Dear Swamiji and Madhu,

I recently was introduced over the email to this gentleman through a common
friend in Oregon. Any comments on his postings on oneness (orientalist
interpretation of Advaitha?).

chakravarthi


—– Original Message —–
From: “Steve Larson” <larsons_99@yahoo.com>
To: <larsons_99@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 4:07 PM
Subject: India – 4 (1/03/06)


Friends,

So, let me pick up where I interrupted myself before, with my brother’s ashram and the Vision of Oneness.  I first went to the ashram in 1978, at the invitation of some Canadians I had met at a teashop who were followers (a better word than “disciples”) of the guru Swami Shyam.  I attended one group satsang and found Shyam to be witty and engaging.  But it was some of his followers whom I talked with afterwards who impressed me the most.  They seemed so solid and together, very articulate and, critically for me, not dogmatic or doctrinaire.  And yes, very calm and at ease.  I didn’t know how to judge a guru.  I knew something about Canadians and Europeans though and these people made a very positive impression on me. The fact that they in turn were greatly impressed with Shyam was not lost on me.  In college and later I had read books on “eastern religions” and while the meaning had pretty much eluded me, it somehow had more appeal and seemed more right than what I had heard in church growing up.  I had the feeling that profound truths were being discussed: Somebody knew Something.
And now here at this ashram, putatively, was such a Somebody.  Certainly his followers thought he was a Somebody. 

A couple of years later, I went back to India and stayed at the ashram for six weeks; Ric had joined me on that trip and ended up staying at the ashram separately for a week.  I had some unusual experiences that deepened my conviction that Shyam was a Somebody.
Ric was hooked if not blown away.  I have returned several times since then for brief visits.  Shyam has always been very generous and nurturing with me.  I’ve also continued to be impressed with his followers, many of whom I consider to be friends.   Conversations after dinner at someone’s apartment with a handful of “Shyams” are always a total delight and often quite rarefied.  The high regard in which I hold Shyam comes in part from seeing him through their eyes.

So just what is this business of Oneness (as a visitor to the ashram once asked her longtime resident friend)?   Aldous Huxley has referred to it as the Perennial Philosophy.  My impression is that it is a part of the mystical teachings of all the major religions including Christianity.  In brief, it is the idea that there is a cosmic soul, invisible and
indivisible yet shared individually by all.  I like to think of it as all of us being plugged into the same electric circuit.  In the most essential and elemental sense, you and I are not the body or our minds, senses and personalities operating within it but rather the spirit that animates all this.  Unlike our bodies, that spirit is eternal; it is never born and never
dies, it always has been and always will be. Ultimately, it is the only thing that is unqualifiedly real.  In this sense, we are immortal.  Like waves on the ocean, we exist.  Like those waves we come and go (repeatedly, through reincarnation), but the ocean,
our essence, continues unchanged and unaffected.

A corollary of this perception of reality is that there is no duality, no you and me, no me versus you, nothing in opposition to or separate from anything. Seeing it any other way obscures the nature of reality and turns it into “maya” or illusion.  The reason so few of us see things this way is because of our egos for which this kind of thinking is anathema.  We have forgotten who and what we really are and instead think that our egos and the appearance of reality they “create” in our minds is what is real.  The Knower or Eternal Presence in us knows this, but we have failed to recognize that that Knower is there, that that Eternal Presence resides in us or, more accurately (and confusingly) is us.  If you want to go all the way and become fully enlightened or Self-realized, the ego has to be  permanently overcome in order to be able to internalize, retain and live the Vision.  Only then does all doubt and perception of duality disappear. What started out as a noble theory becomes the sole, all-encompassing fact of life.  In a way you live a two-track life, like an actor in a play who never forgets that the play is not really real and that he is just acting.

—I think this is the new age version of advaita.  But these modern gurus and promoters of such view, started with a theory of ‘oneness’ which is more appealing to rational and elitist mind.  Then they try to accommodate that theory to practical life with some illustration like enacting in drama.  But the real life tells different story.  The duality which we see and project outside is very easy to resolve by claiming the oneness of atman.  But when the same duality is within us, a conflict about the clash between matter and spirit, not mere elimination of ‘ego’ which according to Sankya dualism is also a subtle matter and therefore belongs to prakrti (from which the purusha needs to be separated for emancipation), but recognizing that the ‘conscience’ of the atman is struggling with such duality—to be not to be.  Therefore, agreeing with the unity of oneness (we created in the Image of god etc.), try to over come duality only with ‘ego’ level may give a beautiful theory to promote, but unless we recognize the sickness or weakness of atman and seek the grace of god to achieve the oneness with the Universal consciousness will remain as mere elitist concept.  Respecting the experience of Steve, yet as a bhaktas of a personal god, I would work with god to heal the sickness of the atman, than workout with some nice theory.–db

Since the thought of death is the underlying cause of human anxiety and uneasiness,  relief in the reality of Oneness (or rather, to the believer, recognition of that reality) is a source of comfort that allows one to live a more calm, peaceful, happy, magnanimous and productive life.

—I think this anxiety of death, though universal, yet not all have the same kind of anxiety (about the future).  For example, a typical Hindu is not much worried about it, as s/he knows that her karma and the children through proper ritual will take care about the death.  Their anxiety is more about the future about the children and their grandchildren.  I think, generalizing certain theory as universal is another mark of neo-Vedanta.–db

Phew.  Heavy stuff, no?  Most of you are probably thinking this is simply weird and airy-fairy gobbledygook.  No wonder Rajneesh’s ashram in Oregon imploded and went up in smoke!  But I don’t dismiss it.  I really do think there is something to it, remote and abstract and metaphysical and otherworldly as it sounds.  I’m also inclined to think that Shyam has a better handle on what it’s all about than most people who claim to know “It”.  Or  Truth or God or Ultimate Reality or whatever you want to call what is at the heart of everything, the cause and source and manifestation of existence.  Even if I never really get it, never get beyond the words to the underlying meaning, or do anything about it, I find a certain contentment in thinking that this is the way things ultimately are.  But that’s just my opinion.

And indeed, who is to say?  Who is to say who knows, or whether there is anything actually to know, beyond the laws of material existence?  And even if there is someone who Knows, how can we recognize that someone, alive or dead, or know for absolute sure that he or she has actually and fully apprehended the nature of reality.  Myself, I am inclined to think we can’t.  In any event, I don’t believe it is possible for anyone to prove that he’s right and that all contrary views are wrong.  It comes down to a matter of faith, of what each of us, based on our own individual predispositions (arising out of our different backgrounds, temperaments, capacities, biases and needs) finds to be most appealing and persuasive. Some people love Thomas Kinkaid, others hate him; but
at least we have Kinkaid’s paintings to argue over.  In the realm of religion and spirituality, what is there to conclusively confirm the validity of one’s beliefs, other than to one’s own satisfaction?  You say, This Book.  I say, What about That Book?  You  say, I know it in my heart, God speaks to me.  I say, That other person says the same thing but doesn’t seem to come to the same conclusions as you.  We look at the same things but we don’t see the same things.  We talk about the same things but we don’t mean the same  things.  We read the same things but we don’t understand or conclude the same things.  We are different, and so are our opinions about how things are.  Even though I personally cringe at black-and-white, cut-and-dried characterizations of spiritual reality and have at best only a vague notion myself of what I  believe, I still have strong  feelings especially about what I don’t believe.  We all want to think we are right or, rather, we all think we’re right and want everyone else to think so too.  At the same time, I know how I get when someone starts to push his views on me.  I think most of us are like that Since there is no neutral measuring stick acceptable to all by which to judge who is right, if indeed anyone is, the separation of church and state becomes not only appropriate but absolutely necessary: No one should be able to tell anyone else what he is to believe or that his behavior will be judged by the tenets of a given religion.  This I assume is why John  Lennon longed for “no religion too” in his song Imagine: because the history of religion has shown the tendency of faith to become a rigid and exclusionary thing that divides rather than unites.

—Yes.  The problem with religion is that it never begins with faith but with a dogma and expects others to confirm to it.  And, those who are not ready to endorse a particular dogma is not only excluded but also named as heretic.  In such situation, faith becomes very rigid and never bends to pull a person from the pit, and religion gives instruction to follow without questing, even without bothering to look back whether the followers are following or fell down in the deep pit.  The worst aspect of religion is that it not only try to control people, but also try to manipulate God(s) to make him (them) to dance according to the tunes of the votaries, through rituals.  This we can see in the popular aspect of every religion.  Here alone the revelation becomes much more important.  Whether you call it god, atman, One etc. the human history with all the limitations of every religion gives some space for the concept of revelation.  And when a person using her god given (or natural one as a human) instinct or intuition respond initially, then using her own reason can form a kind of spirituality which will further help her to make progress in that revelation. 

The beauty with revelation is that more you use your faith and reason, more it will become clear.  But when one begins to substitute religion (with its axillaries of dogmas, rituals, forms etc.) with revelation, then she is caught in the web of dogma and then the her own personal faith becomes rigid.  This is what I wrote to my preface to ‘Living Dialogues’: “Revelation, faith and reason could be termed as the Trinity of theology.  By faith we respond to the revelation.  And by reason we reflect upon that response to revelation by faith.  While the revelation of god is universal (as he never left any witness for him in creation) and the faith response is subjective (personal), yet the reflection of that faith response with reason is always based on one’s worldview which is shaped by various tradition (like cultural, religious and social etc.).”  So, while religion sets boundaries to protect its dogmas, yet revelation sets one’s spirit free.  But the reason which helps one to reflect upon the religion or revelation is determined by the personality of that individual and also shaped by the worldview of her (social, cultural and religious [and also other such] backgrounds.–db

As far as I am concerned, the Golden Rule is enough. It tells us how to behave and just about everyone I think can agree with it, as an ideal anyway.  Anything more is frosting on the cake.  If a person finds that a particular religion helps him or her to lead a more  decent, charitable life, that’s great.  Devotion to something beyond oneself, whether to a person, a cause, or a  belief, can produce genuine humility which is a wonderful thing and helps to make one a better neighbor.  It doesn’t by itself, however, validate the object of that devotion.

—what is the Golden Rule here with which he thinks that we can agree?–db

So, what is my take on the ashram?  Well, it is a fascinating and dynamic place, or “laboratory” as they call it.  I respect what people there are trying to achieve and the positive changes that have occurred in their lives as a result.  It is not for me, however,
not now, not yet anyway.  Unlike my brother, I don’t find the spiritual path that compelling.  Someone said during my visit there last month that in order to commit yourself to the spiritual path, there has to be a “yearning” to know the truth of things.  I agree, and I don’t have it, maybe because the pleasure-pain quotient in my life has been pretty high (although I would have thought the same would be true for Ric. But then I think he’s pursuing spiritual growth for its own sake.)  Actually I did have a mild yearning briefly in the 80’s but then it subsided and the visceral allure of being at the ashram faded with it.  And yet at the same time, the thought of spending say one year there does have a certain appeal because it would give me a chance to <become> a yearner, to see if spiritual understanding is something I subconsciously want or at least would want if I knew better.  What do my friends at the ashram see, in Oneness and in Shyam, that I don’t?  I’d like to know. Well as you can see, I’m an equivocator.  I guess the main issue for me is, even if all that Shyam says is true, Do I really care?  Do I want to be totally free of doubt (and do I trust my judgment enough to be?)? Do I really want to extinguish my ego?  Not really.  But what does this mean?  Do I resist because I don’t
agree or because I don’t understand?  It’s all unclear but intriguing.  More equivocation.  I muddle on.

A word about how long one should stay at an ashram. It has been suggested to me that overly long stays are a cop-out, allowing the seeker to live in a safe environment with like-minded people under the guise of acquiring more wisdom. How much wisdom do you need and how long does it take to get it? Why can’t you live what you’ve learned in a more natural and challenging setting, for example back where you came from?  (Shyam
himself has said: “What good does it do to live in a Himalayan cave and become “holy” if you later get upset at the first person who bumps into you back in the plains?”)  I think you can argue it either way. One disciple told me, “There’s no escaping your demons
here.”  Another said: “The purpose of a guru is not just to guide and inspire but also to kick ass.”  Maybe the thing about an ashram is that everyone’s demons do become exposed, that dealing with them is part of why you go to an ashram in the first place, and that doing it together in a purposeful and methodical way is more fruitful than doing it at home alone.  Certainly Shyam prods and nudges people about their hangups all the time.  Long stays at ashrams don’t necessarily cause people to become restless or disengaged, at least not at Shyam’s ashram.  The enthusiasm and vitality of the long-timers there is really quite amazing.  The respect the followers have for Shyam and for each other allows the ashram to be run with maximum flexibility and minimum structure. Shyam himself is always spontaneous, stimulating, thought-provoking and inspiring.  Even though his  message is always the same, it is invariably fresh and vibrant.  It’s not progressive “instruction”, like the subject matter of school curricula, but rather repetitious yet conveyed with endlessly varied explanations and descriptions.  The followers come to  understand better and more deeply over time.  The fact that so many people have stayed so long is I think a tribute to Shyam rather than any indictment of the followers’  weaknesses or insecurities.

—Giving all credit to Shyam for making his disciples to stay more in the ashram, I would endorse the view of Steve who asks,: Why can’t you live what you’ve learned in a more natural and challenging setting, for example back where you came from?  Time and again I insist that when we go to some place like an ashram or Himalayas, the new environment gives more inspiration because it set us free from our familiar situation.  But try to find solution to any kind of problem (both personal and inter personal) in isolation is some place like ashram is not going to help to produce a healthy individual, family, community and society.  Rather an ahram should help a person to face the reality of conflict within herself and with others—back in home and society.  Second thing is that, no instant and readymade solution to any problem could be prescribed by the ashram (or temple etc.).  Here we Indians are more sober than the westerners.  Because of our long experience with ashrams and gurus, we never go to any ashram to stay permanently there or to find solution to the problems in isolation.  Of course the new age gurus are now promoting some instant solutions through yoga and other teachings.  But after sometimes, Indians realize that it never works as they promote.  However only non-Indian coming from outside and staying in such ashrams become promoters of those ashrams and gurus, as they find this change of place and environment more appealing to them.—db

Well, there’s so much to say on this subject and obviously I’ve only scratched the surface, ludicrously so in fact.  But if I had gone further (assuming I were qualified, which I am not) into more of the paradoxes and conundrums, the matter of forms versus formlessness, Self vs. self, gross vs. subltle, etc., you’d have thrown up your hands.  Plus I’m here to see India, if you don’t mind.  Still, I may have scratched too deeply for some who might have found what I’ve said to be grating and objectionable, maybe even  blasphemous.  (I hope none of you is authorized to issue fatwas.)  If so, I’m sorry but it just illustrates the sensitivity of the subject and reinforces how we don’t all think alike.  Apropos of this, I just came across this quote from the Bhagavad Gita: “Better one’s own dharma, though done badly, than the dharma of another, thou done well.” (Ch. 12,  v. 47).

—I hope Steve clearly understand the context of this Gita sloka–db

My purpose in writing this email has not been to persuade anyone of anything, only to give some sense of what an Indian ashram is like and the kind of thinking one may encounter there, plus a dollop of my own thinking.  Of course ashrams vary considerably and Shyam’s is far from typical.  For example, his following is predominantly foreign; he doesn’t give secret mantras for meditation as is customary; he is not the designated successor of a previous guru within a particular spiritual lineage as is customary; indeed
even using his given name, Shyam ,is inconsistent with tradition; it should at least be Shyamananda (“ananda” meaning “bliss” or “blissful one”) if he were interested in adhering to convention.  I believe all of this applies to Ramana Maharshi (mentioned in my last email) as well.

There it is.  Much ado about nothing perhaps.  Yet I hope there has been something of marginal interest in what I’ve said even for those who think religion is for the dogs.  (Woof.)  If anyone should be interested in reading more about Oneness, you could try
www.ramana-maharshi.org

Steve
P.S. I might add as an afterthought that as far as I know there has not been a whisper of controversy whatsoever about any wrongdoing at the ashram, such as has scandalized some ashrams.  I was once told that Shyam intentionally had it built right next to the
primary road running through the valley and made it open to the public so that rumors would not arise.

@@@

After I read the first chapter on Advaita by late Kanchi Sankaracharya Sri Chadrasekara Sarasvathi Swamiji, I set aside the book.  Once he was deified as the very avatara of Sri Adi Sankara (who is none but the avatara of Siva himself) there is no dispute on his authority on every level.  So naturally all his sayings and writings were compiled and published as ‘Daivattin Kural’ (The voice of God).  The editor Sri. R. Ganapathi (who is famous for writing many religious book in Tamil) also endorses this view, though he also mentions that though the very avatara of Sankara, yet ‘Paramacharya identified himself one among us’.

Knowing my interest in reading, my brother brought the seven volumes of The Voice of God as I am going to stay more than three weeks with my mother.  But my enquiring mind is not ready to accept everything as the voice of God.  Here I need not quote from Kanchi Acharya’s teaching on Advaita and other topic related to Hinduism.  Being a advaitian at the same time writing to common mass, he shares on expected lines.  But my question is how to convey this to my brother, who is a faithful and stanch follower of Kanchi acharya.  There is no point of having any dialogue or argument, as now everything that I will share will be viewed as mere criticism on Hinduism because of my bhakti in Bhagavan Muktinath.  He read Understanding Hinduism also.  Probably he brought these seven volumes of Voice of God to answer some of my question that I raised in that book.  I don’t know.  Even when it comes to the bible as well, I am not accepting every teaching without questioning certain issues.  But pluralism as the very dogma in Hinduism, my faith will be viewed as mere ‘exclusivism’ and therefore fanaticism.  Well till the end we Hindu bhaktas have to live with this tension of love and hate relationship with our own fellow Hindus.

Chidembaram, February 6, 2008.

…The irony must be evident: you can have ‘religious pluralism’ only when you have lost faith and do not believe….—Balagangadhara, Heathen in his blindness, p.313

@@@

Bhai Harsh:

You missed Dr.Don’s talk on ‘Love & Loving’ last Sunday at HGP.

It was an interesting session and the audience participation for the

Humanist crowd was quite lively.  Don’s approach was typical Christianity

laced.  He invoked Gandhiji and Mother Theressa besides Christ and Martin Luther

King. It was a well planned presentation using Power Point.

He prompted me to say something but there is not much one can contribute

in two minutes. For me Patanjali is the ultimate on the subject with his 4 Sutras

of Maitri-Mudita-Karuna-Upeksha and that is what I briefly mentioned. Buddha’s teachings are also on parallel lines.  Later on I came across the following article from the Bodhist tradition which I think will interest you and other friends.

Cheers-Kanakbhai

PS: Let me know what you think.

“The aspirant along the Buddha’s path takes up residence in the four states of consciousness celebrated as the brahma-viharas or sublime abodes.

 These are maitri, karuna, mudita and upeksha: loving-kindness, compassion, joy and equanimity.

 Elaborating on these states in his commentary, the Visuddhi-magga (The Path of Purification), the scholar Buddhaghosha points out that they are a practical means by which the individual may step out of his narrow individuality to realise the larger oneness of life. Absorbed in meditation, the disciple lets his mind pervade the four quarters of the world with thoughts of loving-kindness. And so, recognising himself in all, he suffuses the whole world with love beyond measure.

suffuse

Now if further interested, For reading the full article click on:

http://www.hinduonnet.com/folio/fo0104/01040120.htm  “

                              Theoretical answer to the practical need

Dear Mr. Rawal,

Shanti!

Thanks for sharing your view on ‘Love & Loving’.  Your four Patanjalian Sutras (also reflecting the four states of Buddhist state of consciousness) are needed to be taken seriously.  However, (if my understanding is correct) what Patanjali says in the context of attaining samadhi though astangayoga (eight folded path in yoga), these four states are only a means to achieve another end of separating the purusha from prakati to attain nirvikalpa samadhi—where the atman can enjoy its own state.1 

In the same way, it is important to absorb in meditation to let our mind to pervade the four quarters of the world with a thought of loving-kindness and recognizing oneself in all to pervade the whole world with love beyond measure.

Though there is a place for such silent tapasya for the benefit of the world, yet some need to go out and show it in practice, as some one well said, ‘if you love then show it’.  Whoever has done it, whether Gandhiji, Mother Theresa, M.L. King or Christ, they showed the practical side of brahma-viharas, inspired, and challenged many to follow their path.

If those who sit in silent meditation with brahma-viharas could produce few more practical people to carry out their consciousness, then the world would be a different place to live with peace and tranquility. 

Take care.

dayanand

Dear Dayanandji:

Thank you for your view point. Also pl tell me what relevance do you place to Viveka and Vairagya for skillful action in the option you are suggesting?

Regards-Kanak
Dear Kanakji,

Shanti!

If you mean ‘skilful action’ in serving other through practice is my suggestion, then Vivek according to me the right discernment in doing help to others.  There are several people who just want to exploit our service to them, knowing our weakness.  There we should be careful.  In stead of encouraging their laziness or greed, we should set example for them to ‘help themselves’ through other means.

Vairagya in practical service to others is not to give it up because of some failures, misunderstanding and criticism.  This applicable not only in our selfless service  to others in the society, but also within our family.  I like Krishna’s answer to Arjuna (of course given in a difference context of controlling the mind) ‘abhyaasena tu Kounteya vaigraagyena ca grahyate (6:35b.) (only by practice and determination one can attain that (the control of mind).

db Dear Kanakji,

When I was reading S.N. Dasgupta’s Hindu Mysticism, the following point struck in my mind regarding the context of Patanjali’s 4 Sutras and Buddhist brahma-viharas.  Hope this will endorse my view which I shared with you.  From Hindu Mysticism:

1.            The principal virtues of universal friendship, universal compassion, etc., to which reference has already been made, were appreciated early in Buddhism and also in the yoga of Patanjali.  But it may well be argued that there was scarcely any place for the active manifestation of universal friendship or universal compassion in a scheme of life which was decidedly individualistic.  No one who sought the absolute (p.98) freedom of his own self, or the extinction of his whole personality like the extinguishing of a flame, and who sought the cessation of his own rebirths and sorrow as the only goal and the only ambition to be realized, could have much scope for any active manifestation of universal friendship.  The altruistic ideal can therefore at best be merely a disposition, and can manifest itself merely in a negative way, e.g., in non-injury to any being.  But a person who holds such an individualistic notion of salvation cannot, in his scheme of life, have any leisure or opportunity for the doing of active good to others.— S.N. Dasgupta, HINDU MYSTICISM, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, (1927), 1992,  pp.98-99

               In the  Hindu Puranas or religio-mythological works, written in poetry, we sometimes come across tales of wonderful self-sacrifice for the good of the gods or even for the good of animals who sought protection.  But tales of self-sacrifice from the motive of universal friendship are very rare, and they do not seem to fit in with the Hindu ideal of personal and individual liberation…A story is also told of King Shibi, who was tested by the gods Indra and Agni.  Agni took the form of a pigeon, and Indra that of a pursuing hawk.  The pigeon took shelter with King Shibi.  The latter (p.99) would not give it over to the hawk because the pigeon had taken shelter with him and under these circumstances he would rather give up his own life than allow the pigeon to be killed.  At least the hawk said that he would be satisfied if King Shibi would give from his own body flesh of the same weight as that of the pigeon, and the king cut the flesh of his thigh with his own sword.  This, however, is a case of the kshatriya’s virtue of giving shelter to those who seek it, even at the sacrifice of one’s own life.  It does not exemplify self-sacrifice for the good of beings in general, out of pure motives of universal friendship.  The tale is a Brahmanic adaptation of a Buddhist story called Shibijataka, in which King Shibi is said to have torn out his eye and made a gift of them out of motives of pure charity alone.  In another story in the Mahabharata, Shibi is said to have cut up his own son as food for a Brahmin who desired the son’s flesh  for dinner; and to please the Brahmin Shibi was prepared to join in eating the dinner consisting of his own son’s flesh.  The motive here was the supreme duty of pleasing the Brahmins and giving them whatever they wanted.—ibid. pp.99-100

Dayanand

Dear Dayanandji:

Thanks for your followup.I myself have questions about a number of Puranic tales and one particular one that of Ekalavya.In spite of all that, our society has sustained the human values and allowed diverse thoughts to develop.This includes the tolerance for many foreign ideologies that came to our shores.For the first time Bharat became a Nation State in 1947.It amazes me that still it was a wonderful coexistence of diverse group of ideologies for so many years.It is not easy to sit in judgment for the past from 21st century!

Namaskaram-Kanak

PS; Following is a short piece I wrote sometimes back that I would like to share with you:

In Master’s Steps

Many years back my spiritual master Shri Swamiji (Swami Ram) was visiting us. I asked him one question that often crossed my mind was, “What comes first, Divine Grace or Human endeavor”? In fact, there is a well-known aphorism in Sanskrit for it “mnuSy yTn, 0+vr iKrpa” transliterated “Manushyayatna,Ishverkripa”. It is comparable to a Zen koan.

Instead of giving a straight answer, Swamiji counter questioned me with a mischievous smile, “How do you walk”?

I said, “Of course with my two legs”

He said, “Are you sure about it?”

I said, “Absolutely, I will show you right now”, and I started getting up.

He stopped me with impatience, “No, no, no. You walk with one leg”.

Getting confused, I asked “How so?”

He said,

“Just think you silly? When you are walking never are your two feet on the ground. When they are, you are standing and not walking. For walking, when you are lifting your one foot to take a step, while it is in the air the other stationary foot is firmly grounded on earth. As soon as your first foot connects the ground, the other one now takes over and is moving in the air following the first one. This process repeats until you reach your destination. See now? Though you are using your two feet you are walking only with one foot at a moment”.

“The Creator has placed you on this world and has equipped you with the equipment of physical body, mind and breath. You are to use this biological machine with skillful action. You just do your thing, Divine Grace follows. In fact, it never leaves you.

Your one foot is Human endeavor and the other is Divine Grace.

They are inseparable”, he ended.

Swamiji was a great teacher and used parables a lot.

The Divine Grace is always there hiding in the wings to nudge you to your path. It manifests only when you complete your part of the deal. One foot at a time

in the Master’s steps!

Kanak Ravel, Ph.D. Portland, OR March 7, 2006 

Dear Kanakji,

Shanti!

Thanks for sharing your views and Swamiji’s answer to your question.  My problems is not with Puranic tales or the teaching which they convey us.  I am the person who tries to understand every thing in the given context.  In your response to Dr. Don’s talk on ‘Love & Loving’ you quoted Patanjali’s four sutra claiming that Patanjali is ultimate on this subject, then my mind went to understand those four sutras in the context of what he said.  He never said in the context of ‘love and Loving’ and definitely not with the same spirit of Bodhisatva’s teaching. 

I am not only happy to be a Hindu but also thank god that he allowed me to live in this beautiful land of Hinduism.  However, my sentiment should not allow me to misread my own scripture.  As a student of Hinduism I want to understand my scripture, culture, values, civilization in their right perspective—both good and bad.  Rest after hearing from you.

dayanand

Dear Dayanandji:

Dr.Don’s approach was typical Western reductionist.I wished to expose him to our Seer’s approach of integration which I think is subtle and fundamental-simply said “Be good and not just do good”.Only the Quakers in West have recognized  this.

I too am born in Brahman family and have same persuasion that you feel home with.I also think that our society has dealt even handedly otherwise Jain.Bodhist and Charvak belief systems would not have prevailed.

Hari Om-Kanak

Dear Kanakji,

Shanti!

Though I read many books written by westerners, yet I cannot understand many of their approach to various aspects of life.  Because reading a book is entirely different from the life.  So you are more qualified to appraise the Western reductionist approach.  I too agree with you that our Indian worldview and approach to life based on practical need is completely different.  Living in India, though I cannot see an even handedness of life among us, yet in our books and scripture we project such an imagination. 

I find in Pavan Kumar Varma’s book: Being Indian a proper appraisal of Indian society in the present context.  If you could get a copy read it.  Survival compelled us to live with many views like that of Janin, Charvak etc., as we believe in: Live and Let Live.

Thanks.

db

@@@

úNôRû]

Sm Yôr®p HtTÓm ©WfNû]Lû[, Sôm ®ÚmTj RLôRRôLúYô, ApXÕ LPÜ°u RiPû]VôLúYôRôu ¨û]d¡ú\ôm. AR]ôp AÝÕ ×Xmסú\ôm, Cû\Yû] ¨kRû] ùNn¡ú\ôm. EiûU«p AqYlúTôÕ Sm YôrdûL«p úNôRû] GRtLôL YÚ¡\Õ GuTûR ùR¬kÕ ùLôiúPôúUVô]ôp, úNôRû]ûV G§oTôolúTôm.

AiPeLs Aû]jÕm TûPdLlTÓYRtÏ Øu×, Sôm LPÜ°u NômWôwVj§p EVokR BuUôdL[ôL CÚkRúTôÕ, ‘LPÜ[ô? NôjRô]ô?’ Gu\ RodLj§p Sôm Ø¥Ü GÓdLôUp ALkûR«p ¨u\úTôÕ, úNôRû]«u A¥lTûP«p Sôm Ø¥ùYÓlTRtLôL, RtLô­LUôL CkR éªûV Sm YôݪPUôL LPÜs HtTÓj§Ùs[ôo.

LôWQm? Sôm CkR 骫p CÚkÕ ùLôiÓ, LPYsRôu GpXôm YpXYo GuTûR ùR¬kÕ ùLôiÓ, AYûW UhÓúU YQeLd á¥VYoL[ôL BL úYiÓm GuTRtLôL! Sôm GlT¥ CkR 骫p JqùYôuû\Ùm TôojÕ A±kÕ, ‘LPÜs CÚd¡\ôW’ GuTûR ùR¬kÕ ùLôiúPôúUô, AúRúTôp úNôRû]Ls YÚmúTôÕ, Sôm ùR¬kÕ ùLôiP AkRd LPÜû[ Smסú\ôUô GuTûR ¨ì©dL, SUdÏ AkR úNôRû]Ls YÚmúTôÕ, Sôm ùR¬kÕ úLôiP AkRd LPÜû[ Smסú\ôúUô GuTûR ¨ì©dL, SUdÏ AkR úNôRû]LsRôu NkRolTeL[ôÏm. ‘ùNVpL°p AZLô]Yo Vôo GuTûR úNô§lTRtLôL úYi¥úV, U²Rû] CeÏ Aàl© Esú[u’ Guß LPÜs ùNôp¡\ôo.

LPÜs TpúYß YûLVô] úNôRû]Lû[, Sm YôrdûL«p RÚ¡\ôo. ARôYÕ T£, YßûU, TVm, SxPm, E«¬Zl×, A§LUô] ùNpYm, Uû]®, UdLs Guß. BL, GpXô YûLVô] ãr¨ûXÙm YÚm NkúRô`m, ÕdLm G] GpXô ãr¨ûX«Ûm, Sôm ãr¨ûX«u TdLm NônkÕ ®PôUp, AYûWúV ØRuûUVôL ûYjÕ Y¯ TÓ¡ú\ôm. Y¯ThÓ úUÛm AY¬Pm Øt±Ûm NWQûPYRu êXm LPÜs SmûU Áh£ ùT\ ûYd¡\ôo.

‘EeL°p Vôo Øû]l×Pu ØVp¡\ôoLs GuTûRÙm, TtßߧÙPu N¡j§Úd¡\ôoLs GuTûRÙm ùY°dùLôQWúY Sôm EeLû[ úNôRû]«p BrjÕ¡ú\ôm’ GuTÕ LPÜ°u GiQm. ØR­p SUdÏ YWd á¥V úNôRû], SmØûPV GkR ¨ûXûV úNô§lTRtLôL YÚ¡\Õ GuTûR EQWd á¥VYoL[ôL Sôm CÚdL úYiÓm.

®¯l×Pu CÚlTYoLÞPu LPÜs CÚd¡\ôo. ùTôßûU, ùTô\ôûU, úLôTm, AXh£Vm, AdLû\, Ttß, Sm©dûL, LPÜû[ ¨û]Ü áoYÕ, ®PôØVt£, EiûU, ©\ÚdÏ ùLôÓlTÕ-Guß Sm Au\ôP Yôr®p SUdÏj úRûYVô], Sôm ®Úm×m JùYôu±p CÚkÕm SUdÏ úNôRû] YÚm. AÕ Sm ùTôßûUûU úNô§dÏmúTôÕ, ùTôßjÕd ùLôs[ úYiÓm. EiûUûV Uû\dL úYi¥V ¨ûX YÚmúTôÕ, EiûUûVûV úTN úYiÓm. ClT¥ JqùYôÚ NkRolTj§Ûm Sôm ¨ûX RÓUô\ôUp CÚdL úYiÓm.

–S.A.P.YWRu, Thuglak Tamil Weekly, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 24, 27-06-2007, p.2 (99), EWS-2136, Y^kRm LôX² ØRp ùRÚ, (©sû[Vôo úLô®p G§o NkÕ) AiQô SLo úUtÏ, ùNuû]–600 040, ùRôûXúT£: 044-2618 0541

@@@

                                    Universalism

This morning in one TV (Telugu) channel a Swamiji (I think it is Suhabhogananda, who writes regularly in Anandavikadan) was talking about relationship.  In his talk he pointed out how both husband and wife should help each other to grow in their relationship not merely to enjoy pleasure (which is also a part in that relationship, he said) but also for realization of God.  Then he told about the thread which we wear.  He said that the three strands represents the three Vedas and the knot in it points out the Brahman—the aim of the three Vedas.  ‘After marriage, it become six strands, representing that now wife become part of that realization’, he continued.

As I was busy with other works, I couldn’t listen further his talk.  However, later when I was thinking about it, one question came to my mind.  Does the purpose of thread is to give this meaning in original sense?  Because in Hinduism, we give all kinds of interpretation to any and every symbol according to our convenience.  Most of the time the listeners never take those teachings very seriously.  But my mind refuse to accept these kinds of artificial interpretation about certain symbols, rituals etc. to make them universal truth.

For example if the thread is the symbol of god’s realization and growth in relationship, then why it is denied to the Shudras?  We know well that it is the symbol of twice born now and in original context an initiation (as a sanskara) for Vedic study.  We also have reference that even women were allowed to undergo this sanskara.  Of course it is true that after marriage husband has to wear six strands and for bachelor only three strands (and after some time some will put nine strands, symbolizing the status of a ‘jnani’). 

However I am not objecting to the freedom one has to give his own interpretation to any symbol.  But in this process, however they try to universalize its meaning, a good section of people are excluded.  If you point this, then they might even have ready made answer that how there are other means for every one to be included in Hinduism for growth and god’s/self realization which will suit according to their situation (in the life based on caste, education, wealth etc.).

So universalism in Hinduism is that all are included according to their need and nature.  But this universalism is unity and uniformity.  For example when I was talking with Prakash (Prasad’s brother) about (Commercial) Yoga, I pointed out that how it is not within the reach of common people—because of both time and money.  Learning yoga and practising it needs both time and money.  In a sense it is open to all but not accessible to everybody.  Then such an endeavor (call it spiritual or religious one) cannot be universal.  Of course one need not go to Gyms club to do exercise and keep one’s body in good condition.  Each one has his own ways and means to do simple and free for all exercise.  But in commercial world, it is consumerism and not universalism which determines one’s approach.  On the other hand in spiritual/religious world, for any reason, even if one person is excluded, then that approach cannot be called universal in its purpose.

When I was thinking in this line, I thought about the Gospel and how it is universal in its scope.  Unity and not Uniformity/ Unity in Diversity are a good slogan when it comes to culture and social values.  But when it comes to spirituality uniformity in its scope—in the sense that it doesn’t exclude any one, should be the criteria to claim its universal nature.  Thankfully I see that kind of universalism in the gospel.  And I would call this as the Universal Truth for all.

Dayanand, Mathigiri, May 12, 2003.

The following article came in today’s The Times of India, Bangalore in ‘The Speaking Tree’ (p.10) by Kamal Morarka.

Identity Crisis: Faith vs. Truth

Hinduism is a faith—a way to understand the truth.  Other faiths like Islam and Christianity also enable seekers to get closer to the truth [this means that they only help to come closer to the truth and unlike Hinduism help one to understand the truth?—DB].  There need be no contradiction, for nobody has monopoly over truth.  I am a Hindu.  My truth should co-exist with other truths.

            When India became independent, the country was partitioned and there was a great Hindu-Muslim divide.  But we soon settled down peacefully.  People of different faiths did not clash very often, no one felt the need to loudly proclaim the ‘superiority’ of a particular faith.

            Over the years, things have changed.  Faith is being used as an identity by certain sections.  Some Hindus proclaim their identity by espousing the cause of Hindutva.  This is a self-defeating exercise that will help neither Hinduism nor the country.

            Once religion is sought to be used as a means of identification, it creates turmoil, resulting in intolerance, hatred, violence and a desire to dominate the followers of other faiths instead of creating accommodation and goodwill.  History shows that whenever Islam or Christianity have been used as a means of identification—they have achieved nothing but conflict.

            We need to understand the distinction between religion as faith and truth and religion as identity.  WE suddenly see a spurt of identities in the name of language, region and caste, among others.  The backward classes, suppressed for centuries, are finding an identity today, through the iconisation of Ambedkar.*  This is understandable, but any such quest for identity serves only its own limited purpose of extracting short-term benefits.

            The dangerous divide between faith and identity has been well brought out by Abdolkarim Soroush, a prominent ideologue and thinker of Iran.  He wrote: “I fear the Moslems, who in their confrontation with Western civilization wish to turn Islam into an identity… I think one of the greatest theoretical plagues of the Islamic world, in general, is that people are gradually coming to understand Islam as an identity rather than as a truth.  It is true that Moslems have an Islamic identity and civilization, but they have not adopted Islam for the sake of identity or civilization.  I believe that the Islam of identity should yield to the Islam of truth.  The latter can coexist without other truths; the former; however, is by its very nature, belligerent and bellicose.  It is the Islam of war, not the Islam of peace.”

            If Islam as an identity gave way to Islam as truth, we would have a lot more love and compassion as preached by the Qur’an.  Hindutva is an identity for those who believe in Hinduism as faith.  It is this identity that creates strife, not the faith.  By its very nature Hinduism is pluralistic and hence it is difficult to carve out an identity for the followers of its many manifestations.  If any such identity—in the name of Hindutva—is sought to be chiseled out, it will only be at the cost of diluting the vastness of Hindu philosophy and will ultimately result in Hinduism losing its all-encompassing uniqueness.

            The purpose of sovereign nations is to give an identity to an individual whatever be his faith.  In our case, the identity should be Indian.  Peaceful co-existence is possible among the followers of different faiths.  All that is required is to avoid the trap of using faith as an identity.

            Abdolkarim Soroush said: “Two identities would fight each other, while two truths would co-operate… Rule of the clergy is based on the logic of power, not on the logic of liberty.”  Using religion as an ideology “makes it intolerant and authoritarian”. Religion is for the “lovers of faith”; not for the “dealers of the faith”.

—–

* Though I too agree with Morarka on this point, however we have to accept that by writing such sophisticated way to point out the long-term damage to the whole of India is viewed as high caste hegemony over the suppressed people.  When the so called upper caste and class raise their objection against such iconisation aiming only short-term benefits, those who were suppressed all through these centuries have every right to think only their immediate benefit.  What we call as limited and short-term benefits is not merely an identity crises for them but also a struggle for existence—as survival of the fittest becomes the rule of law.–dayanand

@@@

From my diary October 18, 1998.

Morning the Austrelian family living near by came to visit us.  His name is Anand and his wife Neelam and son Kabir, came to India to live and raise his son here.  He claims that he is an atheist and materialist but has belief in spirit there fore he is a spiritual.  In course of our talk I said that the dichotomy of matter and spirit and then claiming one as spiritual because of believeing in spirit is not real spirituality for us in India.  In India the real division is between aatman and anaatman (soul and non-soul).  Like wise when he said that the Christian faith which believes in a God there in the sky is childish.  For this I siad, “if we call other’s faith as childish, they can say ‘better be childish, and believe in a God to be arrogant and look down others faith’”.

@@@

Dear Gopu and Vimala, Hosur, August 4, 2000.

Greetings in our Lord’s Name.

Rick forwarded your e-mail to me. I am very happy to know that your mother is staying with you. My mother is also staying with me and I know what does it mean to have our own mother who does not understand our faith. But this is the real challenge. From my experience I can say that Lord taught several good lessons through my mother–at least how to be patience with our own people with whom we have to rub shoulders.

As my experience won’t be the solution to your problem, yet there are some general principles on which we can workout our own problems. First of all accommodating their sentiment and (blind) faiths keeping our faith alive in the Lord is neither syncretism nor compromise, but a concession, which God definitely permits because of our situation. For example my mother want to have her puja room. As there is no separate place, I fist asked her to keep her lamp and photo of Lakshmi, ganapati in the small room which is very dark. But she insisted having the small stand in the kitchen. First I objected to it, but later I changed my mind, as she knows my strong faith in the Lord, allowed her to have her small stand with the lamp and a photo in the kitchen. She sees every day that after my morning bath, I sit and read the bible and pray silently. Even if anyone come to see or some other work comes, she will say to them,’ my son is doing his japa’, and come later. So the first step in living with our parents is that we have our own regular puja.

Next I suggested both Raman–and Bhuvana and Madhu that let us also have a separate puja room or stand. Now Chakravarti in Bangalore has arranged one for his family (though he is a traditional Christian, he is not going to the church and his wife and children are doing their puja to Jesus before their family alter). In that Puja room I asked Raman to have a small lamp and a ‘Padhuka’ (the mark of two feet) done every day or once in a week by rice powder (called kolam in Tamil). Hope you follow what I say. During Gokulashtami in our house they will make the footmark of Krishna with rice power. So we too will have the feet of our Guru in that family alter (no other idol or cross or photo of Jesus) and lit a lamp with agarbati and some flowers. Sit before it as a family every Friday evening (definitely not on Sunday substituting it for Church worship) and sing some bhajans in Sanskrit (which I will send separately in printout) as well some good bhajans in Telugu (Hope you have Yesu Suprapatam in Telugu with you which is available in Hydrabad) and invite your mother also for it and worship the Lord. Instead of reading much from the bible or praying a lot, sing more bhajans and observe more silence on quite meditation.

We can start the worship by calling everyone to keep few minutes in silence. Then begin it with OM for three times. We can also do pranayama (taking the breath slowly in and holding it for few seconds and releasing it slowly. Do this for three times at the beginning). If possible next week I will record one cassette for you and try to send it to you.

I am not happy with your involvement–even in the name of fellowship with Christians (OM-ers). As I read from your letter, the hidden fear and anxiety about pleasing them or at least not annoying them will hinder our sadhana as Hindu Christ bhaktas. We cannot serve two masters. There alone we will be forced to compromise or even to become a hypocrite before others. This tension we saw in the life of Upadhyay (read the last TAMAT December 1999, which was fortunately the last issue of TAMAT). I understand your anxiety to hold on something tangible to keep your faith alive. But out of our own experience we can say that with clear conviction we can hang on our Lord than on Christians. I don’t want to go further on this matter, as we all have our own anxieties, limitations and worries. I have no problem with those Christians like Kannan–Saradha and Chakravarti who are ready to go with us. But we have to be cautious about those who will create un-necessary tension in our mind or force us to play a double role (like that of Upadhyay). Only God and Time alone can teach you more on this.

Regarding the need of your children’s education, I am contacting Prasad to know whether he is able to help you or at least give you a loan. But he is not happy the way you disappeared last August after Mahabalipuram meeting etc. but as a shishya he obeys me. Let me contact him first.

This is enough for the time being. My regards to your mother and love to the children.

dayanand bharati

@@@

When Self Comes before Spirit of Sacrifice—by Shantanu Nagarkatti, in The Speaking Tree, The Times of India, Bangalore, July 29, 2005, p. 12.

…

               Connections of the flesh are often a great burden.  They create expectations on both sides that are impossible to fulfil, and obligations that often make life difficult to bear.  Despite blood being ‘thicker than water’, none may be truly depended upon.  “The sooner you are free of such illusions, the happier you will become”

               With these words, the sage led his disciple through pouring rain to the nearby river which was in spate.  In the swelling river was a tree that was rapidly being submerged.  A monkey was seated near the top of the tre and she held her baby close to her breast. As the water rose higher, the mother climbed higher and higher.  Finally, as the water rose to her chest, the monkey raised the baby in her arms above her head.  At this point, the disciple looked triumphantly at the guru.  “Wait a bit”, said the sage.  “Let us stay here awhile”.

               Finally, the water rose above her head  The mother monkey now placed the baby below the water, and climbed on it to keep her head above the flood.  At the moment of crisis, she sacrificed her child for her own life.

               Have you ever been disillusioned by someone you trusted or believed in ?  That is a painful way to become enlightened.  The painless way is to listen to the voices of wisdom that echo within.  Ancients have said that “One should never trust anyone in material consciousness”.  Even worldly person rides on what is termed manorath or chariot of the mind, and cannot be depended upon or trusted; especially where his selfish interest is concerned.

               Trust in God and those who have truly lost themselves in Him.  As far as worldly persons are concerned, either create systems that make depending entirely upon trust irrelevant, or align your interests so closely with them, that your interests become their interests.

Dear Sir,

I am writing this in response to the above article.  Let me illustrate my point by the following real story:

During Tsunami hit, after three or four days, a baby was rescued alive from the hands of a woman, who found dead in between the branches of a tree, where she was thrown by the waves.  However, the important fact was that it was not her baby, but neighbor’s child, whereas her kids too were washed away in the water.  She held the baby in such way that even after her death, the grip of the hand protected the baby from falling down from the tree.  They believe that when she was running away to save her, she might have found the neighbor’s baby and took it along with her, even though she could not save her own.

The world still alive not because of the sage in the above story or his kinds of teaching, but like that woman who saved a baby even after death.  Thankfully, the monkey in his story is only an illustration, but not a reality in life.  I think that this kind of pessimistic worldview of our land alone make people more ‘Selfish’.  That sage might be a sannyasi who runs away from his responsibility.  By publishing this kinds of articles please don’t make many more disciples to him.  Because definitely ‘blood is thicker than water’, and no one with a conscience will ever behave like the monkey.  The lesson that nature and animal kingdom teaches a different story.  A monkey can easily swim with its baby and need not wait on the top of the tree.  Above all, even it claimed on the top of its baby, she cannot stand for a long time, as the baby’s head cannot hold her wait under the water in a strong current.  To prove a personal point we should not degrade the nature, which always teaches only good and noble teachings. Both nature and animal never behave against their dhrama (nature, viz. pravriti), unless the latter are trained and spoiled by human being!

Swami Dayanand Bharati

Dear Nirmal

Let me know your view of the following introduction to my dialogue with Badrinath on his book , The Mahabharata: An Inquiry in the human condition, New Delhi, Orient Longman, 2007.

If you are satisfied with this one, after editing it send me back first and let me read it and then you can post this.

Db

15-5-14

For some reading book is a hobby, but though I too started it as a hobby, gradually that become part of my life.  When was working as a sales representative, I used to keep the book side by side to read, while taking order.  I mean, when the sales man was busy in attending the customers, I will read few lines, till he returns back to give the order.  Even when I was going to office, I took a book and while walking not on the main street where there will be no traffic, I used to walk and read book.  I still remember the way my mother snatched the book which I was reading while I was eating.  So, I was not merely a book worm, but I was living, moving and making book as my being.

Having said about my obsession with books, yet I am not a casual reader.  I will take notes and arrange them according to topic and also record my comments, side by side in the book itself.  This helped me to reflect on certain points which the author conveys.  And naturally, I never accepted the views of the authors without questioning them, though I appreciate their sincere efforts to present them.

Though I read books related various topics, yet my main interest is related to (religious) scriptures and historical ones.  And in all these years, though I enjoyed the writings of many authors, yet I cannot forgot the influence of few, who helped me to understand the subject in depth but also forced to change my views.  Though Prof. Kane cannot be replaced by any one else as my most favored writer, yet there are few both in the past and present who often challenges my views.  One such author is Sri Chaturvedi Badrinath.  When I first read his book: Dharma, India and World Order, he helped me to understand the concept of dharma in its proper context.  This book forced me to get all his other works to read.  And when I completed his recent book: The Mahabharata: An Inquiry in the human condition, New Delhi, Orient Longman, 2007,again I find his special mark in this work too. 

I appreciated his hard work and in thanking I wrote the following short introduction before I share my reflection on certain points.  But I have certain genuine doubts and questions, which I will share next.

Dear Badrinathji,

Shanti!

I completed your book on December 13^th and at present typing notes as per my habit. I am tempted to write you back to express my thanks for your valuable contribution.  But I thought that I will do after I write my views on your book.  But as I began to type and reflect on your writings, I think it will take many more weeks for me to complete the work, as I am also doing other works too.

The main reason for writing this is to know whether you will have time to enlighten me on some points which is not very clear to me.  Because I am limited in many ways.  Some times I don’t understand very high English to understand the mind of the author.  However, as a student of Scriptures, I want to learn from the scholars.  You are one such scholar and from your writings I learnt a lot.  So, you should view my comments from this perspective of a ‘students’ reflection (and question) rather than a critics comments on a scholar’s work.  I will send one by one which I have written so far.  I am still typing the notes from this book and it will take time for me to send all my reflection on this book.  Thanks.  The text in red letters are my comments.

Dialogue One. (Sent on 31^st December 2007) (The points in red color are by DB, Block is by CB and Blue is the quote from Mbh. by CB)

Badrinath, as usual, not merely write to challenge, but change about our perception on concepts, ideals, worldviews etc.  Because, as he said else where, ‘That the others can misunderstand you is too well-known.  That you can misunderstand your own self is seldom recognised.  Of the two, which is more harmful?’ [Chaturvedi Badrinath,  Dharma, India and the World Order, Saint Andrew Press, Pahl-Rugenstein, 1993, p. 339]

And this become more important, when we not merely read and write on several important Indian concepts, but even explain away our own acts in the context of concreate reality of life, that too in our relationship with one-self and others. 

And once such miss conceived, misused Indian concept is ‘dharma’.  As this being his favorite subject, his recent work on Mbh. alone could serve this purpose than any other Indian literature.  As expected, he never disappoints us.  As reading, understanding and thinking of Mbh. became his life endeavor, what he presents in this book will not only break a new ground in our understanding of Mbh. but will help every lay person to come to terms with Mbh., as I found it as the most difficult book of Indian literature.

At Lucknow, the capital of Uttar Pradesh of India, there is a monument called ‘boolbhuliah’.  Unless you have a guide you cannot come out of it, once you entered to see it.  The guide, after showing it, will leave you with a challenge that if you could come out of the building in the same way as you entered, he will give one thousand rupees.  Unless you have luck or real knowledge about such intricate construction, you will go round and round in the same building.  And each passage will look the same.  And when you thought that you have found the way out, yet it will take you to some other direction.  This is the reality about the Mbh. too.  If it is a thick forest without any path, then one can taking some help from the sun, moon and stars can come out of it, making her own way out.  But, the problem with Mbh. is that, as so many people walked by making so many paths, crossing each other, unless you have a some one to help to find the right path, you will trapped again and again crossing the same path, without knowing which is which.  This is even endorsed by Mgh. itself: The path of dharma is a grand path from which several paths branch off; which of them must one follow? ⁽Shanti-parva, 108.1-2, 158.2-4; Vana-parva, 213.2)—p.94

More than five years before I too began to read Mbh. (Dutt’s translation in English) and now I completed only Adi parva.  But, though I am a book worm and reading become my very life, unlike other books that I read, I found Mbh. difficult to comprehend.  Because, it is not the work of a single author, but an encyclopaedia, in which anybody can insert any of their thought.  Considering its size and various subjects presented by various people with various views, it is difficult for a lay person to have a minimum understanding of Mbh.  Of course those who read it for entertainment or religious purpose could find their satisfaction.  But as a student, if one wants to comprehend the basic teachings of Mbh., it is not possible by simply reading its text.  There is no point of reading some book on Mbh. to understand it as well.  Unless you find a guide, who can teach with some authority on Mbh., it will remain a boolbhuliah or a thick forest with may paths to lead you.  Thankfully now I find a good guide in Chaturvedi Badrinath, not merely to guide me, but also to take me along with him to understand Mbh. which will help every Indian to have a right understanding of him/her self as well as in her/his relationship with others.

Gurukulam, December 9, 2007.

Edited by Nirmal

For some reading is a hobby. Although I started it as a hobby, gradually it has become a part of my life. When I was working as a sales representative, I used to keep a book by my side to read while I was taking orders. When the client was busy attending his customers, I would read a few lines until he came back. When I was going to office, I took a book and would read while I walked when there wasn’t any traffic. I still remember the way my mother snatched the book I was reading while I was eating. So, I am not merely a bookworm, but books have become a part of my being.

When I read, I don’t do it casually. I take notes and arrange them according to topic and record my comments, side by side in the book itself. This helps me to reflect on certain points that the author conveys. Naturally, I never accept the views of the authors without questioning them, though I appreciate their sincere efforts to present them.

Though I read books related various topics, my main interest is related to religious scriptures and historical ones. In all these years, though I enjoyed the writings of many authors, I cannot forgot the influence of few who helped me to understand the subject in depth and forced to change my views. 

Though Prof. Kane cannot be replaced by any one else as my most favorite writer, there are a few both in the past and present who often challenge my views. One such author is Sri Chaturvedi Badrinath.  When I first read his book: Dharma, India and World Order, he helped me understand the concept of dharma in its proper context. This book forced me to get all his other works to read. When I completed his recent book: The Mahabharata: An Inquiry in the Human Condition [New Delhi, Orient Longman, 2007] again I found his special mark in this work too. 

I appreciated his hard work, and in thanking him I wrote the following short introduction before I shared my reflection on certain points. I do have certain genuine doubts and questions, which I will share next.

Dear Badrinathji, 

Shanti!

I completed your book on December 13^th and at present typing notes as per my habit. I am tempted to write to you to express my thanks for your valuable contribution. But I thought that I will do after I write my views on your book. As I began to type and reflect on your writings, I think it will take many more weeks for me to complete the work, as I am also doing other works too. 

The main reason for writing this is to know whether you will have time to enlighten me on some points which are not very clear to me. I am limited in many ways. Some times I don’t understand very high English to understand the mind of the author. However, as a student of Scriptures, I want to learn from the scholars. You are one such scholar and from your writings I have learnt a lot. So, you should view my comments from this perspective of a ‘students’ reflection (and question) rather than a critic’s comments on a scholar’s work. I will send one by one which I have written so far. I am still typing the notes from this book and it will take time for me to send all my reflection on this book. Thanks. 

Dialogue One. (Sent on 31^st December 2007)

Badrinath, as usual, does not merely write to challenge, but change our perception on concepts, ideals, worldviews etc.  Because, as he said else where,

‘That the others can misunderstand you is too well-known.  That you can misunderstand your own self is seldom recognised.  Of the two, which is more harmful?’ [Chaturvedi Badrinath,  Dharma, India and the World Order, Saint Andrew Press, Pahl-Rugenstein, 1993, p. 339]

And this becomes more important, when we not merely read and write on several important Indian concepts, but even explain away our own acts in the context of the concreate reality of life, that too in our relationship with one-self and others. 

And once such misconceived, misused Indian concept is ‘dharma’. Since this is his favorite subject, his recent work on Mbh. alone could serve this purpose better than any other Indian literature. As expected, he never disappoints us. As reading, understanding and thinking of Mbh. became his life endeavor, what he presents in this book will not only break new ground in our understanding of Mbh. but will help every lay person come to terms with Mbh., as I find it the most difficult book of Indian literature.

At Lucknow, the capital of Uttar Pradesh of India, there is a monument called ‘boolbhuliah’. Unless you have a guide you cannot come out of it, once you have entered. The guide, after showing it, will leave you with a challenge that if you could come out of the building in the same way as you entered, he will give one thousand rupees. Unless you have luck or real knowledge about such intricate construction, you will go round and round in the same building. And each passage will look the same. When you think you have found the way out, it will take you to some other direction. 

This is the reality about the Mbh. too. In a thick forest without any path, one must take some help from the sun, moon and stars to come out of it. The problem with Mbh. is that there are so many paths, crossing each other, as so many people have walked it. Unless you have someone to help to find the right path, you will be trapped again and again by crossing the same path, without knowing which is which. This is even endorsed by Mbh. itself: The path of dharma is a grand path from which several paths branch off; which of them must one follow? ⁽Shanti-parva, 108.1-2, 158.2-4; Vana-parva, 213.2)—p.94

More than five years ago, I began to read Mbh. (Dutt’s translation in English) and in that time I completed only Adi parva. Though I am a bookworm and reading is my very life, unlike other books that I read, I found Mbh. difficult to comprehend. Probably because it is not the work of a single author, but an encyclopaedia in which anybody can insert any thought. Considering its size and various subjects presented by various people with various views, it is difficult for a lay person to have a minimum understanding of Mbh. 

Those who read it for entertainment or religious purposes can find their satisfaction. But as a student, if one wants to comprehend the basic teachings of Mbh., it is not possible by simply reading its text. There is no point of reading some book on Mbh. to understand it as well. Unless you find a guide who can teach with some authority on Mbh., it will remain a boolbhuliah or a thick forest with many paths to lead you.

Thankfully I now have a good guide in Chaturvedi Badrinath, not merely to guide me, but also to take me along with him to understand Mbh. which will help every Indian to have a right understanding of him/herself as well as in her/his relationship with others.

@@@

  This evening around 7.30 p.m. the army officer whom I met yesterday came to see me and spent two hours.  He is a Malayali and his name is Sri Padmakaran.  It is an interesting conversion and some point of our talk is worth recording.

After some formal talk about his family he said that after retirement he thought of going back to home Kerala and do some social service.  And he asked some advice from me.  Then I said that before we start any social work it is good to keep some principles for us.  The first thing in doing social service is to help the people to help themselves.  We should never make them depend upon us but to help them to stand on their own leg so that in turn they can go and help others.  The next important principle should be that we should never do service to others keeping any personal agenda—what I am going to get out of it.  Even for mental satisfaction we should not to social service.  Whenever some opportunity comes to serve others, then we should be thankful to them for giving an opportunity to serve them.  The third principle should be that we should not expect any recognition for our service from others, even from the people to whom we service.  If we expect recognition then we will use the people to serve our interest alone.  If we are sincere then due recognition will come automatically in its own course.

            But social service need not be always helping others physically.  Even influencing others to change their conditions itself is also social service.  Then he interfered and said, ‘This is what I have in my mind also.  In our place from where I am coming there is lots of social tension.  Most of the people around us who were once benefited by our family become now Christians and we are the only one Hindu family there.  What I see in those Christian communities is that in spite of their difference they join together for the welfare and development of their own people.  Suppose if a Christian comes here for service, first he will find the church and go there regularly.  He will meet the father of the church and share all his problem.  If he needs a house then the father through his church people put a word around.  His children will get easily admission in the school.  See how all their sociological needs are met easily because of their community identity.  But why we Hindus do not have such unity among us.  That is why I want to go back and create some kind of community awareness and unity among us’.

            For this I said, ‘The main reason for lack of such unity and social service among us is our worldview.  The Karma theory makes people to workout their own needs met.  If a person suffer then we say it is because of his past karma.  If one comes up nicely then we say it is because of his good Karma.  So however you want to serve others, unless we change certain world-view of people they won’t get any benefit.  To change any society and community regeneration is important and not mere reform.  For example Dr. Radhakrishnan well said that John the Baptist was a reformer but Jesus is a regenerator.  Jesus never tried to reform his community and followers.  He introduced new values in their personal life.  Take all the disciples of Jesus.  Almost all of them were ordinary uneducated people.  But they were termed as the people who turn the world upside down.  Within three hundred years after Christ the Roman world was also changed completely.  Take some Indian reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Swami Vivekananda and Gandhiji.  Why they were not that much successful?  They try to improve the condition circumstances of the people instead of introducing new value.  They give a call go back to the glorious golden ages of Veda.  But in all their efforts they tried to only improve the condition of the people instead of improving them.  Why in spite of Vedas, Upanisads and Gita still our country is not improving?  This does not mean that those Scriptures have failed.  But instead of allowing their teaching to change them, they always used them to change their conditions.

            Then suddenly Naryanan changed the topic and told the story of one woman who becomes a Christian.  He knows her very well.  Twenty-five years before when Padmavathi became a Christian her husband asked her to leave the home.  Then she left and began to preach and even helped on Pillai who acquired several hundred acres of land in Gurgaon and amalgamated money.  I helped her son who fell in love with a Christian girl to get married.  But there is some problem between the daughter-in-law and mother-in-law so her son who is my friend requested me to talk.  When I went to their house one day, she decided to come to my home and poured down her heart.  Then I said to her when she has several Christian friends and church people, why do you want to share these things with me.  ‘I was praying to Jesus and He asked to me share my heart burden to you’ was her response.  Then I said, ‘So your Christian God asked to go and tell your problems to a Hindu means that our religion is greater than yours.’  On hearing this she become very furious and after that our relationship was not that much good.  Later I told her that she told all these things not because her God asked her to tell.  But purely psychological reasons you told to me.  As your son is a good friend of mine you thought that he will listen my words and that is why you came and told all these things.  Anyhow she is now in deathbed and deserted her faith in Jesus and her church.  Because she kept some thing in a bank locker.  Nobody knows what it was.  After she become sick she took some of her faithful Christian followers and opened the locker and checked the documents.  But she was thoroughly shocked later when she found that some important documents were mission as that Pillai (Paul Pillai I told) and his group cheated her.  This shocked her much and after that incident she refused to go to Church not reading the bible and gave up her faith in Christ.  Now she is bedridden and no Christians are coming to see her.  But her estranged husband alone is looking after her.  They joined together after 25years after this incident.  I hate Christian community than the Muslims.  Because they change people from one community to another community.  All the converts changed their religion just for some benefit.  For example in Nagaland some Keral Christian went to preach and now most of the Nagas are receiving money without doing any work as they are supported by the Missionaries.

            For this I said, ‘Neither the bible nor Jesus Christ talk about religious or community conversion.  Christianity as a religion is the Christians mistake.  Changing personal faith from one God to another God or one faith to another faith is common in our country from time in memorial.  For example Ramanuja  changed his faith from advaita.  But Hinduism never talks about converting from one community to another.

             We talked so many other things.  He also shared about his nephew whom he tried to correct but now disappointed as he is refuse to change.  I said that before reforming others we should reform ourselves first.  A changed person alone can influence others.  Regarding Christian getting more opportunity to go abroad to get good job and coming up financially very well I said that it is not important how much we accumulated or become rich but how best we lived each day usefully and meaningfully is much more important.  Rest of the matters are almost centered around what all I recorded here.

Ranikhet, July 11, 1999, 10.00 p.m.

Ri½o ®húPô Y[ojúRôm–42: LPÜsLÞm, SûLfNûYÙm!–G^. ÏÚêoj§, ÕdL[d, 23-7-,2003, TdLm.37-38

SmØûPV NUVj§p, LXôfNôWj§p Sôm ùRnYeLÞPu ®û[Vô¥ CÚd¡ú\ôm. ùRnYeLs SmªPm A¥ áP Yôe¡ CÚd¡u\]. ¾WôR ®û[VôhÓl ©sû[Vô] LiQu, ùYiùQn §Ú¥ EûR Yôe¡«Úd¡\ôu. §Ú®û[VôPpL°p £YùTÚUôu, ©hÓdÏ Ui ÑUkÕ A¥Th¥Úd¡\ôo. ClT¥ ùRnYm GuTÕ, GlT¥ JÚ º¬V^ô] ®`VúUô, AúR A[ÜdÏ AÕ JÚ NôUôuVUô]–ûXhPô] JÚ ®`VUôLÜm LÚRlThÓ YÚ¡\Õ. ¶kÕ UR A¥lTûP«p, ùRnYm, TdRàûPV SiT]ôLÜm, úNYL]ôLÜm, LôRX]ôLÜm, Gs° (T.37) SûLVôPlTPd á¥VY]ôLÜm, YôrdûL«p TX Y¥YeL°p TeúLt¡\ôu.

ClT¥ JúW LPÜû[ TX Uô§¬Ùm, TX LPÜsLû[ JúW Uô§¬Ùm TôodÏm, Y¯TÓm NUV Øû\ CeÏ TpXô«WdLQdLô] BiÓL[ôL CÚkÕ Yk§Úd¡\Õ.  AR]ôpRôu LPÜsLû[ Sôm SûLfÑûY EhTP, SYWNeL°u EÚYUôLÜm LôQ Ø¥¡\Õ.

B]ôp Ut\ UReL°p LPÜs GuTÕ JÚ º¬V^ô] ®`Vm UhÓmRôu. AÕ UhÓUpX, ‘LPÜs GuTÕ JußRôu; AÕ GeLs LPÜsRôu; Ut\ LPÜsLs GÕÜm ¡ûPVôÕ; AûYùVpXôm ùTôn’, CkR A¥lTûP«p ÙjReLÞm SPk§Úd¡u\]. ARôYÕ GeLs LPÜs EiûUVô, ApXÕ EeLs LPÜs EiûUVô GuTûR JÚ úTôo êXm Ø¥ÜùNnVXôm GuTÕRôu–N¬j§W çVôL EÚYô] ‘´aôj’ Gu¡\ CvXôªVjÕYØm, ‘ÏÚú^h’ Gu¡\ ¡±vÕYjÕYØm.

JÚ Øû\ vYôª ®úYLô]kRo, Sm NUVjûRl Tt±d áßmúTôÕ, “Eu LPÜs EiûUVô, ApXÕ Gu LPÜs EiûUVô GuTûR SUdÏs JÚ ÏjÕf NiûP ûYjÕ Ø¥Ü ùNnVXôm–Gu¡\ A¥lTûP«p CVeÏm URUpX CÕ” Guß á±]ôo. GpXô LPÜs Lû[Ùm, Y¯TôhÓ Øû\Lû[Ùm ¶kÕ URm HtTRtÏd LôWQúU, ¶kÕ URj§p ‘JÚ LPÜs’ CpXôRÕ UhÓUpXôUp, LPÜû[j R®W úYß JuߪpûX GuTRôp GpXôúU LPÜsRôu. CR]ôpRôu LPÜs TdRàPu ®û[VôPÜm ùNn¡\ôu. TdRàPu úT£Ùm, Tô¥Ùm, A¥ThÓm, Hu AY²PúU HfÑd úLhÓm LPÜs NôRôWQUô]Y]ô¡\ôu. CR]ôpRôu ¶kÕ URj§p LPÜs Tt±V ¾®WYôRj§tÏ CPªpûX.

TX LPÜsLû[ Y¯TÓYRôp, JÚ LPÜs Uôj§WúU N¬ Guß Yô§Óm RuûU CpXôRRôp, JÚ ×²R èpRôu N¬ Guß ¨û]dLôRRôp, A¥lTûPYôRm GuTÕ ¶kÕ URj§tÏd LûPVôÕ Guß AùU¬dLô®u £LôúLô TpLûXd LZLj§u JÚ ùT¬V BWônf£ ((Fundamentalism Project Vol-1) áß¡\Õ. AR]ôp ¶kÕ LPÜsLÞdÏm, Ut\ URj§Ûs[ LPÜsLÞdÏm ùT¬V ®j§VôNm-¶kÕ LPÜsLs, TdRu NôRôWQUôL SYWNjÕPu úSôdÏm LPÜsLs. Ut\ LPÜsLs TdRu º¬V^ôL UhÓm, ARôYÕ ¾®WUôL úSôdÏm LPÜsLs. Ut\ UReL°p CûR ¨û]jÕd áP TôodL Ø¥VôÕ.

….LPÜ°Pm TdRu ®û[VôP Ø¥ÙUô? LPÜs SûLfÑûYdÏ Tôj§WUôL Ø¥ÙUô- Guß úLs® úLhPôp, ®ûP CÕRôu- Ø¥Ùm. B]ôp AÕ CkR TôWR Sôh¥u TôWmT¬Vj§pRôu Nôj§Vm. Ut\ NUVeL°p CkRj RuûU CpXôRÕm, ¡±vÕY, CvXôªV NUVeL°p CÚdÏm ¾W®WYôRj§tÏ JÚ LôWQm.

ClT¥ LPÜ°Pm TdRu ùSÚe¡ ®û[Vô¥, úL­ ùNnÕ, A¥dLÜm ùNnYRtÏd LôWQm: Sm Sôh¥u C§LôNeLs, ×WôQeLs LûRLs, L®ûRLs, úYReLs, ET¨`jÕLs EÚYUt\ LPÜû[l úTôt±SôÛm- C§LôN, ×WôQeLs, LûRd, L®ûRLs, Cû\Yû] EÚYLlTÓj§, UdLÞdÏU, TdRàdÏm ùSÚe¡VY]ôL Uôt±, AYû] ®û[VôhÓl ùTôÚ[ôL, SûLfÑûYdÏd áP Tôj§WUôL Uôt± ®Ó¡u\]. CÕ ùT¬V TôWm T¬Vm. CÕTt± BnÜLÞm, BWônf£LÞm ùNnVlTP úYiÓm. AlúTôÕRôu Ut\ NUVeL°p CÚdÏm ¾®WYôRm, ARu A¥lTûP«Xô] URUôt\m GpXôm Ïû\YRtÏm, NUV A¥lTûP«p ©WfNû]Ls EÚYôLôUp AûU§ úRôußYRtÏm Yônl× HtTÓm.

#######

Au×s[ §Ú Gv. ÏÚêoj§ AYoLÞdÏ,

YQdLm!

©\ UR èpLû[Ùm, AYoLs Sm×m LPÜsLû[lTt± GpXô®R Ïû\Lû[Ùm á±, ¶kÕ URj§p Es[ Ïû\Ls, Ït\eLû[ ¨VôVlTÓj§ GÝÕYÕm úTÑYûRÙm HúRô JÚ ùRnÅLl T¦VôL ùNnÕùLôi¥ÚdÏm EeLÞdÏ Sôu á\ YÚm RLYpLs HtßdùLôs[ Ø¥VôRRôL CÚdÏm. B]ôp EeLs LÚjÕdLû[Ùm ¿eLs ¨VôVlTÓjÕm ¶kÕUR ùNVpLû[Ùm RYß Guß VôÚúU GÓjÕdá\ô®hPôp, EeLs TôoûY«Ûm GiQj§p UhÓm ApX, ©\ÚdÏm ¿eLs ùNnÙm §ÚlT¦ N¬ Guú\ GiQm HtTÓm. G]úYRôu CdL¥RjûR EeLÞdÏ GÝÕ¡uú\u.

B]ôp Juß ¨fNVm, Gu úTôuú\ôo GqY[Ü GÓjÕd á±]ôÛm EeLû[lúTôu\YoLs ReL°u GiQjûRúVô, ùNVpLû[úVô Uôt±dùLôs[lúTôY§pûX. B«àm EeLÞdÏs[ GÝjÕfÑRk§WjûR U§jÕ, AúRNUVm AúR ÑRk§Wm Ut\YoLÞdÏm EiÓ Gu\ GiQj§u A¥lTûP«p GÝÕ¡uú\u. AÕ Uôj§Wm ApX, ©\o URSm©dL°p Es[ RYßLû[ Ñh¥dLôhÓm úTôÕ, AúR ¨ûX«p CÚkÕ ùLôiÓ Ru URj§p Es[ RYßLû[Ùm Ñh¥dLôh¥ §ÚkRfùNnYúR EiûUVô] SÓ¨ûX–ºo§ÚjRm. AlT¥ CpXôUp, Ru RYßLû[ ¨VôVlTÓj§, ©±u RYßLû[úV ªûLlTÓj§d áßYÕm JÚ®R UR A¥lTûPYôRúU.

EeLs LhÓûWjùRôP¬p Es[ ØWiTôÓLs, N¬«pXôR RLYpLû[ JqùYôu\ôn GÓjÕdá\ ØtThPôp AÕ JÚ R² ×jRLUôLúY B¡®Óm. B]ôp Juß, ©\UR èpL°p ùNôpXlThP úTôRû]Lû[Ùm AúRNUVm AYtßdÏ G§Wôd £Xo ùNnR N¬j§W RYßLû[Ùm (E.U. ‘´aôj’, ‘ÏÚú^h’) N¬Vô] ©u]²«p BWôVlTPôUÛm, AlT¥úV BWôVllhPôÛm, AYtû\ Uû\jÕ ùTôÕYôL AkR UReL°u LÚjÕdLú[ N¬ ApX Gu\ GiQj§p GÝÕYÕm Sm ¶kÕ URA¥lTûPYô§L°u ‘´aôj’ Utßm ‘ÏÚú^h’ L[ôÏm.

Sm URj§p ‘LPÜÞm SûLfÑûYÙPu’ AÔLlThPÕ UhÓUpX, TX Øû\ Sm LPÜsLú[ ‘SûLfÑûYL[ôLÜm’ Uô± Es[]o.  ©\ UReL°p LPÜû[ ªLÜm º¬V^ôL UhÓúU GÓjÕd ùLôs[lThÓs[RôL á±EsÇoLs. AÕ GqY[ÜçWm EiûU GuTûRlTt± CeÏ Sôu BWôV ØtTP®pûX. B]ôp Sm URj§p Es[Õ úTôp LPÜû[ JÚ SûLfÑûYl ùTôÚ[ôLÜm Tôj§WUôLÜm BdÏYûRdLôh¥Ûm, AqYôß LPÜû[ º¬V^ôL GÓjÕdùLôsYÕ GqY[úYô EjRUm.

SûLfÑûY EQoÜ GuTÕ U²RàdÏ ªLÜm AY£VUô]Õ. B]ôp YôrdûLúV, SûLfÑûYVô¡®hPôp AÕ úL­dϱVRô¡®Óm. Td§Ùm AÕ úTôu\úR. SpXúYû[VôL ‘SûLfÑûYl Tôj§WUôL, ®û[VôhÓl ùTôÚ[ôL’ Uôt\lThP Sm LPÜsL[Ùm, Td§ûVÙm N¬VôL BWônf£ ùNnVlTPúYiÓm Guß á±FsÇoLLs. B]ôp AjRûLV BWônf£«u Ø¥YôL ‘Ut\ NUVeL°p CÚdÏm ¾®WYôRØm, ARu A¥lTûP«Xô] URUôt\m GpXôm Ïû\YRtÏm, NUV A¥lTûP«p ©WfNû]Ls EÚYôLôUp AûU§ úRôußYRtÏm Yônl× HtTÓm’ Gu\ EeLs CXdÏ ØR­p SmûU §Új§d ùLôs[ AûURV úYiÓm Gu\ GiQm EeLÞdÏ HtTPôUp úTô]úR EeL°u URj ¾®WYôRjûR GÓjÕd LôhÓYRôL AûUkÕs[Õ. ØR­p JÚ úLô«p úRúWôhPjûRúV (LiPúR®) N¬VôL SPjR Ø¥VôUp, _ô§ A¥lTûP«p ùRnYjûRúV SÓjùRÚ®p ¨tL ûYdÏm Sm UR Utßm ùRnY Td§ûV ØR­p N¬ùNnV ØVÛeLs ©\Ï ‘©\o Li¦p CÚdÏm ÕÚmûT ¿dL ØtTPXôm’.

ùRôPokÕ Sm LPÜsLû[ SûLfÑûY Vôd¡V Sm Td§ Utßm URSm©dûLLû[l Tt± ùNôpYRtÏØu]ôp, ©\ URdLô¬VeL°p SPkR RYßLû[dáP N¬VôLd á\ôUp EeL°u LÚjÕdÏ Ht\T¥ AYtû\ §Új§ ¿eLs á±VÕ N¬«pûX GuTRtÏ Juû\ ERôWQUôLd áß¡uú\u: ‘ÏÚú^h’ GuTÕ GúRô Eu LPÜs EiûUVô ApXÕ Gu LPÜs EiûUVô GuTûR’ ¨ûX ¨ßjR HtThP úTôo ApX (C§p úY¥dûL GiQùYu\ôp AjRûLV ‘ÏjÕfNiûPLÞm Sm Nm©WRôVeL°ûPúV SPkÕs[Õ-Cuß _ô§l ùTVWôp SPkÕ ùLôi¥Úd¡u\Õ). AûY AW£Vp Utßm A§LôWeLÞdLôL Uj§u ùTVWôp HtThP úTôoLs. ApXÕ úYß YûL«p á\lúTô]ôp UdL°u URSm©dûLLû[ ReLÞdÏ NôRLUôL TVuTÓj§ AWNoLÞm, URYô§LÞm ùNnR úTôo.  ARôYÕ RtNUVm EeL°u ‘NeL T¬Yôo’ AûUl×Ls WôUû]l TVuTÓjÕYÕ úTôu\ JÚ Lô¬VUôÏm.

LPÜû[lTt±V ¾®WYôRm ¶kÕ URj§p CpûX Guß áß¡uÈoLs. L® LôXúULj§u £X TôPpLû[ ¿eLs T¥jRôúX úTôÕm AÕ GqY[Ü çWm Sm URj§p TW® CÚkRÕ GuTÕ ùR¬Ùm. ERôWQUôL:

ê° UWdLôXô §ÚUeûL BrYôo

CkR êúR® ØiûPúVô AXúUÛ UeûL

Y¥jR Lg¤Vô §ÚlTs°f Nôß

Eu ûYQY URj§úX ¾ As°lúTôÓ.

Eu LPÜs Utßm Nm©WRôV Sm©dûL N¬Vô]Rô ApXÕ Gu Sm©dûL N¬Vô]Rô GuTûR ¨ûX¨ßjR JÚYo Lô§p Ut\Yo JÚ ÕWhûP Uôh¥dùLôiÓ Yô§jPÕm, ùYu\Yo úRôt\Yo LôûR AßjR ¨Lrf£LÞm EeLÞdÏj ùR¬k§ÚdL ¨VôVm CpûX.  NUQoLû[Ùm, ùTô[jRoLû[Ùm LÝ®p Htß ùLôu\ ¨Lrf£Ls ×WôQdLûRLs CpûX. AûY Sm ‘AuúT £Ym’ Gu\ RªrSôh¥p SPkR N¬j§W ¨Lrf£Ls. CvXôªVoLs Yôs Øû]«p ©\ûW URUôt\m ùNnV ØVu\ôoLs G]dá\lThPôp, Sôm AûR ‘LÝ’ Øû]«p ùNnÕsú[ôU.

GRtùLÓjRôÛm vYôª ®úYLôSkRûW ERôWQm áßYÕ RtNUVm Es[ קV-CkÕdLÞdÏ (New Hindus) JÚYô¥dûLVô¡®hPÕ. B]ôp AYúW JÚ®R úTôoÏQ A¥lTûP«pRôu TX NUVm Ru LÚjÕdLû[ á±Es[ôo. AÕ RYß Guß Sôu á\®pûX. Hu\ôp AYo AúRTô¦«p SmªûPúV Es[ Ïû\Lû[Ùm (EeLû[l úTôp ¨VôVlTÓjRôUp) Ñh¥dLôhP RY±VÕ CpûX. B]ôp HúRô AjRûLV ‘ÏjÕf NiûP Ø¥ÜLs’ ©\o URj§p UhÓúU Es[Õ úTôXÜm, Sôm ¶kÕdLs ªLÜm A¡m^ôYô§L[ôL, ùTôßûUVôL AûU§Vô]Øû±p Sm LÚjÕdLû[ ¨XSôhP ØtThPUô§¬VôL á\YÕ N¬«pûX Gu\ GiQj§pRôu CûRd áß¡uú\u.

AÓjRT¥VôL Sm LPÜsLû[ SûLfÑûYlTôj§WeL[ôL Bd¡VÕ UhÓm ApX, ªLÜm ¸rjRWUôLÜm, úLYXUôLÜm Yo¦dLlThÓ RôeLs ùNnÙm ¸rjRWUô] ùNVpLû[ ¨VôVlTÓjRÜm AYoLû[úV ERôWQUôLÜm á\ØtThÓsú[ôm. Ck§Wu ERj§V²u Lo©¦Uû]®ûV LtT¯jRÕ, Aj¬ Uû]® AàãVôûY ©WmUô, ®xÔ, £Yu êYÚUôLúNojÕ LtT¯jRÕ, (an act of group sex) ®xÔ _Xk§Wu Uû]® ®ÚkRôûY (lÚkRô) _Xk§Wu EÚYj§p ùNuß LtT¯jRÕ GpXôm £X ERôWQeLs UhÓúU. CYtßd ùLsXôm BRôWm úYußùUu\ôp (reference) úLÞeLs RÚ¡uú\u.  CjRûLV LûRLû[ Sôm YZdLlT¥ SUdÏjRÏkRYôß ®VôdVô]lTÓj§®ÓúYôm. B]ôp TôUWUdLÞLÏ CdLûRLú[ RôeLs ùNnVm RYßLû[ ¨VôVlTÓjRl TVuTÓ¡\Õ. Ru Uû]®ûVjR®W ©\ùTiLÞPu Es[ ùRôPoûT ¨VôVlTÓjR á\lTÓm TZùUô¯úV (‘¡°ûVlúTôX ùTôiPôh¥ CÚkRôÛm ÏWeLûLlúTôXYôYÕ JÚ áj§Vô úYiÓm’)SmªPm CÚdÏm úTôÕ CjRûLV ×WôQdLûRLÞdLô TgNm. ‘ØÚLàdúL CWiÓ úYiÓùUu\ôp G]dÏ Cuù]ôÚj§ CÚlTÕ Gu] Rl×’? GuTÕ Na_Uô] úLs®. B]ôp ©\UReL°p ùRnYjûR º¬V^ôL GÓjÕdùLôiPRôp RôeLs ùNnÙm ¸rjRWUô] Lô¬VeLÞdÏ ùRnYj§u ùTVoùNôp­ Oô]Vm AYoLs Lt©dL®pûX. Ïû\kR ThPm CRtLôLYôYÕ AYoLû[ Sôm TôWôhP úYiÓm.

KÚ Øû\ SôWRo £Y²u AûZl©u ùTV¬p ûLXôVj§tÏ ®Úk§tÏf ùNu±WkRôWôm. NôlTôh¥tÏ SôuÏ CûXLs úTôPlTh¥ÚkRRôm. AlúTôÕ SôWRo TôoY§«Pm Cuàm JÚ CûX úTôÓm T¥ á±]ôWôm. ARtÏ TôoY§, ‘¿ GlT¥Ùm HRôYÕ LXLm EiPôdÏYôn Guß A±kÕRôu, LeûLdÏm úNojÕ JÚ CûXûVl úTôhùNôuú]u. B]ôp GRtLôL IkRôYÕ CûXûVl úTôPfùNôp¡u\ôn?’ Guß úLhL, SôWRo, ‘£YàdúL ùR¬VôUp AYo NûP«p Es[ LeûL úYùWôÚYûW ûYj§Úd¡u\ôú[, AYÚdLôLjRôu IkRôYÕ CûX’, Gu\ôWôm. CÕ LûRRôu. B]ôp Sm LPÜsLû[ GqY[ÜçWm úL­dϱVRôd¡®hPÕ SUÕ ×WôQeLÞm, Td§Ùm.

CÕUhÓUô Y¯lT± ùNnÕ úLô«p Lh¥V §ÚUeûL BrYôÚdÏ ùWeLSôRúW úS¬p úRôu± Ød§ A°jRôo. AWNôeLl TQjûR GÓjÕ §ÚlT¦ ùNnYÕ RYß ApX (Uô¦dL YôNLo, WôURôv) AÕ TdR²u E¬ûUUhÓm ApX LPûU. ARôYÕ NuUôoL ùS±LÞdÏ AlTôtThPRôn CÚkRôÛm LPÜÞdLôLfùNnRôp AkR LPÜú[ AûR HtßdùLôsYÕPu AkR TdRàdÏ AkR ùNVÛdLôL Ød§ A°lTôo. B]ôp CYtû\ùVpXôm Sôm HRôYÕ JÚ ùTV¬p OôVlTÓj§®ÓúYôm.

AÓjRT¥VôL ‘ÏjÕjfNiûP úTôhÓ’ GkR LPÜs EiûU Guß UhÓUpX Gu UPm ùT¬Rô, Eu UPm ùT¬Rô Gu\ NiûPLÞdÏm SmªPm Ïû\®pûX. ÏmTúU[ô®p GkR ALôPôûYf (UPm) úNokR NôªVôoLs ØR­ vSô]m ùNnYÕ GuTÕ Ï±jÕ SPkR NiûPLs, ùLôûXLû[ N¬jRWm A±Ùm.

ClT¥ SmªPm Es[ Ïû\Lû[ Ñh¥dLôh¥]ôp EPú] GeLû[ ¶kÕ UR ®úWô§Ls G] Øj§ûW Ïj§®ÓYÕ RtúTôRV AûPVô[m. CúR CR¯p LÚQô¨ûVl Tt±úV úLs®dÏ úNô A°jR T§­p: AYûW (LÚQô¨§ûV) Sôj§Lo Guß Vôo ùNôu]Õ?… AYo TÏjR±ÜYô§.  Sôj§Lo, LPÜs Sm©dûL CpXôRYo. TÏjR±ÜYô§, ¶kÕ UR Sm©dûLLû[ ùYßlTYo’-Guß á±Es[ûR LY²dLÜm. SmªPúU Es[ êPSm©dûLLû[ ¨VôVlTÓjÕYûRd Lôh¥Ûm, AYtû\ ùYßlT§p HÕm RYß CpûX.  úUÛm ÑVT¬úNôRû] ùNnÕ ØR­p SmªPm Es[ Ïû\Lû[ N¬ùNnTYoLÞdúL ©\¬Pm Es[ Ïû\Lû[Ùm GÓjÕd á\ E¬ûU EiÓ, AYtû\ OôVlTÓjÕ TYoLÞdÏ CpûX.

Cuàm ùNôpXlúTô]ôp ûT©û[Ùm, CúVÑûYÙm Ïû\ùNôp­ GݧVYoLs ¡±vRY URj§tÏsÞm, ùY°úVÙm HWô[m. AûRÙm Á± CußáP TX úLô¥dLQdLôQYoLs CûVÑûY ©uTtßTYoL[ôL CÚd¡u\ôoLs. B]ôp SmªûPúV Es[ AjRûLV (G§o) LÚjÕdLÞdÏ ¡ûPdÏm T§p Juß ÕúWô¡ ApXÕ Sôj§Lu ApXÕ TÏjR±Ü Yô§. Hu Ut\YoL°Pm Es[ SpX Lô¬VeLû[ ØR­p LtßdùLôs[dáPôÕ? ØR­p ºo§ÚjRYô§L[ôL Uô± ©\Ï ¾ol× ùXôpXhÓm. ©\û\ Ïû\ ùNôpYûR UhÓúU ùLôsûLVôLd ùLôiPYoLs ºd¡Wm ReL°u SuU§lûTúV CZkÕ ®ÓYôoLs. CqY[Ü ùNôp­Ùm G]dÏ R²lThP Øû\«p EeL°Pm A§L U§l×m, U¬VôûRVm–AúR NUVm EeL°u TX LÚjÕdLÞPu EPuTôÓm EiÓ.

RVôukj TôW§,

Uj§¡¬, _÷ûX, 20, 2003.

‘JÚ LPÜs Uôj§WúU N¬ Guß Yô§Óm RuûU CpXôRRôp, JÚ ×²R èpRôu N¬ Guß ¨û]dLôRRôp, A¥lTûPYôRm GuTÕ ¶kÕ URj§tÏd LûPVôÕ…’

–Ru LPÜs Uôj§WúU N¬, Ru UR (Nm©WRôV) èp UhÓúU N¬ Guß YôRm Sm ªûPúV EiÓ. CÕ HúRô SPkÕ ®hP Nm©WRôV NiûPLs UhÓm CpûX Cußm SûPØû\«p Es[ EiûU. ®xÔûYjR®W úYß ùRnYeLû[ YQeLôR, AYoL°u ùTVoLû[d áP EfN¬dLôR ¾®W ûYxQYoLÞm, AúRúTôu\ GiQØûPV £X Rôkj¬d Nm©WRôVeLÞm SmªûPúV EiÓ.  úRûYlThPôp úUÛm ®TWm RÚ¡uú\u.

…The gods may also escape punishment for their sins by blaming this same karma: when Indra had raped Utathya’s pregnant wife and hidden in shame, Brhaspati consoled Indra by saying, “Don’t worry.  All this universe is in the sway of karma,” and Indra bathed at a shrine and became purified and powerful again. (Skanda Puraana. Bombay, 1867, 2.7.23.8-40)….The gods simply cannot lose, for another argument, that they are not ruled by karma as men are, is also cited in justification of their immoralities: “What the gods do bears no fruit, good or bad, as it does for men.” (Matsya Puraana ASS [Aanandaasarma Sanskrit Series], no. 54, Poona, 1909 4.6)  This statement, that the gods are above the laws of karma, appears as frequently as it converse.—p. 17

One day when the sage Atri was performing asceticism with his wife Anasuuyaa, Brahmaa, Visnu and Siva came to him and offered him a boon.  When Atri continued to meditate, the three gods went to Anasuuyaa; Siva had his linga in his hand, Visnu was full of erotic feeling, and Brahmaa, beside himself with desire, said, “Make love to me or I will die.”  When she heard this coarse speech, Anasuuyaa made no reply, for, although she feared the anger of the gods, she was true to her husband.  But the three gods were overcome by (p.302) delusion, and they raped her by force.  Then she became angry, and she cursed Siva to be worshipped as a linga, Brahmaa to be worshipped as a head, and Visnu to be worshipped as feet, in order to ridicule them all, and she cursed them all to be reborn as her sons.  Because of this, Siva was born as Durvaasa. [Bhavisya 3.4.17.67-78, O’Flaherty, 1975, Hindu Myths.  A Sourcebook Translated from the Sanskrit. Harmondsworth,pp. 53-55.].—pp.302-3

but when Siva sends Visnu, disguised as Jalandhara, to seduce Jalandhara’s wife, Vrndaa, Visnu succeeds and destroys the virtuous power of the demon, so that Siva is able to kill him.—pp. 175-76

@@@

Au×s[ §Ú Gv. ÏÚêoj§ AYoLÞdÏ,

YQdLm!

       ©\ UR èpLû[Ùm, AYoLs Sm×m LPÜsLû[lTt± GpXô®R Ïû\Lû[Ùm á±, ¶kÕ URj§p Es[ Ïû\Ls, Ït\eLû[ ¨VôVlTÓj§ GÝÕYÕm úTÑYûRÙm HúRô JÚ ùRnÅLl T¦VôL ùNnÕùLôi¥ÚdÏm EeLÞdÏ Sôu á\ YÚm RLYpLs HtßdùLôs[

Ø¥VôRRôL CÚdÏm. B]ôp EeLs LÚjÕdLû[Ùm ¿eLs ¨VôVlTÓjÕm ¶kÕUR ùNVpLû[Ùm RYß Guß VôÚúU GÓjÕdá\ô®hPôp, EeLs TôoûY«Ûm GiQj§p UhÓm

ApX, ©\ÚdÏm ¿eLs ùNnÙm §ÚlT¦ N¬ Guú\ GiQm HtTÓm. G]úYRôu

CdL¥RjûR EeLÞdÏ GÝÕ¡uú\u.

       B]ôp Juß ¨fNVm, Gu úTôuú\ôo GqY[Ü GÓjÕd á±]ôÛm EeLû[lúTôu\YoLs ReL°u GiQjûRúVô, ùNVpLû[úVô Uôt±dùLôs[lúTôY§pûX. B«àm

EeLÞdÏs[ GÝjÕfÑRk§WjûR U§jÕ, AúRNUVm AúR ÑRk§Wm Ut\YoLÞdÏm EiÓ

Gu\ GiQj§u A¥lTûP«p GÝÕ¡uú\u. AÕ Uôj§Wm ApX, ©\o URSm©dL°p Es[RYßLû[ Ñh¥dLôhÓm úTôÕ, AúR ¨ûX«p CÚkÕ ùLôiÓ Ru URj§p Es[ RYß

Lû[Ùm Ñh¥dLôh¥ §ÚkRfùNnYúR EiûUVô] SÓ¨ûX–ºo§ÚjRm. AlT¥ CpXôUp, RuRYßLû[ ¨VôVlTÓj§, ©±u RYßLû[úV ªûLlTÓj§d áßYÕm JÚ®R UR

A¥lTûPYôRúU.

     EeLs LhÓûWjùRôP¬p Es[ ØWiTôÓLs, N¬«pXôR RLYpLû[ JqùYôu\ôn

GÓjÕdá\ ØtThPôp AÕ JÚ R² ×jRLUôLúY B¡®Óm. B]ôp Juß, ©\UR èpL°p ùNôpXlThP úTôRû]Lû[Ùm AúRNUVm AYtßdÏ G§Wôd £Xo ùNnR N¬j§W RYßLû[Ùm(E.U. ‘´aôj’, ‘ÏÚú^h’) N¬Vô] ©u]²«p BWôVlTPôUÛm, AlT¥úV BWôVllhPôÛm,

AYtû\ Uû\jÕ ùTôÕYôL AkR UReL°u LÚjÕdLú[ N¬ ApX Gu\ GiQj§p GÝÕYÕm Sm ¶kÕ URA¥lTûPYô§L°u ‘´aôj’ Utßm ‘ÏÚú^h’ L[ôÏm.

       Sm URj§p ‘LPÜÞm SûLfÑûYÙPu’ AÔLlThPÕ UhÓUpX, TX Øû\ Sm

LPÜsLú[ ‘SûLfÑûYL[ôLÜm’ Uô± Es[]o.  ©\ UReL°p LPÜû[ ªLÜm º¬V^ôL

UhÓúU GÓjÕd ùLôs[lThÓs[RôL á±EsÇoLs. AÕ GqY[ÜçWm EiûU GuTûRl

Tt± CeÏ Sôu BWôV ØtTP®pûX. B]ôp Sm URj§p Es[Õ úTôp LPÜû[ JÚ

SûLfÑûYl ùTôÚ[ôLÜm Tôj§WUôLÜm BdÏYûRdLôh¥Ûm, AqYôß LPÜû[ º¬V^ôL

GÓjÕdùLôsYÕ GqY[úYô EjRUm.

       SûLfÑûY EQoÜ GuTÕ U²RàdÏ ªLÜm AY£VUô]Õ. B]ôp YôrdûLúV,

SûLfÑûYVô¡®hPôp AÕ úL­dϱVRô¡®Óm. Td§Ùm AÕ úTôu\úR. SpXúYû[VôL

‘SûLfÑûYl Tôj§WUôL, ®û[VôhÓl ùTôÚ[ôL’ Uôt\lThP Sm LPÜsL[Ùm, Td§ûVÙm

N¬VôL BWônf£ ùNnVlTPúYiÓm Guß á±FsÇoLLs. B]ôp AjRûLV BWônf£«u

Ø¥YôL ‘Ut\ NUVeL°p CÚdÏm ¾®WYôRØm, ARu A¥lTûP«Xô] URUôt\m GpXôm

Ïû\YRtÏm, NUV A¥lTûP«p ©WfNû]Ls EÚYôLôUp AûU§ úRôußYRtÏm Yônl×

HtTÓm’ Gu\ EeLs CXdÏ ØR­p SmûU §Új§d ùLôs[ AûURV úYiÓm Gu\

GiQm EeLÞdÏ HtTPôUp úTô]úR EeL°u URj ¾®WYôRjûR GÓjÕd LôhÓYRôL

AûUkÕs[Õ. ØR­p JÚ úLô«p úRúWôhPjûRúV (LiPúR®) N¬VôL SPjR Ø¥VôUp,

_ô§ A¥lTûP«p ùRnYjûRúV SÓjùRÚ®p ¨tL ûYdÏm Sm UR Utßm ùRnY Td§ûV ØR­p N¬ùNnV ØVÛeLs ©\Ï ‘©\o Li¦p CÚdÏm ÕÚmûT ¿dL ØtTPXôm’.

       ùRôPokÕ Sm LPÜsLû[ SûLfÑûY Vôd¡V Sm Td§ Utßm URSm©dûLLû[l

Tt± ùNôpYRtÏØu]ôp, ©\ URdLô¬VeL°p SPkR RYßLû[dáP N¬VôLd á\ôUp

EeL°u LÚjÕdÏ Ht\T¥ AYtû\ §Új§ ¿eLs á±VÕ N¬«pûX GuTRtÏ Juû\

ERôWQUôLd áß¡uú\u: ‘ÏÚú^h’ GuTÕ GúRô Eu LPÜs EiûUVô ApXÕ Gu

LPÜs EiûUVô GuTûR’ ¨ûX ¨ßjR HtThP úTôo ApX (C§p úY¥dûL GiQ

ùYu\ôp AjRûLV ‘ÏjÕfNiûPLÞm Sm Nm©WRôVeL°ûPúV SPkÕs[Õ-Cuß _ô§l

ùTVWôp SPkÕ ùLôi¥Úd¡u\Õ). AûY AW£Vp Utßm A§LôWeLÞdLôL Uj§u ùTVWôp

HtThP úTôoLs. ApXÕ úYß YûL«p á\lúTô]ôp UdL°u URSm©dûLLû[ ReLÞdÏ NôRLUôL TVuTÓj§ AWNoLÞm, URYô§LÞm ùNnR úTôo.  ARôYÕ RtNUVm EeL°u

‘NeL T¬Yôo’ AûUl×Ls WôUû]l TVuTÓjÕYÕ úTôu\ JÚ Lô¬VUôÏm.

       LPÜû[lTt±V ¾®WYôRm ¶kÕ URj§p CpûX Guß áß¡uÈoLs. L®

LôXúULj§u £X TôPpLû[ ¿eLs T¥jRôúX úTôÕm AÕ GqY[Ü çWm Sm URj§p TW® CÚkRÕ GuTÕ ùR¬Ùm. ERôWQUôL:

ê° UWdLôXô §ÚUeûL BrYôo

CkR êúR® ØiûPúVô AXúUÛ UeûL

Y¥jR Lg¤Vô §ÚlTs°f Nôß

Eu ûYQY URj§úX ¾ As°lúTôÓ.

       Eu LPÜs Utßm Nm©WRôV Sm©dûL N¬Vô]Rô ApXÕ Gu Sm©dûL N¬Vô]Rô

GuTûR ¨ûX¨ßjR JÚYo Lô§p Ut\Yo JÚ ÕWhûP Uôh¥dùLôiÓ Yô§jPÕm,

ùYu\Yo úRôt\Yo LôûR AßjR ¨Lrf£LÞm EeLÞdÏj ùR¬k§ÚdL ¨VôVm CpûX.  

NUQoLû[Ùm, ùTô[jRoLû[Ùm LÝ®p Htß ùLôu\ ¨Lrf£Ls ×WôQdLûRLs CpûX. AûY Sm ‘AuúT £Ym’ Gu\ RªrSôh¥p SPkR N¬j§W ¨Lrf£Ls. CvXôªVoLs Yôs

Øû]«p ©\ûW URUôt\m ùNnV ØVu\ôoLs G]dá\lThPôp, Sôm AûR ‘LÝ’ Øû]«p

ùNnÕsú[ôU.

       GRtùLÓjRôÛm vYôª ®úYLôSkRûW ERôWQm áßYÕ RtNUVm Es[ קV-CkÕdLÞdÏ (New Hindus) JÚYô¥dûLVô¡®hPÕ. B]ôp AYúW JÚ®R úTôoÏQ A¥lTûP«pRôu TX NUVm Ru

LÚjÕdLû[ á±Es[ôo. AÕ RYß Guß Sôu á\®pûX. Hu\ôp AYo AúRTô¦«p

SmªûPúV Es[ Ïû\Lû[Ùm (EeLû[l úTôp ¨VôVlTÓjRôUp) AYo Ñh¥dLôhP

RY±VÕ CpûX. B]ôp HúRô AjRûLV ‘ÏjÕf NiûP Ø¥ÜLs’ ©\o URj§p UhÓúU

Es[Õ úTôXÜm, Sôm ¶kÕdLs ªLÜm A¡m^ôYô§L[ôL, ùTôßûUVôL AûU§Vô]

Øû\«p Sm LÚjÕdLû[ ¨XSôhP ØtThPUô§¬VôLd á\YÕ N¬«pûX Gu\ GiQj§p

Rôu CûRd áß¡uú\u.

       AÓjRT¥VôL Sm LPÜsLû[ SûLfÑûYlTôj§WeL[ôL Bd¡VÕ UhÓm ApX, ªLÜm¸rjRWUôLÜm, úLYXUôLÜm Yo¦dLlThÓ RôeLs ùNnÙm ¸rjRWUô] ùNVpLû[ ¨VôVl

TÓjRÜm AYoLû[úV ERôWQUôLÜm á\ØtThÓsú[ôm. Ck§Wu ERj§V²u Lo©¦

Uû]®ûV LtT¯jRÕ, Aj¬ Uû]® AàãVôûY ©WmUô, ®xÔ, £Yu êYÚUôLúNojÕ

LtT¯jRÕ, (an act of group sex) ®xÔ _Xk§Wu Uû]® ®ÚkRôûY (lÚkRô) _Xk§Wu EÚYj§p ùNuß LtT¯jRÕ GpXôm £X ERôWQeLs UhÓúU. CYtßd ùLsXôm BRôWm úYußùUu\ôp (reference)

úLÞeLs RÚ¡uú\u.  CjRûLV LûRLû[ Sôm YZdLlT¥ SUdÏjRÏkRYôß ®VôdVô]l

TÓj§®ÓúYôm. B]ôp TôUWUdLÞLÏ CdLûRLú[ RôeLs ùNnVm RYßLû[

¨VôVlTÓjRl TVuTÓ¡\Õ. Ru Uû]®ûVjR®W ©\ùTiLÞPu Es[ ùRôPoûT

¨VôVlTÓjR á\lTÓm TZùUô¯úV (‘¡°ûVlúTôX ùTôiPôh¥ CÚkRôÛm ÏWeLûLl

úTôXYôYÕ JÚ áj§Vô úYiÓm’)SmªPm CÚdÏm úTôÕ CjRûLV ×WôQdLûRLÞdLô

TgNm. ‘ØÚLàdúL CWiÓ úYiÓùUu\ôp G]dÏ Cuù]ôÚj§ CÚlTÕ Gu] Rl×’?

GuTÕ Na_Uô] úLs®. B]ôp ©\UReL°p ùRnYjûR º¬V^ôL GÓjÕdùLôiPRôp

RôeLs ùNnÙm ¸rjRWUô] Lô¬VeLÞdÏ ùRnYj§u ùTVoùNôp­ Oô]Vm AYoLs Lt©dL®pûX. Ïû\kR ThPm CRtLôLYôYÕ AYoLû[ Sôm TôWôhP úYiÓm.

       KÚ Øû\ SôWRo £Y²u AûZl©u ùTV¬p ûLXôVj§tÏ ®Úk§tÏf

ùNu±WkRôWôm. NôlTôh¥tÏ SôuÏ CûXLs úTôPlTh¥ÚkRRôm. AlúTôÕ SôWRo TôoY§«PmCuàm JÚ CûX úTôÓm T¥ á±]ôWôm. ARtÏ TôoY§, ‘¿ GlT¥Ùm HRôYÕ LXLm

EiPôdÏYôn Guß A±kÕRôu, LeûLdÏm úNojÕ JÚ CûXûVl úTôhùNôuú]u.

B]ôp GRtLôL IkRôYÕ CûXûVl úTôPfùNôp¡u\ôn?’ Guß úLhL, SôWRo, ‘£YàdúL

ùR¬VôUp AYo NûP«p Es[ LeûL úYùWôÚYûW ûYj§Úd¡u\ôú[, AYÚdLôLjRôu

IkRôYÕ CûX’, Gu\ôWôm. CÕ LûRRôu. B]ôp Sm LPÜsLû[ GqY[ÜçWm úL­dϱVRôd¡®hPÕ SUÕ ×WôQeLÞm, Td§Ùm.

       CÕUhÓUô Y¯lT± ùNnÕ úLô«p Lh¥V §ÚUeûL BrYôÚdÏ ùWeLSôRúW úS¬p

úRôu± Ød§ A°jRôo. AWNôeLl TQjûR GÓjÕ §ÚlT¦ ùNnYÕ RYß ApX (Uô¦dL YôNLo, WôURôv) AÕ TdR²u E¬ûUUhÓm ApX LPûU. ARôYÕ NuUôoL ùS±LÞdÏ

AlTôtThPRôn CÚkRôÛm LPÜÞdLôLfùNnRôp AkR LPÜú[ AûR HtßdùLôsYÕPu

AkR TdRàdÏ AkR ùNVÛdLôL Ød§ A°lTôo. B]ôp CYtû\ùVpXôm Sôm Td§«u

ùTV¬p OôVlTÓj§®ÓúYôm.

       AÓjRT¥VôL ‘ÏjÕjfNiûP úTôhÓ’ GkR LPÜs EiûU Guß UhÓUpX Gu

UPm ùT¬Rô, Eu UPm ùT¬Rô Gu\ NiûPLÞdÏm SmªPm Ïû\®pûX. Ru LPÜs

Uôj§WúU N¬, Ru UR (Nm©WRôV) èp UhÓúU N¬ Guß YôRm Sm ªûPúV EiÓ. CÕ

HúRô SPkÕ ®hP Nm©WRôV NiûPLs UhÓm CpûX Cußm SûPØû\«p Es[ EiûU.®xÔûYjR®W úYß ùRnYeLû[ YQeLôR, AYoL°u ùTVoLû[d áP EfN¬dLôR ¾®WûYxQYoLÞm, AúRúTôu\ GiQØûPV £X Rôkj¬d Nm©WRôVeLÞm SmªûPúV EiÓ.úRûYlThPôp úUÛm ®TWm RÚ¡uú\u. ÏmTúU[ô®p GkR ALôPôûYf (UPm) úNokR

NôªVôoLs ØR­ vSô]m ùNnYÕ GuTÕ Ï±jÕ SPkR NiûPLs, ùLôûXLû[ N¬j§Wm A±Ùm.

       ClT¥ SmªPm Es[ Ïû\Lû[ Ñh¥dLôh¥]ôp EPú] GeLû[ ¶kÕ UR

®úWô§Ls G] Øj§ûW Ïj§®ÓYÕ RtúTôRV AûPVô[m. CúR CR¯p LÚQô¨ûVl

Tt±úV úLs®dÏ úNô A°jR T§­p: AYûW (LÚQô¨§ûV) Sôj§Lo Guß Vôo ùNôu]Õ?..AYo TÏjR±ÜYô§.  Sôj§Lo, LPÜs Sm©dûL CpXôRYo. TÏjR±ÜYô§, ¶kÕ UR

Sm©dûLLû[ ùYßlTYo’-Guß á±Es[ûR LY²dLÜm. SmªPúU Es[ êPSm©dûLLû[¨VôVlTÓjÕYûRd Lôh¥Ûm, AYtû\ ùYßlT§p HÕm RYß CpûX.  úUÛm ÑVT¬

úNôRû] ùNnÕ ØR­p SmªPm Es[ Ïû\Lû[ N¬ùNnTYoLÞdúL ©\¬Pm Es[

Ïû\Lû[Ùm GÓjÕd á\ E¬ûU EiÓ, AYtû\ OôVlTÓjÕ TYoLÞdÏ CpûX.

       Cuàm ùNôpXlúTô]ôp ûT©û[Ùm, CúVÑûYÙm Ïû\ùNôp­ GݧVYoLs

¡±vRY URj§tÏsÞm, ùY°úVÙm HWô[m. AûRÙm Á± CußáP TX úLô¥dLQd

LôQYoLs CûVÑûY ©uTtßTYoL[ôL CÚd¡u\ôoLs. B]ôp SmªûPúV Es[

AjRûLV (G§o) LÚjÕdLÞdÏ ¡ûPdÏm T§p Juß ÕúWô¡ ApXÕ Sôj§Lu ApXÕ

TÏjR±Ü Yô§. Hu Ut\YoL°Pm Es[ SpX Lô¬VeLû[ ØR­p LtßdùLôs[dáPôÕ?

ØR­p ºo§ÚjRYô§L[ôL Uô± ©\Ï ¾ol× ùNôpXhÓm. ©\û\ Ïû\ ùNôpYûR UhÓúU

ùLôsûLVôLd ùLôiPYoLs ºd¡Wm ReL°u SuU§lûTúV CZkÕ ®ÓYôoLs. CqY[Ü

ùNôp­Ùm G]dÏ R²lThP Øû\«p EeL°Pm A§L U§l×m, U¬VôûRVm–AúR NUVm

EeL°u TX LÚjÕdLÞPu EPuTôÓm EiÓ.

¥. B]kj

Kão, _÷ûX, 20, 2003.

@@@

From my diary of October 7, 1998.

But the most important thing that happened was our participation in the evening family worship done by Lalan’s youngest brother followed by aarati.  In order to show respect to their devotion I kept quie t and even received the water and milk which Guddu (Lallan’s brother) gave.  But Lallan also stood with them and joined in the aarati (waving of lamp) song (Jeyajagadeesuhare).

After everything is finished and after a gap of half an hour when I and Lallan were alone he asked whether I’m disturbed my his participation in the worship and aarati.  Before that in the evening in our talk he said that while he was standing with other’s in joining their song, in his heart he only think about Jesus Christ and worshipping Him.  In response I said, ” I have no problem and even appreciate on seeing their faith.  In order to show respect to their devotion I will even receive the prasad.  But I won’t join with them in their song or worship by bowing before their idols.  Because the line which one should draw in between is very difficult and subtle.  As you stood with them in joining in their song and aarati, they may even think that you too are worshipping idol.  They can think the same if we receive the prasad.  So in order to show our faith in Christ how far we can go in respecting their faith and where to draw the line I leave to your conscience.  Who am I to pass judgement on you.  I come here to encourage you to be a witness for the Lord among your family and community.  So you have to decide where you have to draw the line.”

Following it I clearly explained why I oppose idol worship.  That time Lallan’s sisters also came and listened.  The idol worship may create a sense of satisfaction that we are very religious.  But such a satisfaction may prevent us to search for the Truth which alone will help us to grow in spirituality.  We need to find that truth to grow in spirituality to lead a normal life doing our respective dharma given by God.  Dharma here is not religion but our respective duty in the society.  As idol worship creates mere routine and blind faith it itself may become a stumbling block for us to know the Truth.  Then Lallan explained the matters again to his sisters.  In the evening also I shared about doing our respective dharmas.  Lallan his wife, mother and sisters were there and listened carefully.

Among the Rewa boys, Keshave is strong in his faith.  Shashi is struggling with his faith and some family problem.  But regarding Lalan, being an emotional person, he will switch over to any side easily not knowing the difference between compromise and conviction.  However, in helping them to grow in the Lord I must be gentle at the same time strong in my conviction.

I know that I will be misunderstood by all for showing respect and not condemning other’s faith in idol etc.  The same way in teaching these boys though I must be strong, should not become hard in my dealing with  them in their role in their family and community.  In between we talked other matters also.  Lallan confessed that now a days he is not reading the bible.  Even if he read, he couldn’t understand anything.  But he likes to read Imitation of Christ.  Then I explained that such an experience is common to all.  But bible reading could not be substituted by other book.  “God speaks to us through His written words and we speak to Him by our prayers”, I said.  Though we cannot understand what all we read in the bible, yet God will still speak by a word or sentence in a whole weeks together.  So don’t stop reading the bible.  I encouraged him.  Then briefly explained him how the words in Rom. 5:3-4 still occupying my mind which I read last week, though I’m continuing rest of my regular bible and other readings.

From October 8, 1998.

Evening Lallan suddenly changed his mind and asked me first go to Mahari with him and from there to plan my visit to Beluva.  On the way we talked a lot.  He said that he often suddenly changes his plan and couldn’t keep his original plan.  For this I said that this is because of our temperament.  I too have the same problem.  People like us often change our minds suddenly.  Its o.k. as long as it doesn’t cause any trouble to others.  So it is better for us to be submissive to somebody’s authority and guidance to have our own freedom to take decisions.  The best and easy solution for this is to have a team work where we have to carryout with others.

@@@

Ramesh wanted to talk with me some personal matter.  Though I know what it

is, I asked him to proceed.  He told about his love and affection towards

Balaji. “Now I cannot live without him.  If I don’t see him for a single

day

I become made.  But that love developed to that extent that I become

possessive of him.  If he is not listening me or give preference to other

friends to me, then I become upset.  When I told about my love to him, he

said that he too loves me, but he equally gives important to his other

friends.  I know that he is not made after me as I am after him.  Slowly

this led me in to depression.  I went to the extent that I cannot live

without him.  And such a thought even drove me to think about committing

suicide.  Finally I saw a psychiatrist and he prescribed some medicine. 

During my treatment I stayed in my house and he only came and saw me. 

Though now I can live without seeing him for few days, I cannot give up my

possessiveness towards him.  What is your advice?”

For this I said, “Friendship is a beautiful gift from God.  But the

important thing in it is that though God gives friends to us, yet we have

to

cultivate friendship.  And a true friendship is different from

possessiveness.  Such possessiveness will curtail growth and expansion.  If

you really love Balaji you should allow him to grow and expand in every

area

of his life, but your possessiveness will create some problem in his

relationship with others.  Thus, in stead of a good friend to him you

yourself will become a problem.  Then if you call Balaji not your life but

as your blood, then you will become his cancer finally to finish him.

The main problem in your relationship with Balaji is that you want to give

the center place of your life to Balaji instead of Jesus.  As long as the

Lord is at the center in our life, our relationship with others will be

smooth as everything is connected to that center.  But once you keep the

Lord in a corner and try to keep a human being at the center, naturally

your

relationship with others as well as with you will be affected.  Balaji is

after all a human being with his own temperament and personality problem. 

As being a not a perfect human, he too cannot help you to grow and expand.

Then this too again is the basic principle of friendship.

Regarding your point that Balaji is such a nice boy, but is spoiled by

other

friends and you should save him and guide him properly in his life—this is

nothing but another kind of possessiveness.  You cannot become God in

another man’s life.  All these years he lived and grew without your

friendship.  Suddenly you want to become his guardian as well as God to

direct his life.  This is not friendship but dictatorship.  (Here Ramesh

asked me that does this mean that he should not advise him.  For this I

said:) Unless some one seek your counsel if you began to give advice then

it

is not called advice but only instruction or even dictating.  That will

close the heart and mind of the person, unless he is your servant or

subordinate.  This you cannot do with your friends and relatives.  Above

all

when you came to know that your instruction given to your friend to whom

you

assumed an imaginary guardian is not heeding your counsel, then it will

irritate you and affect you alone.  This is what happening to you now.  For

example don’t think that I don’t know any of your problem with Balaji.  I

know it from the beginning.  (Here Ramesh said that he shared his problem

only with Rick.  And I said, ‘of course Rick shared with me.  As an

outsider, he felt that I should know what is happening to you.  Because if

has to leave this land for some reason, then it is not he, but I am going

to

worry about you.’).  But as you never sought my counsel, I kept quiet.  

Since yesterday I never opened my mouth or asked anything about Balaji. 

Only after you want to share all these, now I am giving my advice to you. 

So never try to push your ‘advice’ on others when it is not sought.

“So, I should not guard Balaji from his other friends,” asked Ramesh. 

“Balaji should have some bad friends in order to prove what a good friend

are you to him.  At least to prove that you are the only good friend to

him,

allow him to have some bad friends too.  If you become his ‘good friend’

and

others as his bad friends, the same his other friends (as well as Balaji

himself may) think.”  Finally your possessiveness is going to stop all your

growth and expansion.  You are going to narrow down your world and

friendship and even relationship only with Balaji.  That will finally

finish

you, as you will keep others away from your life.  This not only finishes

you but also you cannot help in any way Balaji to grow.

If you heed our advice and counsel, we too will care for you.  But if you

go

on insisting that Balaji is everything in your life, then we all have our

own life to live and grow and contribute.  And we will finally wash our

hands from our responsibility towards you.  Above all instead of becoming a

blessing and a channel of blessing to may people why you want to restrict

yourself with one individual?  God expects us to grow and multiply in every

area of live and don’t restrict God’s hand from blessing your life as a

channel of blessing by pushing Him to a corner and keep a human being at

the

center of your life.

Finally when I directly asked Ramesh whether he and Balaji have any

physical

relationship other than friendship, Ramesh denied it strongly.

Hosur, June 22, 2000.

< 

Reply Reply All Forward  Delete  Previous Next  Close

  (Move to Selected Folder)InboxSent MessagesDraftsTrash Can 

  Inbox Compose Addresses Folders Options   Help

Get notified when you have new Hotmail or when your friends are on-line. Send instant messages. Click here to get your FREE download of MSN Messenger Service! Meet new friends at the new MSN Chat. 

   Other Links:

Buy Music

Download Music

Buy Books

Free Games

Pharmacy

More…

   Special Features:

When Cupid’s arrow has failed …

Find and compare homes online

Summer tunes, tours & the tube!

Do you have the right kind of insurance?

Get the info you want, when you want!

More…

 © 2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Terms of Service   Privacy Statement 

@@@

Dear Dayanand,

  I am very happy that you are doing better after the accident.  Our prayers have been with you and for all involved.  Most of my time has been taken up with helping Africans living here in the area and in occasional lectures to various audiences.  In my lecturing on the relation between religion and international relations I became acquainted with Kanak Ravel, a Gujarati who has lived in America for many years.

In one of my lectures I mentioned you and the book I that I had written which you quoted so generously in Livnig Water in Indian Bowl.  He asked to read them both.

    After beginning to read them he wrote to me the following letter.  I asked his permission to send the letter on to you.  He readily agreed.  Here then is his letter with a question for you.  If you would like to answer him directly, his email address is below.  If you write, I would appreciate a copy so that I can continue the conversation with him.

Robert Schmidt

Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 4:59 PM

Subject: Namaste

Dear Professor:

This mornig’s book review of THE BIG EMPTY by Norman Mailer reminded me of my recent intention to say Hi to you.
 
In response to a question from the audience, Mailer characterized God as a Creator and not a law giver.He also added that God is not totally infallible or so it seems to him but I do not have any argument with him because there is none around to be the judge.Mailer further admitted that he believes in reincarnation which he thinks is the Divine’s tool for correcting errors and improvising the evolutionary flow.
 
Indian seers have characterized this Samsar (Universe;Humanity) as Brahman’s (The Absolute; The One unmanliest, non dual) Leela (Cosmic Playfulness-which by implication has provision for errors!).For this the Creator created the manifest world which is again the bits of Him and thus parts of Him by proxy. Only veto he has kept is that of dissolving and recreating the Samsar at his will on His timetable.So we now have the duality
 
As an individual,I see this also as a great game of chess against the Master.It is never ending and panctuated only by series of rebirths.

I have started reading yours and Sw.Dayanand Saraswati’s book but in a sporadic manner by design. Swami’s book has defined agenda which looks like a strategy for now and easy to follow.Yours will take more effort as I am not familiar with the basic theology and history of
Christianity. May be a phone call (I do not have your phone number) or email can help understanding few parts.
 
One question I have for Sw.Dayanand is how would he resolve one important aphorism from Bhagwat Gita:  
“Swadharme Nidhanam Shreya Paradharmo Bhayaavaha”
 
“it is better to live and die while following one’s own faith rather
than adopt other’s faith; the latter shall lead one to disaster.”
 
Please note here that the word Dharma has a much wider connotation than its mundane English tranlation ‘Religion’.
 
Regards-Kanak
 
Dear Dr. Schmidt,

Shanti!

Thanks for your prayers and kind words.  It is encouraging to receive mail from you after a long time.  Thanks for sharing about Mr. Ravel.  I would like to write to him directly, however first I will send my response to you and you better read and then forward it to him.

The second book which I wrote (Understanding Hinduism) will be more helpful to Mr. Ravel and it is available with Rick.  If he is interested, he can contact Rick and buy one copy.

One small correction in my name.  I am not Dayanand Saraswati but Dayanad Bharati.  Dayanand Saraswati is another famous Swamiji.

The following is my response to the second half verse from Gita 3:35.  As you asked for the copy, I would like to give the entire verse in English before I give my response:

Sreyaan svadharmo vigunah paradharmaat svanusthitaat

Sva dharma nidhanam sreyah paradharmo bhayaavahah.

Better is one’s won duty though devoid of merit, than the duty of another well discharged.  Better is death in one’s own duty; the duty of another is fraught with fear (is dangerous).—(Gita Press, Gorakpur) (Krishna to Arjuna)

As Sri Ravel rightly said, dharma has various meanings (according to the context) and now where it could be translated as ‘religion’, though now we do it freely in India.

The context of the verse is not talking about ‘religious’ faith, but the duty of Arjuna according to his caste and (stage).  Being a Kshatriya it is his duty to fight and win or get killed in the war and not run away.  As in the eleventh hour Arjuna refuse to fight and want to run away, after giving some advise and answer to his questions, now Sri Krishna says that even if he could do his duty as a warrior (Kshatrya) devoid of merit it is better than to give it up.

This is endorsed by the following verses in chapter two:

Looking at your own duty as well, you should not waver, for there is nothing more welcome to a man of the warrior class than a righteous war.-31

Happy (lucky) are the Kshatriyas, O Partha [another name for Arjna], who get such an unsolicited opportunity for war, which is an open gateway to heaven*-32

If you don’t wage such a righteous war, then abandoning your duty and forfeiting your honour, you will incur sin.-33

All creations willever recount your undying infamy, and infamy is surely worse than death for a man enjoying popular esteem.-34

The great chariot-warriors who held you in high esteem, will hold you lightly, thinking that you have desisted from the war out of fer-35

Slain in battle you will gain heaven,* gaining victory you will enjoy sovereignty of the earth; therefore, arise, O son of Kunti, determined to fight.-37

* One general Indian worldview is that those Kshatriyas who are killed in the battle field will directly go to heaven.

So the verse 3:35 no where come near as Sri Ravel says:

“it is better to live and die while following one’s own faith rather
 than adopt other’s faith; the latter shall lead one to disaster.”

But this is the way in general this verse is often misquoted, in order to prove some point related to (personal) religious faith.

Hope this will give some answer to his question to me.  Thanks for the opportunity to interact with him.  God bless.

Yours truly,

Dayanand

Dear Sw.Dayanandji:

First thanks to Prof. Robert Schimdt for bringing us into contact with each other.  Meeting him for me has been a synchronicity.

If as your name suggest you belong to Bharati branch of the Dash Nami order, my Hari Om (see the attached short note)to you.It is a double pleasure because that is the school of our spritual master Late Swami Rama belonged to and thus we are distantly guru bhais. But,If you belong to the Neo-Hindu Christian movement, my Jay Christo
to you.

I very much appreciated your taking time out to offer your response to my question on the role of one’s Dharma as a foundation stone of one’s life.   I accept your interpretation of Arjun’s Dharma as a Kakshatriya and Shri Krishna’s reminders to him. This is one direct way of interpreting the Gita message as a part of Mahabharat as a war manual.Sage Vyas (himself a dalit)selected the war as a subject of his story telling.  However a large number of over 200 published English interpretations of Gita have looked at it as a theological treaties to provide guidelines for the people of this Samsar. It does deal with conflict resolution.We all are in constant conflict with our selves and the Divine  having our own mini-Maha Bharats.

Our on master Swami Rama in his “PERENNIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF THE  BHAGAWAD GITA” has beautifully expanded on “Shreyan svadharmo…” as core of
the human existence.

So, really my question was how effective has been the strategy of the Western Christians in ‘selling Christ the Saviour’ (Sorry to make my point in street language because they ARE doing CONVERSIONS which to me translates COERCION!) to the Hindu (another label I have issue with!) mind?  Is this still carried over form the State sponsored Christian religion from the Raj days? I too tend to delink Christ as a Jeevan Mukta from the group of Christianists (like Islamists?).He himself was not a christian and was persecuted as a Jew but had new insights for peace and brotherhood. We are on the same page but may be for different reasons.
 
In today’s global economics, our world is getting flatter every day (this morning IBM raised their India commitment threefold from 2 to 6 billion dollars with 40,000 employees in India) and our interdependency between nations is increasing faster fast.
Good education, Wages and better standard of living are more pertinent life objectives. Are our churches and temples keeping pace with these forces? What relevance so called spiritual life has?

One last word through a modern parable (see attached Flight#52) how just a superficial life style change without required physical assets and  reprogramming of a mindset can be injurious to one self.

Lastly, I would like to learn more about the history of the Christ Bhaktas movement

Sincerely, Kanak Raval

Dear Sri Ravelji,

Shanti!

Thanks for your kind response to my mail.  It is a joy to know and learn from people like you, as your views not only challenge but also enlighten a non-academician like me.  I hope I can keep with your phase, as you asked so many question and shared so many views, which would demand a careful and detailed answer from me.

Before further proceed, I would like to seek your pardon for my bad English.  I am not good with English as I never studies in English medium school.  So you have to kindly bear with for my elementary level of language against your sophisticated English.

Next is that I recently met with an accident (on April 29^th) and is slowly recovering.  As the pain on my left shoulder and hand is still continues, I find it difficult to type using both my hands.  Often I use one finger to type and it takes time, so you should give some time to give response to your mail. 

Finally, before I continue my response in next mail, I am not a Dasanami Sannyasi or a Neo-Hindu Christian.  I am a Hindu and bhakta of bhagavan Muktinath, whom others call as Jesus (not the original name of him).  As I am proud to be an Indian, I kept the title Bharati.

Thanks once again for your kind response and the time that you take to share your views.  I will give my response soon.

I have written another book: UNDERSTANDING HINDUISM, pub. by M/s Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi.  You can get the copy from one of my friends who Dr. Schmidt also knows him.

dayanand

Dear Ravalji,

Shanti!

I took few points from your mail and try to give my response.  Your comments are in color.  Look forward to hear from your.

db

1. Mahabharat as a war manual.Sage Vyas (himself a dalit)

–Thanks for this new information that Vyas was a dalit.  However as my limited knowledge goes, this modern title ‘dalit’ is too difficult to apply to a person who born to a rishi and a fisher woman.  When Vyas born, Kali yuga was not yet began and so the strict rule of caste that is upheld in this so called Kali yuga is not applicable in his time.  Above all, the term ‘dalit’ is more a political term now used by one section of the people.  So while I respect your idea of naming Vyas as a dalit, reading certain social and cultural phenomena from our modern view won’t give a clear picture about the ancient world.

According to Kane (the author of History of Dharmasastras) Vyas was more a mythological figure to whom anything and everything written in the ancient world is credited.  For example Mr. Rao says, ‘Besides the Smrtis we have the eighteen puranas.  Vyasa is the author of them all…’[.— P. Nagaraja Rao, Essentials of Hinduism, Mumbai, Sudakshina Trust, 1978 p.32], whereas he is already called Vedavyasa, as the compiler of Vedic literature.

2. However a large number of over 200 published English interpretations of Gita have looked at it as a theological treaties to provide guidelines for the people of this Samsar. It does deal with conflict resolution. We all are in constant conflict with our selves and the Divine having our own mini-Maha Bharats.

–Ever since Sri Adi Sankara, there were more than 300 commentaries were written, which according to one report was collected and preserved in some place in North (I will give the reference later, if I found in my files).  The modern translation and writing provides various interpretation to Gita (and also to any scripture).  So anybody can claim any kind of message from a scripture like Gita.  And coming to one conclusion that this is the central message of Gita is very difficult considering the long tradition of various kinds of interpretation to it.  For example Gandhiji completely rejected the idea that actually a war took place and he interpreted Gita from his famous ahimsa point of view.

Definitely Gita deals with a conflict resolution of ‘to be or not to be’.  We all stand in the cross road of life, where it is difficult for us to take any decision based on our own experience.  About Mahabharata says:

arko’pratisthah srutayo vibhinnaah; naiko rsir yasya vacah pramaanam | 

dharmasya tattvam nihitam guhaayaam; mahaajano yena gaatah sa panthaah||

Inferential logic is uncertain, i.e. it is such that it will give birth to various inferences according to different degrees of keenness of intelligence in men; the srutis, that is, the precepts, of the Vedas, are all mutually conflicting; and, as regards the smrtis, there is not a single Rishi whose precept we can look upon as more authoritative than that of others.  Well, if we seek the fundamental principle of this (worldly) dharma, it is lost in darkness, that is to say, it is such as cannot be understood by a man of ordinary intelligence.  Therefore, the path which have been followed by venerable persons is the path of dharma.¹

And as mini-bharata is taking place within us, there is nothing wrong in finding our own solutions in such scripture like Gita.  However, completely rejecting its implied message and arriving one’s own interpretation will push one’s idea on other’s writing.  It is like not acknowledging the source from which we take the point.  This is my humble opinion that if I want to come to arrive my own conclusion on any point, though I have every right to use the tradition and scripture, yet I will say ‘taking the clue from the tradition and scripture, I give my own conclusion, though it might disagree with the tradition or scripture’  But I will never insist that this is the message of that particular scripture.

3. So, really my question was how effective has been the strategy of the Western Christians in ‘selling Christ the Saviour’ (Sorry to make my point in street language because they ARE doing CONVERSIONS which to me translates COERCION!) to the Hindu (another label I have issue with!) mind?  Is this still carried over form the State sponsored Christian religion from the Raj days? I too tend to delink Christ as a Jeevan Mukta from the group of Christianists (like Islamists?).He himself was not a christian and was persecuted as a Jew but had new insights for peace and brotherhood. We are on the same page but may be for different reasons.

–I have lots of problem with (western) Christianity and Church.  This is reflected a bit in my book: Living Water and Indian Bowl.  So I have no right to talk about such Christianity.  The Spirituality which my guru Muktinath wants to give cannot be translated but transmitted.  It is like Arjuna receiving the divine eye to see the majestic form of the Lord.  So there is not point of wasting our time to talk about such Christianity.  However Christian world itself is divided on this issue and they are dealing with such issue among themselves.

3. I too tend to delink Christ as a Jeevan Mukta from the group of Christianists (like Islamists?).He himself was not a christian and was persecuted as a Jew but had new insights for peace and brotherhood.

I partly accept your view regarding Muktinath.  Yes if not the Christian do, at least we Hindus should delink Muktinath from the captivity of the Churchianity to promote his peace and brotherhood which he promised to give to the entire humanity.

At the same time, as a Hindu, I understand what do you mean by Jeevan Mukta and it is difficult to relate the life and seva of Muktinath with our one school of thought (Sankarite Vedanta) Hinduism.  As I said about Gita, any body can read any message that one wants to read in any particular scripture or great Person.  Because we cannot deviate from the original setting that much easily.  At least this is not the way the immediate shishyas of Muktinath understood him.  As we depend upon their witness and writings, though we would like to give our own interpretation, yet if we begin to do it outside the foundation of their witness, then the alteration won’t stand for long time.  Any renovation or remodeling could be done on the foundation and not outside it to suit our particular need.

What I want to say is this:  A person may not agree with what Gita and the bible say and would like to read her own message in them.  But if she wants to be honest, she should only begin from where it stands.  One of the messages of Gita is about varnashramadharma—doing one’s own caste duty according to his (or her, which unfortunately is not very strong in our tradition, as the stages is mostly for men and not for woman, as they are expected to be under male protection) stage of life.  In the same way the main message of the bible is that God reconciled the world thorough his son. 

We modern people can read anything that we want to read on any scripture.  But we should not expect that it was the intended ORIGINAL message of those scriptures.

4. Are our churches and temples keeping pace with these forces? What relevance so called spiritual life has?

–sadly neither the church nor the temple or masjit keep pace with the reality of this world.  And we cannot expect them to keep that pace, as we are looking in a wrong place a right answer.  They become more religious institutions mostly catering the ‘demands’ of the people from god through some businesslike negotiation of fulfilling rituals and vows.

Spiritual life has relevance in all the time in this world.  However we should not get lost in defining and explaining some technical terms at the cost of accepting the reality in life.  For me spirituality is not belongs to some special religious peoples like gurus and sanyasis but it is to help each individual to do her dharma without blaming others (time, yuga, karma, fatalism, god, etc.).  The simple formula that I found in my bhakti to bhagavan Muktinath for spirituality is:

Blessed is the person who understands her limitation.

Blessed is the person who accepts the need of others in her life.

Blessed is the person who depends upon the grace of god for this.

Dayanand,

Mathigiri, June 8, 2006.

Notes

1. Yudhisthira to Yaksa in Mbh. Vana parva,312,115, from B.G. Tilak, Tr. by A. S. Sukthankar: Srimad Bhagavadgita-Rahasya,seventh edn., Poona, 1986,.p.97

Dear Dayanandji:
I liked your subject title ‘unifyingstreams’ and found your insights of great interest. It has spawned some more thoughts which I will share later. In the meantime, pl tell me about Muktinath (sect;sampraday?) so as to help me have a clearer understanding of
your views. I was not aware of the name Muktinath.

Also I would appreciate where you are located and what activities your Ashram carry out?

I am a retired Pharmaceutical executive.I hail from a Brahman family originally of Saurastra and now retired in USA.My father late Kalaguru Ravishankar Raval was a prominent artist/journalist of Gujarat (visit his web site below).

Jay jay-Kanakbhai

DearKanakji,

Shanti!

I think you received my response to your previous mail.  You sent the subject matter in ‘unifyingstreams’ by Sw. Vedbharatiji and in that I posted my response to you.

I renamed Jesus as Muktinath.  The name Jesus means one who saves.  But instead of keeping the same name which is distorted by the Christians of all brands, I decided to name him in Indian language with the a meaning which is close to his original name: Jesus: Mukti + nath = the Lord of Salvation. 

This is neither a sect or a sampradaya but as a bhakta and follower of my guru Muktinath, I remain as a Hindu.

I don’t have any ashram but stay near Bangalore but in Tamilnadu in a small place called Mathigiri.  My mother constructed a small house for me to keep all my library books.  I generally travel a lot in North and South, taking some classes on Hinduism for some interested group both from west and in India.  I also read a lot, write some book reviews, articles, answers to questions asked by my shishyas and others (like you).  I wrote two book: Living Water and Indian Bowl and Understanding Hinduism published respectively by ISPCK and Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi.

At present I am writing another book: Living Dialogue, in which I hope to incorporate some of the dialogue that I have with several people (like yours).  But after the accident, as I cannot type much, I couldn’t do much work.  My mother often stays with me.  She is 82 years old.

That’s all for the time being.  God bless you.

db

Dear Kanak,

The astronomic profile of the universe indeed shows the insignificance of  the earth and even more of its people.  Yet a Christian theologian-scientist, Fr. Teihard de Chardin wondered if we were not looking through the wrong end of the telescope. If we concentrate on size and distance, we are of all things in the universe most insignificant.  However, as a evolutionist, Chardin asked if we looked at the complexity and, as he
called it, “centration” of living creatures we see things in a different scale.

He argues that the sun and other stars are huge but are made up of the smallest elements, like hydrogen and helium.  Were one to compare them to a protein molecule coming from a living thing they would dwindle into insignificance.  He then moves up the evolutionary scale to human beings which have a central nervous system and a brain, the highest example of “centration” enabling a human being to reflect upon the wondrous reality of
existence and God.

Contrary to Christian fundamentalists Chardin argues that evolution is actually a proof of God.  As the 2nd law of thermodynamics shows that energy dissipates, the fact of evolution shows that there is another development going on which has culminated in human beings as we know them.  Chardin does not claim that people are getting better and better through evolution. Rather he suggests that through their efforts, life itself and human’s capacity to deal with it are getting more and more complex.

Robert Schmidt

God’s creation:

For me to appreciate and worship god through a proper (scientific) understanding of creation is a Himalayan task.  Following Indian tradition, since my teen age I tried to analyze (with all my limitation in those days) the nature of god, world and atman (the basic Trinity for most of the philosophies) both by external sources (creation, etc.) and internal sources (analyzing human being through mind, buddhi, atman etc.).  But that process never helped me much to worship god.  Though I am not against them in any sense, knowing my limitation, I then began my journey by a step by step process of try to understand me (though these are systematic way of presentation now in writing, yet the past experiences cannot be neatly put in any systematic way).

After initial attempts to understand god thorough creation, scriptures, tradition not helped me much, then I began to ask a tentative question like this: why I cannot lead a life of my desire and choice in a way I liked?

When I tried to find the answer, I realized that even this desire and choice never was permanent.  Most of the time I was carried away by my emotions and temperament which I can call as my personality.  So when I tried to stream line my personality (not through yoga), soon I realized that as a human being my life is not decided or determined by my own desires, choices, controls etc. but by other’s contribution as well.  So my personality is not decided by my efforts alone, but also depend upon my ‘action’ and ‘reaction’ towards others involvement with my life in various ways.

This led to come to another and very important conclusion that though I can shape and re-shape my personality by various self efforts (reading, physical, mental and spiritual disciplines, which is branded in a sophisticated way called ‘yoga’ now), yet I have no control over others life to shape and bend them to dance according to my tunes.  Then I realized that (human) relationship is one among the main factors that decides the spiritual life of a person.

There I realized that a third person who can negotiate in a better way between me and others can help both me and others to mutually contribute for the survival and growth in life.  Soon I found that this third PERSON is god, who is not mere shakti (energy or power) or attributless Brahman etc. but a Person who understands my personality as He alone created me in His Image.  This creation of god viz. human beings and not the cosmos which helped me to appreciate and worship him in a more sensible way.

This creation of me in a wonderful way—not as an isolated individual to decide everything about my life by myself, but in relationship with others and creation, (world or cosmos) etc. helped me to worship god and appreciate his creation in and through me first. 

So, respecting all the scientific, philosophical analyze of the cosmos in order to appreciate god and worship him, rather my experience taught me to begin from me first.

Dayanand

Mathigiri, June 28, 2006, 7.00 pm.

Dear Friends:

Thank you for your insightful observations (June 15&29).

A quick Google search on Fr.Chardin gave me a glimpse into the life and work of Fr. Chardin. Would you call him a renegade or a Luther re-borne?Which of his writings should I start with?

To me, four seers of modern times Mahatma Gandhi,Albert Albert Schweitzer and Shri Raman Maharshi and my own spiritual master Late Swami Rama have impressed me for their teachings to bring spiritual growth to the simplest and the  practical level. Gandhi for his experiments with truth,Maharshi for his Mahvakya “Who Am I”,Schwitzer for his “Reverence for Life” and Sw.Rama for his teaching “Live in this moment”

We are limited by our biological equipment (mind/body),sensory apparatus and the social conditioning of the culture(s).’Out of box’Thinking seems to be the only way out.Which is said easy..

Dayanandji: Story goes that though Goswamy Vallabhacharyaji was a Vaisnav Bhakt, he very skillfully resolved the conflict between the Dwaitvadins and Adwaitvadins. What was his logic? Have you read the details anywhere?

Prof.Schmidt: Do we really have a free will? Is there democracy in God’s court?

Hari Om-Kanak

Regarding Vallabha I would recommend two books:

1. Bhakti: A Contemporary Discussion (Philosophical Explorations In the Indian Bhakti Tradition), Edited by Daya Krishna, Mukund Lath & Francine E. Krishna, Indian Council of Philosophical Research 2000, New Delhi, 200.

2. S. Ghate, The Vedanta  (A Study of The Brahma-Sutras with the Bhasyas of Sankara, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Madhava, and Vallabha), (3rd ed.), Poona, 1981

Regarding the question about in God’s court—if ‘democracy’ means one individual not taking any decision on her own but consult with her equals, subordinates or elders, then

such democracy existed in his court.  For example the ancient Near East religions talks about ‘counsel’ of gods who gather to consult each other about their activities.  For example:

In the ancient Near East the major decisions were all made in the divine council.  There the gods would consult with one another and share their information and opinions.  In the Babylonian creation epic Apsu and Tiamat, the gods from whom spawned all living creatures, had as their trusted advisor Mummu, who often rebuked them.  When the high council of gods assembled to determine how to attack Tiamat, they drank themselves into a stupor and subsequently chose Marduk as their king, accepting his harsh demands of absolute rule….— John H. Walton; Victor H. Matthews & Mark W. Chavalas,, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, Old Testament,  Downers Grove, Illinois, 2000, p. 626, on Isiah 40:13-14.

In Hinduism too we come across similar thought, even from Vedic literature (like Katha Upanishad).  Puranas always talk of god’s counseling each other and one god sending another god with his power to destroy the enemies of gods.  However for me to read about any ancient religious tradition (as most of the present day religions have long tradition) with our modern technical terms like ‘democracy’ won’t help us much.  My limited knowledge about democracy (with a particular reference with India) is that only number decides any decision and policy of the govt.  For example to day (July 6, 2006) Dr. Manmohan Singh govt. has to withdraw dis-investment policy, because as his govt. depends upon the number game of his alliances, which first agreed then disagreed because of local politics (in Tamilnadu).  In the Cabinet it was decided on the basis of democracy, but as Congress govt. does not have absolute majority, it has to bend and reverse back on its own’ cabinet decision which was taken on democratic way.

But in the context of your question (Free Will) whether god will consult human beings, I doubt based on religious traditions.  In most religious tradition the common view is that gods created human being to errands for them and not to consult what they want to do.  For example Bible Background Commentary commenting on Isaiah 40:27-28 says, ‘In fact, humans were created to do the hard labor the gods preferred not to do.’—ibid. p. 627.  Similar thought is found in Hinduism as well.  I cannot give reference immediately, but I read in one context, human beings were created to work of gods—doing yajnas to feed them etc.

However in a country like India, where Parliament is Supreme (as often claimed by the member of Parliament), influential political groups can twist the arm of the Parliament to impose their view in the name of Democracy (removal of Dr. Venugopal as the Director of AIM is the best recent [July 6, 2006] example). So democracy always worked in a different way in every system.  For example a King always consulted his counselors.  However the final decision is left with him.  Can we call it democracy as he consulted his counselors in stead of taking arbitrary decision?  Or should we take it as an example for our Free Will?

My personal experience tells me that we have definitely a Free Will.  Neither god, or karma (not fate, on which Hindu theological tradition has different view: read, ‘Wandy Dongier’s: Karma and Rebirth), or yuga (time) impose any thing on us against our will.  That is why Goswami Tulsidas says: kaalahim, karmahi, ishwarpar mitya dosh lagayee (they falsely accuse time or karma or even god) for not accepting personal responsibility for any act done by one.

I have collected around six pages points on Free-Will from few books, which I am happy to share if you want to read them.

That’s all for the time being.

Db

Dear Kanak,

With regard to Fr. Chardin you might start with his book, The Future of Man. The subject of “free will” is, as you know, a very complex subject that cannot be easily answered in an email.  Neither, for that matter, is “democracy in God’s court.”  Perhaps I might better address those questions if you would give me the background of why you ask and tell me something of the context from which they come.
 
I will be at the Humanists Sunday. If you will be there I have a copy of another book by Dayanandji entitled Understanding Hinduism. I thought you might find it interesting.  It will be my gift to you and your good wife.
 
Robert Schmidt

Dear Professor:

(1) No specific concept that triggered the question. Ignore the addendum of “God’s court” if it sounds cynical. It was more in call attention light vain.

A composite of Yours, Dayanandji’s responses, Dayanandj’s book, Herbert Hoefer’s critique of Dayanandji’s book, my own cross currents of musing etc generated the question.

Here is the paradox.

Moment you accept the concept of Creator and Creation, you have established Master-Servant dependency and removed the scope of free will which then becomes redundant.
If you consider man as manifestation of unmanifested Supreme Being then also free will is a non-issue.

Yet, at our sensory perception level sense of self-awareness is an unquestionable reality though our individual behavior and thought processes are shaped by the social conditioning and vary from individual to individual. Indian sages have declared this as a world of name and form (Nam- Roop) as experienced by our sense apparatus.  Equally well accepted is the reality of evolutionary forces and thus an ever changing world.T hat suggests that there is a ‘free will’ at play.

Hope I have clarified my question.

(2) I plan to come to Humanist group on Sunday just to greet you and receive your book gift. I would not stay for your talk since one of our grand daughters is visiting us.

Regards-Kanak

@@

Dear Prof. Sharmaji.

Shanti!

I read all your articles Chips from Indic workshop in MLBD News Letter and I also I read your book: Arvind Sharma, Hinduism and Human Rights, A Conceptual Approach, New Deli, Oxford, 2004.

I want to keep in touch with you to clarify some of my doubts on few issues related with Hinduism.  Before I further share, I have to say few words about me.

I am a Tamilian and I never studied in English medium school.  The English that I know is developed by me and you have to kindly bear with my bad English.  Some times I cannot even articulate my thought properly in English.  So if I don’t make sense any of my questions, kindly ask for clarification.

I am interested to read books, mostly related with Hinduism and religious literature.  Particularly I am more interested to read ancient Tamil literatures related with Hinduism and other classical literatures like Sangam poems. 

Though I born in a Brahmin family, I don’t know Sanskrit except what I learnt from my parents through puja mantars. 

Now I want to ask one serious question to you.  Some Christians in Tamilnadu now claims that Thomas came to India and founded Christianity and both Vaishnavism and Saivam is the off shoot of his Christianity.  There is no evidence of Sanskrit before 150 a. d and even Sanskrit was invented by Vyasa who was a Dravidian to propagate Thomas Vedanta to the Aryans etc.

I am not a scholar to make any study on these points.  Here I am sending the recent mail sent by one of my friends to me on this subject and I am copying the same to you.

I know you are very busy with all your responsibility and I cannot expect any immediate response to my mail.  So take your own time to give some response to this question.  Thanks. God bless you.

Sivam

September 18, 2010.

Anyway let me clarify an earlier comment made by you on Sanskrit and Dravidians (extracted from my paper – http://appiusforum.net/paper.pdf):

The first evidence of Sanskrit is attested by an inscription dating around A.D.150 in the Brahmi script ^2,3. It records the repair of a dam originally built by Chandragupta Maurya, and also contains a panegyric in verse which can be regarded as the first literary composition in Sanskrit. It is at Girnar in Kathiawar and was inscribed by Rudradamana, the Saka Satrap of Ujjayini, on the same rock on which the Fourteen Rock Edicts of Asoka were also found. It is significant that Rudradamana employed Sanskrit in a region where about four hundred years before him Asoka had used only Prakrit.

The period 1st c BC to 1st c AD is extremely significant in the history of India. The Sakas (Scythians) were one of the three main groups who supplanted the Greeks in the North West. The others were the Pahalavas (Parthians) and Kushans (Yeuh-Chih). The North West was divided into several petty Greek Kingdoms, which easily fell victim to the great wave of Scythians, which took place in the middle of the first century B.C. The Indo-Scythian Empire of the Sakas was conquered by the advancing Indo-Parthians, upon the coins of which appear names6 such as Gondophares, Orthagnes, etc. The date of Gondophares6 is firmly established by the Takht-i Bahi inscription of the year 103, which is also dated to the twenty-sixth year of Gondophares’ reign. The first date must be reckoned according to the “era of Azes” (57 B.C.) and therfore corresponds to 46 A.D., while the accession year of Gondophares is consequently 20 A.D. Tradition ^7,8 records that Thomas set out for India immediately after the Crucifixion, i.e. 30 A.D., thus the appearance of Gondophares in the Acts of Thomas is therefore chronologically acceptable6. Thus during Gondophares’ rule the apostle Thomas brought the first knowledge of Christianity to India ^6,7,8,9. Christianity comes to northern India through the Apostle Thomas into the Pahalava Empire during the reign of Gondophorus when the Sakas were under the dominion of the Pahalavas. The Gospel spread throughout the Empire and later expressed in the Sanskrit literature like the Gita where the development of Sanskrit is evidenced by the inscription of Rudradamana, the Saka Satrap of Ujjayini in 150 AD and the Dwaraka (in Gujarat) legends of Krishna; also it is hard to miss the similarity in the names, Christ and Krishna.

Another interesting fact is during the reign of the Kushan king Kanishka (~1st c A.D.), who was an ardent supporter of Buddhism, a new form of Buddhism called Mahayana (the original form is called Hinayana) developed with the new concept of compassionate saints (bodhisattvas) helping to save others which spread in the North. The Kushan Empire was adjacent to the Pahalava/Saka Empire where Christianity was introduced by the Apostle Thomas; hence the Christian thought certainly influenced Buddhism. Mahayana Buddhism seems a syncretism between Hinayana Buddhism and Christianity.

The Hinayana scriptures are in Pali, while the Mahayana writings developed in the Kushan Dynasty are in Sanskrit. This is significant since the Kushans had adopted the local Bactrian language for their kingdom and took it all around their area of influence, including Northern India. The usage of Sanskrit instead of Bactrian is logically explained by the fact that Sanskrit and Christianity developed in the adjacent kingdom of the Pahalava-Saka Empire, and, influence and discussion gave rise to the development of Mahayana Buddhism and writings in Sanskrit since the Christian thought was embedded with the language. Also in any Sanskrit literature the Christian influence often can be seen since they were all written after the 2nd c AD.  

Sanskrit which first developed in the Saka Empire around 150 AD then spread slowly across India since the Christian thought was embedded with the language. The stone pillar inscription ^11,12 of Samudra Gupta (AD 330 to 380) written in Sanskrit and a late Brahmi script called the Gupta script was incised on an Asokan pillar at Allahabad. Composed by Harisena, a commander-in-chief of the king it describes elaborately the moral, intellectual and military achievements of this king; this inscription dates around 350 AD.

Candra Gupta II (AD 380 to 415) subjugated the Saka territories, and Sanskrit, which developed in the Pahalava-Saka Empire gained eminence in the Gupta Empire as evidenced by the Allahabad inscription of Samudra Gupta, mentioned earlier. During his reign, art, architecture and sculpture flourished and the cultural development of ancient India reached its climax. However, this change is certainly due to the Pahalava-Saka language, literature, art and culture now part of the Gupta Empire, and, the Christian thought was the catalyst.

Another interesting fact is that the Allahabad inscription of Samudra Gupta mentions King Vishnugopa of Kanchi (Pallavas 4th to 9th c AD) who was defeated by Samudra Gupta and then liberated about the middle of the 4th c AD. The southern Pallavas are often linked with the North Western Pahalavas, though this is not conclusive, the spread of the Gupta language and culture South is evident through epigraphy and iconography.

The spread of Sanskrit South is first evidenced by the Talagunda stone pillar inscription of Kadamba Kakusthavarman ¹³ in the Shimoga District, Karnataka dated between 455 and 470 AD. It is written in late southern Brahmi inscribed in the reign of Santivarman (450 to 470 AD). It is a posthumous record of Kakusthavarman.

Sanskrit then spreads in the South evidenced by the inscriptions in early Grantha, dating from the 5th to 6th c. AD on copper plates and stone monuments from the kingdom of the Pallavas near Chennai (Madras). The Grantha alphabet, which belongs to the writing system of southern India, was developed in the 5th c. AD to mainly write Sanskrit. From the fifth century A.D. Sanskrit is seen to be the dominant language in the inscriptions, which indicates that Sanskrit was replacing the dialects.

As shown there is firm evidence for the Apostle Thomas in North India, and his martyrdom in the South is well accepted; also South India had excellent trade relations with the Roman Empire during the 1st c AD, which leads to cultural and religious exchanges. Thus early Indian Christianity developed both in the North and the South; the northern movement is often referred to as Vaishnavism and southern movement, Saivism. These Christian movements intersect around the 4th c AD and early Indian Christianity then developed as a mature religion of the Hindus.

Since the Christian thought was embedded with the language, the Dravidian South developed the Grantha script which belongs to the southern group of scripts. This and other evidences outlined by Dr Devakala highlight the keenness of the Dravidians to propagate early Indian Christianity.

Alex

http://appiusforum.net/

mavissiva@gmail.com.

@@@

From                                                                                        Ranikeht, July 30, 2001.

Swami Dayanand Bharati,

Ranikhet.

To

Prof. Daya Krishna,

Indian Council of Philosophical Research,

36 Tughlakabad Institutional Area,

Mehrauli Badarpur Road,

(Near Batra Hospital)

New Delhi –110 06.

Dear Sri Krishnaji

Greetings from Himalayas!

I am enjoying reading your book: Bhakti: A Contemporary Disucssuion.  Unlike other Dialogue books in which several papers read out by the participants are published from the seminars (“in which everyone reads the paper written before-hand to which nobody listens”—p. iv) this book of yours is not only different but unique one.  Thanks for your hard work behind the Seminar as well as publishing the book.

I never had read such a contemporary lively discussion on such a wonderful subject like Bhakti.  One can feel the presence of the participants while reading the book.  At present I am reading it and didn’t complete the book.  The main purpose of writing this letter is to seek your kind permission to quote in verbatim the Appendix I on pp. 254-55 in my book (Understanding Hinduism: from a lay man’s perspective) which, God willing may be published soon.

Now few comments.  As I didn’t complete the book the following words are not final.  Before you read further, I would like to give some information about me.  I am don’t have any academic discipline like you and other participants.  All my knowledge about Hinduism is based as other average lay person professing her/his faith than discussing about it.  I don’t know Sanskrit except few words which I learnt in my family bag round and some other readings.  Hindi is also not my mother tongue and I cannot follow a literary Hindi properly.  The following Content, Conclusion and Comments I am preparing to share with some of my Shishyas who do not have time to read such books:

Bhakti: A Contemporary Discussion (Philosophical Explorations In the Indian Bhakti Tradition), Edited by Daya Krishna, Mukund Lath & Francine E. Krishna, Indian Council of Philosophical Research 2000, New Delhi, 200.

Content, Conclusion and Comments by dayanand bharati (not for publication but only for private circulation).

            An interesting and an unique dialogue book, which at least starts a new tradition of not merely reading papers—“the type of seminar in which everyone reads the paper written before-hand to which nobody listens” (p.iv), but recording the actual dialogue, of course of the Philosophers, for the Philosopher and by the Philosophers.  The central theme of the Seminar is: “worth exploring further to find whether there was really an intellectual dimension of the Bhakti tradition in India which had not been paid any attention to until now.”(pp.i-ii.)  And the entire discussion by various scholars centres around this theme and the out come is this book.

            Following the typical tradition of philosophers, this seminar also starts with a puurvapaksa [former side] introduction by Prof. Daya Krishan which followed by questions, answers , long discussion based on several points, of course centred around the theme.  But the way one point leading to another, several times takes the discussion away from the particular point focussed in any one discussion.  However thanks to the summary presentation of the Chairperson Prof. Daya Krishna, who most of the time steer the discussion, if not helping the participants to follow his guide lines, but for us try to understand what all the Philosophers discussed.

            This doesn’t mean that anyone can easily understand what all discussed in this book.  Unless one knows minimum elementary knowledge of two languages, apart from English, viz., Hindi and Sanskrit she/he has to keep the book away can say, “thanks for all the Sanskrit words without giving any meaning for them.”  The problem doesn’t ends here.  In between the discussion a participant will share in Hindi and again without giving any translation.  But the worst part of the book is the typing of some English talk in Devahagari Script.  To help you to understand this unique form of publishing a book let me quote from page 22:

 (Prof. Dayakrishn—ai vant to kloj now faar lanch, bat before we kloj, an issue waz raizd)

Prof. Daya Krishna—I want to close now for lunch, but before we close, an issue was raised… (also see p. 21 for a mixture of English words in Hindi talk which is typed using Devanagari script)

Of course I need not mention about using of several English words even while talking in Hindi but again those words are typed in Devanagari script.  Those who can read Hindi (not much fluently) has to struggle to understand the English word typed in Devanagari script in Hindi transcriptions.  While they took all the trouble to transcribe all the talk from cassettes, they could have typed those English talks in Roman Script which are typed in Devanagari.  Ordinary people like us are not going to understand what all they discussed, as they used lots of philosophical technical terms in Sanskrit (like   ) without giving any meaning for them.  But those few isolated points which are useful could be understood by us, if they took some strain to give a glossary for important Sanskrit and Hindi words.  The problem not ends here.  Unless you keep an eye on the page numbers you will see the subject suddenly jumping without any continuity.  For example after page number 34 comes 83 and to read page 34-50 you have to go to 82 and come back to 51.  Naturally you have to come back to 34 to continue to read after 82.  Of course this is an one time error, may be the person who looked after the binding too was reading the book and carried away by the metaphysical talk, forget to concentrate in mundane affairs.

As some of us cannot read Devanagari script, I have typed them in Roman script.  And wherever possible, with my limited knowledge in Hindi, I gave my own translation.  But I am not attempting to do it for Sanskrit words or slokas or mantras.

Realizing the fact that no one can follow the theme in a coherent manner, thankfully at the end of the book they have given the summary of the issues raised in the discussion in pp. 254-5

And in the following pages I will try to give those answers which are discussed by various Philosophers in this seminar.  But before going for it, it is better to know the origin of the idea behind the seminar and Nirad C. Chaudhuri’s comments on Caitanya followers:

The idea of the seminar took shape and when Shri Shrivatsa showed enthusiasm for it and promised all his support, it seemed worth pursuing.  Who could have even thought that there were “intellectual” dimensions of the Bhakti tradition in India?  Wasn’t it a contradiction in terms?  But here was the Goswami himself belonging to the tradition of the great Caitanya willing to let the show be explored in all freedom at his own institution  in Vrindavan, the mythical embodiment of all that Bhakti symbolizes in this country.—Prof. Daya Krishna, p.ii

–note the following comments by Nirad C. Chaudhuri:

But weakening of this Vaishnavism also began quickly, almost with the death of Chaitanya.  For one thing, passion of the type as seen in Chaitanya who had a very abnormal type of sensibility, and as preached by him with all the ardour of that abnormality, could never last indefinitely.  Human nature cannot tolerate such a thing for a long time.  But the dogmatic turn that the movement took immediately after his death diluted the passion and made the love for Krishna as felt and preached by him still weaker.  This was a strange paradox, because his disciples took the very path in trying to create a philosophical dogma of Vaishnavism which the movement had vehemently denounced and totally rejected.  That was philosophizing about religion.

            …But when applied to a form of devotion like that of Chaitanya, which was wholly emotional, philosophizing made the message fall between two stools.  On the one hand, it froze the emotion and even ossified it, and, on the other, it could not create any valid intellectual system…– Hinduism a religion to live by Delhi, Oxford University Press, (1979), 1996, p.289

            The next reason for the weakness of Vaishnavism was its institutionalization.  A whole hierarchy of the Vaishnava cult as preached by Chaitanya was established.  It has been briefly described in a previous chapter.  This was also accomplished by the kind of monasticism which Vaishnavism introduced.  The maths and akharas with their mohants (abbots) created a social order with vested material interests.  Furthermore, there appeared in Bengal a special Vashnava caste.  All that tended to make the living faith of Chaitanya a structural extension of the static Hindu society.—ibid.  p290

Along with this the following one from Rambachan will help us to understand the bhakti movements in India:

The bhakti movements, however, failed to effect widespread changes in the beliefs and institutions of orthodox Hinduism.  Many reasons explain this failure.  Equality was an ideal of the religious and not the secular sphere.   While criticizing certain social practices, the movements offered no alternative program of social and economic reorganization, never, in fact, building the organizations to carry out positive social programs….  Most of the sects fostered an otherworldly attitude toward life.  Heimsath sees this as a result of their emphasis on mysticism: But it was not the primacy of spiritual concerns alone that caused the bhakti movements to fail in the transformation of social life; religious movements have been known to overturn social structures.  Most bhakti sects, like other Hindu religious movements, leaned towards mysticism, as a method of spiritual revelation, and this often encouraged a drawing away from worldly concerns.  Individual salvation, not the salvation of society or the group, was the reason for and the result of the religious quest through mysticism.–[the quote from C. H. Heimsath is from Indian Nationalism and Hindu Social Reform (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1964, p.37.)] Anantanand Rambachan, The Limits of Scripture: Vivekananda’s Reinterpretation of the Vedas, Sri Satguru Publications, A Division of Indian Books Centre, Delhi, 1995, p. 12

The above writing is my introduction and after completing the book, I will go for the Content, Conclusion and Comments. Before closing this I would like to put forth the following request:  Why not you open a Web Sight through which those who are interested in such discussion can also be benefited?  Considering the Information Technology available it will widen the scope for others to participate in such discussion?

Finally as a lay person can I ask you some personal questions:

How far one can build his faith and keep it alive centred around a mythological character?  Simply because thousands even millions of people since past several centuries believed and followed doesn’t make any sense to accept a mythological character as a historic person.  For example Sri Krishna may be a historical person, as far as concerned with his character and personality presented in Mahabharata minus Bhagavadgita.  Even Gandhiji told that he is worshipping only the Krishna of Gita and not of Mahabharata or Bhagavata:

I have no knowledge if that Krishna of Mahabharata ever lived.  My Krishna has nothing to do with any historical person.  I would refuse to bow my head to Krishna who would kill because his pride is hurt or Krishna whom the non-Hindus portray as a dissolute youth.  We should not mix up the historical Krishna of Mahabharata with the Krishna of Gita.– Gita My Mother, p. 32. Publisher, Year, ?

What the Puranas have done to promote such historical person like Krishna sounds mere exaggeration  to promote a particular (religious) ideology or to disseminate “main stream ideology and cultural traditions, targeting both the marginalised stratum within the varna fold as well as the tribal groups…” (Dr. Vijay Nath, Purana and Acculturation: A Historico-Anthropological Perspective, Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi, 2001, Preface, p.x).  Of course those who simply believe in given tradition won’t bother about these concerns.  But believing in using the mind (reason) which is also a gift by God, I would like to know your guidance in such matters. 

For me the character and personality of certain deities in the Puranas are mere “Make up personalities”.  Recently I read in The Times of India that some of the fans of Amitab Bacchan in Kolkata worshipped a wax statue of him on Guru Purnima.  All they know about the personality of Bacchan is mere “Make up Personality” projected and promoted by the dream world called cenima.  Did his devotees have any personal experience or information about the real Personality of Bacchan.  Now such a “Make up” personality may win thousands and millions of fans for Bacchan won’t make him a real guru or deity (soon his fans or devotees are going to built a temple for him).  If this being the truth in this 21^st century, how much more we can trust on several Purana characters who were promoted to the same level?

Another question:

Prof. Dwivediji quote from Sowdaryalahari, “You remember Sankara’s statement: Siva saktyaa yuktoo; yadi bhavati saktya prabhavitum…”(p.20)

But several scholars do not accept this Sowndaryalahari from which Prof. Dwivedi quotes as the authentic work of Sankara.  I also somewhere read that more than 400 works were attributed to Sri Sankara while without going for deep critical analysis we can believe that all those works are not by Sankara.  What is your comment.  The following one I give from Olivelle who says, “I will limit myself to the six works regarding whose authenticity there appears to be a scholarly consensus.  They are Samkara commentaries on the Vedaantasuutras, the Bhagavad Gita, and three Upanisads—Brhadaaranyaka, Chaandogya, and Taiitiriiya—and his independent treatise Upadesasaahasrii,.   See Paul Hacker’s (1978) contributions on Samkara: Nakamura 1983” (Patrick Olivelle, The Aasrama system: The History and Hermeneutics of a Religious Institution, New York, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 224).  Simply we cannot use the word “Tradition” here also by saying, “at least the followers of Sankara’s tradition believes in all such works by Shankara,” I hope.

Thanks for your contribution to the Seminar.  Several times I could manage to understand some part of others discussion because of your summary presentation of each session.  I was completely taken back on your words which is true that, “The utter neglect in this country of not only our traditional thinkers but of our recent thinkers is appalling.  I cannot really find a word to express my indignation, anger and surprise at the fact that even the works that have been done in India since the 19^th century onwards have not been paid attention to by subsequent thinkers… Somehow, everyone goes on writing about Sankara; everybody goes on translating the bhaasyas and the vaartikas and the tiikaas; everybody goes on doing it as if nobody has done it before.  You have to build on what other people have done and carry it forward.  This is the only way a tradition is made.” (p.175)

I wish and pray that your valuable contribution to the philosophical tradition of India should not go unheeded like that Prof. K.C. Bhattacharya’s .  May bhagavan give you long life and good health to keep alive a living tradition by keeping our relationship with the past based on a “critical, appreciative and creative” (p.4) attitude and outlook.

I am a wandering man without having a permanent place to live.  However I keep a permanent postal address in South India (Swami Dayanand Bharati, 7-9, V.O.C. Street, Suprampatti, ERODE-638 009, Tamilnadu) or you can contact me through this e-mail address: dayanand_bharati@hotmail.com

Thanks for giving your valuable time to read such a long letter.  I wait eagerly for your valuable response.  I will appreciate if you could give me your consent to quote the appendix I (if at all my editor agrees for such a long quote in the book) before August end.  You can send your letter to the following address as I will be here till August end: Swami Dayanand Bharati, C/o Avon Cottage, The Mall, Ranikhet, Uttaranchal—263 645.

Yours truly,

Dayanand bharati.

@@@

With Ramesh

On my way from Delhi to Chennai on October 31^st  (in Tamilnadu Express) I met Sri Ramesh.  He is around 60 years old and the former Director of TM (Maharishi Mahesh ) school of Chennai and Bangalore.  At first in his introduction he explained in length, how Maharish has founded the school of Management based on Vedic principles and how he was much attracted to his teachings and principles after listening his cassettes and reading book.  He was the founding director of the schools at Chennai and Bangalore etc.  While he was sharing, contradictory to my nature I listened patiently without interfering (though often was tempted to do so).  Then I started my talk.

At first I asked him, why these days I am not much hearing about the Management school of Maharishi about which much advertisements and publicity were coming few years before.  For this Ramesh said, ‘that is the sad thing.  What all his aims and principles based on Veda could not be comprehended by most of the members of his movement and followers.  Above all those who later joined such schools as teachers and staffs become money minded and this worldly and gradually such institutes lost their popularity and initial attractiveness.  That is why I my self have left those institutes.  Some institutes have affiliated with the govt. Universities and lots of competetion for power and authority slowly creaped in because of money and power attached with it.  Few schools were already closed.  In others there are problems.  The Delhi TM Institutes alone has 2000 achers of land with it.

Then I said, ‘for me the success of a guru and particularly of his teaching is proved not how many shiyas he made or how well established his ashram or matt (Institute).  It depends not even how much his immediate shishyas were influenced by his teachings and their life changed.  But it should be always measured how his immediate shiyas could successfully passed his teachings to others whom never has seen their guru in person.  In general the validity of the teachings and life of a guru should be accepted authentic only based on how much teaching is universal and how many peoples life where actually changed.  Because most of the time the immediate shiyas of a guru have some kind of emotional attachment with their guru (which is not in any way wrong).  But once the guru disappeared from the scene, gradually that emotional attachment disappears.  And those who have comprehended their guru’s teaching properly and allowed his personal life and teaching to change their life alone can successfully alone can make other follower for their guru.  But in the recent past most of the modern gurus and Swamies who either went to the West or attracted lots of Westerners followed them based on the emotion.  That is why there was a big exodus of gurus and Swamies from India to abroad and they were once remain very popular.  But once such gurus passed away and their followers’ emotional need were met by other means, their movement also gradually came to an end.  Of course they left some pocket of followers and some ashrams (Institutes) for some to make a nice living on it, but the life and the teaching of such gurus’ could not bring permanent and ongoing influence among the people.

Ramesh:  This is an universal problem.  We have to accept with the fact that the original teachings and principles were diluted in the course of the time and this happened with most of the gurus.

DB:  That is true.  The recent two best examples are Gandhi (in secular world) and Swami Vivekananda in (spiritual world).  Gandhiism died along with him on January 31 1948.  Vivekananda never strictly followed or implemented his guru’s teaching in his (Ramakrishna) Mission and the present followers of Swamiji cannot claim that they are strictly implementing his principles through his mission.  The main reason for this, according to my understanding is that the gurus instead of giving some normative values and principles based on Scripture challenged their followers emotionally.  As we saw above once the gurus disappeared the emotional challenges also disappeared.  And in order to keep the movement keep alive their followers have to find out other emotional issues or involved with contemporary issues which may keep them busy (emotionally) giving some rationalistic interpretation to their guru’s teachings making it universal to the contemporary need.  Take for example of Maharishi.  You said that his management principles are based on Vedic principles.  But did you ever attempted to read and understand the Veda?  Or did Maharishi ever encouraged his followers to go to the source (Veda) to understand his teachings properly?

Ramesh:  No.  Here alone I have done the mistake.  I never read the Veda.

DB:  This is not only your problem. Most of the modern gurus claim that their teachings are based on the Scripture.  But they never want their followers to read and understand the scripture on its face value.  Some time they don’t want their followers to understand the scripture as it will challenge their teaching.  They try to keep the understanding of their followers based on his interpretation of the scripture with some sentimental attachment with his personality.  That is why in my teachings to my shiyas I again and again request them to go back to the Scripture and often warn them on their emotional attachment towards me.  In our country we have the tradition not to challenge the authority of the guru and accept his teachings as it is even if we know that his interpretation of the scripture is wrong.  Because few thinking followers may know that the teachings of their guru is not strictly based on the scripture with which he refer.  Yet they take his teaching as authentic thinking that only with a purpose and for their benefit their guru gave such interpretation.

Then I explained how Sanjai whom I met at Sat-tal ashram even after realizing that Alu baba gave him one day some drug to consume took it as a test by his guru to know his growth in spirituality.  How Sankara was not remain faithful in interpreting Scriptures (I pointed out from Gita) but how it was explained away by his followers.  (Interestingly some of Sankara’s immediately disciples didn’t completely agree with his interpretation of the Veda).  For this Ramesh pointed out how even the present Sankaracharyas have two levels of teaching one for common flock who cannot raise up to their level and another for elite people.  And I said that this is called ‘paramartika’ and ‘vyavakarika’, the former for their personal spiritual life and later for the public.

@@@