All the random thoughts

(This is in response to all those who asked me, "If Rama was embodiment of Dharma, what about Krishna?". I tried to answer and hope it makes sense) If Rama followed the path of destiny, making choices rooted unwaveringly in Dharma, does that make Krishna wrong for taking a more strategic, even seemingly unfair, approach in the Mahabharata? Was Krishna justified in orchestrating the deaths of Drona, Jayadratha, Karna, and Bhishma through unconventional means? Was he, in fact, being a hypocrite about Dharma? The difference lies in how each upheld Dharma in their respective yugas. Rama lived by Dharma — he walked within its established boundaries. He was Dharma personified, choosing personal suffering over deviation from righteous conduct. But Krishna did not simply follow Dharma — he manifested it. He stood in a time when Dharma was fractured and had to be re-established. He wasn’t just a participant in destiny — he was its architect. In the Ramayana, Rama lives in ...

In a world driven by reason, strategy, and measurable outcomes, the story of Rama from the Ramayana offers a striking counter-narrative. Rama's choices often appear illogical on the surface, yet they illuminate a deeper truth—one rooted not in reason but in Dharma. When Queen Kaikeyi asked King Dasharatha to exile Rama and crown her son Bharata, it was a move that defied logic. Every citizen of Ayodhya longed for Rama to ascend the throne. Kaikeyi's manipulation was transparent. Dasharatha was broken, Bharata would never agree to take the crown this way, and public unrest was a likely outcome. Logic dictated that Rama should stay, wait for Bharata to return, and overturn Kaikeyi's irrational demands. But Rama didn’t choose logic. He chose Dharma. As a son, his duty was to honor his father’s word—even if it was unfair or politically dangerous. Rama knew that upholding Dharma would cost him comfort, power, and perhaps the goodwill of the people. But he also knew t...