP,
LK Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi, have been the biggest leaders of the Ram
Mandir Agitation Movement since the 1990s. "The place where Lord Ram was born, no power can stop the construction of the temple there. And the temple will be built there!" But he did not attend this grand inauguration. The general secretary of the Ram
Temple Trust told the reporters that considering his age, he was told not to come to this inauguration. But on the other hand, Bollywood celebrities like Katrina Kaif, Rohit Shetty, Ranbir Kapoor, and Alia Bhatt were given special invitations. Among the political parties, many individuals got the invitation but they rejected it for various reasons. Like CPI(M)'s general secretary,
Sitaram Yechury said that religion is a personal matter. "I said, "Religion is the individual choice of every individual. We respect and we safeguard (it)."" He said that the Indian constitution and
the Supreme Court has clearly stated that the government cannot be affiliated
with any particular religion. So, on the basis of secularism, he rejected this invitation. Shiv Sena's Uddhav Thackeray, who got the invitation just two days before the event, through speed post, rejected it and his party member Sanjay Raut said that though BJP worships Ram, they rule like Ravan. He said that he keeps going to Ayodhya and will go in future too. But on this day of 22nd January, he went to Kalaram Temple in Nashik. The temple where it is believed that Lord Rama, Lakshman, and Sita
stayed at during their exile. Many leaders of the Congress Party were invited but they rejected the invitation saying that the temple being inaugurated even though
it is only partially completed. Their main reason behind rejecting the invitation was that BJP was politicising the event. They were using Ram's name for elections and politics. Some people have praised this stance saying that it was a good decision by Congress, but on the other hand, some people have said that it was a political blunder. But the point of inaugurating this incomplete temple was also raised by the Shankaracharyas. It is that about 1,200 years ago Adi Shankaracharya had established
four principal mathas in four directions. These were in present-day Uttarakhand, Gujarat, Karnataka and Odisha. Each Matha has a chief priest, who is known as a Shankaracharya. Since there are four Mathas,
there are four Shankaracharyas. None of these four attended this event. The Shankaracharya in Puri,
Nischalananda Saraswati said that this ceremony was not according to Hindu scriptures. "There should be a proper ceremony. If we revere Ramji, then Ramji was a respectable person, right? Ramji's establishment into the idol
should be in accordance with the Shastras." Shankaracharya Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati,
from the Uttarakhand Matha, explained this thing. "The temple is considered as the body of God. The peak of the temple is said to be the eyes of God. The pot, his head and the flag on the temple is considered the hair of God. So according to him, a body which has no eyes or head, it is not right to bring life into it. He says that it goes against the scriptures. Since he could not see the violations of the scriptures, he did not attend the ceremony. But because of this one decision, the IT cell on social media tried to defame him relentlessly. Fake news was spread targetting him and some accounts even called him an anti-Hindu. Look at these photos. Some accounts shared these photos on social media saying that this Shankaracharya had gone to Ajmer Sharif. He went to visit religious places of Muslims, and so they called him an anti-Hindu. First of all, as I have told you in previous videos, Adi Shankaracharya's core philosophy was of non-duality. One thing that is repeatedly said in this is that Aham Brahmasmi. That is, God is present in everything and everywhere. And if God is present in everything, there is no distinction between
Hindus, Muslims, Brahmins, and Shudras, everyone is a reflection of the same Brahma. So, according to Adi Shankaracharya's philosophy, it doesn't matter if a Shankaracharya goes to a mosque,
a Gurudwara or a Church, God resides everywhere. But the second point here is that this news was false. A person with Shankaracharya,
Arvind Guru, who had gone there, said that this was not a Muslim place of worship, this was a Hindu Ashram. This was Ramdev Pir's court, who is considered an avatar of Krishna. "This photo is from a court, of Ramdev Pir who is considered as a Krishna avatar." During an interview with Karan Thapar, Shankaracharya Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati
was asked the same question. He said that he never went to Ajmer, so how could the photo be from Ajmer Sharif? "Till now, there hasn't been an opportunity when I could go to Ajmer city. If I haven't gone to Ajmer city, then how could I have gone to Ajmer Sharif?" And he also said that even if he went to a Dargah for some reason, it wouldn't mean that he became a Muslim. The IT cell and the biased media have declared PM Modi a more devoted
Hindu than these Shankaracharyas. Some even call him Vishnu's avatar. But they forget that PM Modi has also gone to a Dargah. Has he become a Muslim? Another fake news was spread to defame these Shankaracharyas that they had taken ₹500,000 to reject the invitation to this inauguration. This news was baseless and without evidence. "You are a journalist, that doesn't mean you will publish anything. "satisfied with ₹500,000 rupees" You publish such things about a Shankaracharya. And when the Shankaracharya asks you for your sources, you can't give a clarification. How do you know about ₹500,000? Who paid this?
Where and when? Tell us." Seeing this, Shankaracharya was shocked. After all, why would any entity spread
such defamatory news without any evidence to defame Shankaracharya? One thing is clear from this, in today's world, if you are against any decision by BJP or PM Modi and you speak your opinion in front of the public, then you will not be spared from being defamed and insulted. Who is Hindu and who is anti-Hindu? To certify this, there's a standing army of incels. And the interesting thing is that they don't actually care about Ram. They just want to play politics using Ram's name. "Say, 'Jai Shree Ram!'" If you ask them anything about Ram's principles, they will have no idea about it. Linguists and historians often use the suffix "Great"
with the names of great kings. If they conquered big territories. Like, King Alexander is called Alexander the Great. And we accept it without thinking. But the reality is that Alexander was a bloodthirsty, short-tempered, alcoholic,
ego-maniac, ruthless king who killed hundreds of thousands of people. Many times he wiped out entire tribes at once. But in contrast to this is the story of Lord Ram in Ramayana. When Ram was about to become the king, everyone was happy in Ayodhya. But Rama's stepmother, Kaikeyi demanded that instead of Ram, her son Bharat should be the king. And Ram would be exiled to the jungle for 14 years. What was Shri Ram's reaction to this? Ayodhya Kand, Chapter 18, Shloka 41. itīva tasyāṃ paruṣam vadantyām |
nacaiva rāmaḥ praviveśa śokam | That is, though Kaikeyi's words were very harsh Ram was not upset to hear this. He was not sad about this. If you want to understand the Ram Katha in simple language, you can check out Kuku FM. It has a 3.5-hour-long Ram Katha in
simple language as an audiobook. Kuku FM is a great audio learning platform where you will get audiobooks on not only religion, but also on science, history, geography,
politics, and all kinds of topics. If you haven't joined it yet, there's a special coupon code to get 50% off
in the description below. You can check it out. Next we have the first shloka of chapter 19. śrutvā na vivyathe rāma It means that hearing this, Ram did not get angry. He was unruffled. After this, he consoled his father Dashratha and assured Kaikeyi that he would go into exile. Think about it, friends, had this happened to you, how would you feel? You are going to be crowned the king. But suddenly, not only is your crown taken away from you, but you are told to go to the jungle for 14 years of exile. Many of us will be infuriated after hearing this, but Ram did not even get upset here. Compare this to Ashok, who k!lled his brothers to get power. Aurangzeb did the same thing, k!lled his brother Dara Shikoh to become the emperor. People in Ayodhya were already supporting Ram. If Ram wanted, he could have said, that he was being treated unjustly. That even though it wasn't his fault, he was being sent to the jungle. Had he wanted, he could have become the king by putting Kaikeyi and Bharat in jail. But he did not do that. It is worth noting that the people of Ayodhya were truly supporting Ram. In chapter 17, it is written that they wanted to see Ram become the king and wanted nothing more. But what was the reason for this? It is written in Shloka 15 about how virtuous Rama was. He had compassion for everyone. But Rama calmly and peacefully decided to go live in jungles. Chapter 19 Shloka 20 tells you
about what Rama said to Kaikeyi. "O queen, I am not concerned with wealth. I want to be like a sage. abiding in righteousness alone. I want to receive the world hospitable." For Rama, being on the throne did not mean that the world would be at his feet. To him, power meant that he could serve the people. But today, people's behaviour is just the opposite. People shamelessly say that they are addicted to power. They have no problem with
falling to any extent to get power. People use phrases like 'everything is permissible in love and war.' 'Salute the rising sun.' 'The one with the stick owns the buffalo.' 'I will support the one who has a chance to win.' 'The one who wins is the king,
the one who loses is a monkey.' In all these sayings, power and authority are being given a lot of importance. But I want you to change your perspective. Think for yourself, who will be the winner here? A person who leaves behind all his
morality, values, and principles just to get power? Or a person who lets go of power without compromising on his morals, values, and principles? And while doing this, he had no ill feelings towards Kaikeyi. Chapter 19, Shlok 24, he had only one complaint to Kaikeyi, he asked her if she wanted to make Bharat the king, why did she tell this to King Dasharatha? Why didn't she tell Rama directly? He accused her of not trusting him. So we get a straightforward lesson here of humility, compassion, and forgiveness. If you lost something while protecting your morality, then did you even lose anything? But if you gave up your morality to get something, did you actually win? Friends, if you liked this video, you will definitely like my previous
video on Valmiki's Ramayana. You can click here to watch it. Thank you very much!
