?????? ?????????????? ???? ?????????????????? ??????????

The shards and sparks flew all over the dry earth until it was completely done. It was a line encircling the cottage. Last request in a dutiful and respectful voice, "Please don’t cross that line no matter what!" With these words, Lakshmana leaps into the dense forests. Ravana was waiting for this moment. He came disguised as a beggar.

We are always surrounded by these lines. Some may call them "comfort zones". These lines are spoken by our mothers, friends, relatives, and everyone we care about. "Eat on time," "Don’t talk to strangers," "Don’t go there," etc. That phone call from your mom or dad when you are away partying with your friends, or that friendly hug from your brother with a wish that you stay safe. Everyone reminds us to be within our comfort zone. These lines are not always epic in scale, as in Krittivasi Ramayana, but they are extremely important. These lines are drawn all over us, in business, in life, in love, in marriages, in careers, in schools, in colleges. These lines separate something and prevent it from reaching us. What is that, you may ask? He is the "evil" So, who is this evil doer precisely? How much do we understand the difference between bad and evil that we are repeatedly warned about?

Let us look at what the evil-doer model says. The most obvious way to identify evil people is through their behavior, and this might suggest that evil people are just evildoers. This model, however, raises several questions that are important to look at too. For instance, to cross that moral line, what matters? Is it the frequency of evildoing? That would make sense for someone like Hitler, a frequent evildoer, but the case of a person who infrequently commits evil acts would be more complicated. By focusing solely on what someone does, the model seems to miss important questions about who someone is. In other words, by focusing solely on external behaviour, the model fails to account for the inner life of the evildoer—and it is the inner life that makes all the difference. Luke Russell gave us another model to understand the evildoer. This model is known as the dispositional model. This model says that an evil person is "strongly and highly fixedly disposed to perform evil actions." So, was Ravana evil or was he bad according to the dispositional model? The answer may vary from person to person, but one thing is certain: he was not "strongly and highly fixedly disposed to perform evil actions." This is because, in certain kinds of situations, many normal people would do very bad—even evil—things. It was proved in the Milgram experiment. In this experiment, everyday people obeyed orders to harm others, suggesting that ordinary people will do very bad things when pressured to do so. Was Ravana pressured to act? Daniel Haybron, in his article titled "Moral Monsters and Saints," says that "There is nothing mysterious or alien about the psychological makeup of the average bad person. The evil person, by contrast, is not at all like us. " The reason evil people are not like us, according to Haybron, is that they have no good side at all. Did Ravana have no good side? Wasn’t he the most qualified person, gentleman, intellectual, king, diplomat, strategist, and general ever to roam the earth, mastering 64 arts at a go? Didn't he write the Shiva Tandav Stotram and the Rudra Veena and consider Shiva to be the most important god? Ravana was well-versed in the four Vedas: The Rig, Yajur, Sama, and the Atharva Veda. The Ravana Samhita and the Arka Prakasham are attributed to him.

A conversation between him and Bana reveals that he was among the most respected kings at that time.

Ravana: ???? ???????! ???????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??? ????????! (Hail, O King! Someone, Daityandra. The great chariot was unhindered in the battles of gods and demons. Bana is a mighty man!)

Bana: ?? ????? ?????????? (Then what? I am the Bana)

Ravana: ??????????? (I salute you.)

Bana: ??????? ????? (Who are you, gentleman?)

Ravana: ??? ????? ??? (I am called Ravana)

Bana: ??, ??? ?????????? ???, ???,?????????????????! (Ah, this is the Lankabharta? This, this, Swastyayushman!)

Ravana: ?????????????? (I am gracious)

So, it's not easy to say what evil is since we all live in our own little worlds of hopes, goals, dreams, etc. Anyone who does not fit our notion of good becomes an evil person, and we begin to consider him/her "not one of us—they are not truly human." These fences sometimes feel too restricting and are often stifling inside the cottage because we cannot distinguish between who is bad and who is evil. Adopting this model would allow us to talk about evil people while making it impossible for us to call any actual person evil. And if we can’t call anyone evil, then we can’t use that accusation to justify treating a person in any particular way. In his book Evil: A Philosophical Investigation, Luke Russel points out that "Perhaps driving the confusion is the assumption that there is a single unified account of evil personhood—and perhaps assuming there is a single unified account is the problem." So, there is a single unified account of evil personhood that these fences protect us from, which may be correct or incorrect.

The first is called "fundamental dualism." This is the idea that our fundamental goodness and fundamental badness are in conflict with each other in a way that can't be solved. The other type of dualism is provisional dualism, which is the view that although we are originally both good and evil, we can overcome our dark side or, less hopefully, be overcome by it. An evil action certainly seems like it would have to be morally wrong. It would be odd for an action to be evil but not be morally wrong. Perhaps, then, this is a necessary condition: An action is evil only if it’s morally wrong. Is being morally wrong enough to make an action evil? However, being wrong doesn’t seem sufficient to qualify an action as evil. In this case, the idea of evil is not different from the idea of doing something very wrong. One thing comes out clearly, that evil only erupts where people are wronged. Therefore, these lines are drawn around us to prevent us from being "bad" and turning evil. Hence, world-renowned mythologist, Devdutt Pattanaik, explains that the fence of Lakshmana is the only way to end the dualism that haunts us. It can be visualized as a white square inside a dark circle. The white square is the area where all goodness lies, and Rama’s laws apply. Inside, Sita is Rama’s wife; inside, goddesses like Gauri and Lakshmi are worshipped; and inside, a code of civilization exists. But that dark circle is different. The circle follows the law of the jungle; it is the wilderness outside where Ravana rules (Rakshasa King); outside Sita is a woman for taking, and Ravana knows this very well. He knows that if he enters the hut and forces Sita out, he will be judged by the rules of society; if Sita comes out, he will be judged by the laws of the jungle. Within, he might be a villain, but outside he is a hero, the great trickster. So, he decided to get Sita's attention by saying that society had done him wrong and that he needed her help. We are all like Sita; we all feel that we must give something back to the society in which we live, try to achieve our ambitions. Thus, we tend to overlook the "fence of Lakshmana" completely. And once we do it, are we just another person taking a chance to understand the fundamental difference between what is bad and what is evil?

#society #love #life #art #evil #linkedin #community #linkedin #occult #india #memes #culture #people #villian #social #family #quotes #darkness #motivation #education #selflove #like #evildoer #world #bad #truth #women #freedom #change #daily #gothic #monster #creepy