“happy christmas”

i m waiting for ur mail n plz say some words abt jesus christ ok.

ashish rewwa m.p.

Dear Ashish,

Shanti!

Nice to hear from you after long time.  Thanks for the greetings.  I wish you too a Meaningful New Year!

In every religious communities, what the gurus and acharyas have said and done is soon replaced by ritual.  Instead of following the teaching and implementing in their life, the followers most of the time, make the guru as god and making him/her even an avatara of certain deity and create lots of rituals to ‘worship’ him/her.  No guru expects that his followers should merely ‘worship’ him, but remain sincere and faithful shishyas.

This is what happened with Jesus also.  The very word Jesus means ‘one who gives salvation’.  But the salvation which he promises is not merely some place in a heaven after death, but ‘mukti’ literarily ‘delivery’ from so many worries and entanglements here on earth itself first.  That’s why I too call him ‘Muktinath’ and not by his anglized name ‘Jesus’.

This ‘mukti’ or deliverance that he came to give is not limited to any one particular social (like Jews) or religious (like Christians) communities, but to the entire humanity.  Of course he too has to begin from somewhere and naturally, as every great guru begins, he began his seva first among his own people (Jews).  But as it always happen to most of the gurus, he too was soon rejected by his own people (Jews) whereas simple and suppressed people of his time (and that of his immediate disciples also) received this message of ‘deliverance’ (mukti) with sincere heart and firm faith.

As it happens to every new spiritual movement, this movement which began in the early time, gradually degenerated and took the form of a religion now known as ‘Christianity’ and Christmas now become their commercial religious festival.  Of course I am not generalizing as there are always exceptional minority in every religious community, who faithfully follow the teaching of their guru.

So, for me Muktinath is the greatest spiritual guru who came to give deliverance to people on several areas and try to form a spiritual community to inspire them to faithfully follow his teaching.  This community is united in spirit but in not forms.  Each member of this spiritual community has the freedom to follow his teaching and also to worship him (not merely as god with lots of rituals) mainly by following his teaching to keep their cultural and social values which are not opposing his teachings.

Whatever may be the controversy regarding his birth, life, death etc. no one can deny the fact that his seva and teaching brought a great change in the whole world and in this sense he stands unique.

Well rest after hearing from you.

Swamiji

@@@

Like the prevailing various theories about Ariyan’s invasion or penetration in India, the anti-Buddhists and Jains’ persecution by Brahminical hegemony raised various theories.*  Particularly while the religious tolerance and non-violence attributed to Hinduism is challenged by some scholars, it was critically disposed as Marxist-inspired propaganda@ by some other scholars having other extreme ideology [like that of Hindutva].  And in this paper, ‘Religions, Rituals, and the Heaviness of Indian History’ G. Verardi, [ANNALI, Volume 56, Eascicolo 2, Napoli 1996, Istituto Universitario Orientale. [University of Pennsyivania Library, March 5, 1998, Periodicals.] [pp.215-253] giving various textual and iconography  proofs, attempts to prove that:

               …modern Brahmanism, which for a long time has been engaged in a “cultural” and “national” recovery of Buddhism, supporting the idea of its contiguity with the orthodox tradition.  Recovery, that is, by weakening.  This was the position of….many other scholars, even the more lay and sceptical, who, very often being unaware, moved and are moving within the Brahmanic model of interpretation of the history of ancient India.  The Brahmanic religion, for which the concept of truth is certainly not marginal as in most sectors of modern epistemology, but central, and centred in the Veda, did not historically tolerate the existence of alternative systems to its own.  The idea of the decadence of Buddhism in India for internal reasons, and of its “reabsorption” into the Vedic—“Hindu” system from which it originated, is false, and is functional in strengthening the power of hegemonic type of the Brahmans and of the Brahmanic ideology which took shape at the end of the last century and has quickened after Indian independence.  The numerous histories of India that have followed one another in this century are generally mystifying in this regard and more so as we approach modern times.—p.222 [p.8]—ibid.

*The idea of a “tolerant’ India in the politico-religious field is still so widespread, despite the continual proof to the contrary, that even the brighter and more critical western scholars are at a loss to evaluate the question.  Only Thapar (1987:15; [Thapar, R.  Cultural Transaction and Early India: Tradition and Patronage, New Delhi]) has clearly stated that the religious tolerance and non-vilence attributed to Hinduism is not borne out by evidence, maintaining that the persecution against the Buddhists and Jains is “a major historical problem which requires detailed investigation” (ib.:18) –p.228 [p.14]—ibid

@ That the Muslims represent an intolerable vulnus to the Brahmans is naturally explicit in fundamentalist milieus.  K. Elst (1991[Ayodhya and After.  Issues before Hindu Society.  New Delhi]), a convert, circumstantially attacks any pretence at legitimacy of their presence in India.  It is significant how he also denies the existence of anti-Buddhist persecutions: “in the case of their purely concocted grand theory of pre-Muslim persecution of Buddhism by Hindus, we see our leftist historians throw all standards of source criticism to the wind” (p.87); Brahmin oppression, Buddhism as a social reform movement the Buddhist-Brahmin power struggle are all “myths” (cf.p.116); but “Once this Marxist-inspired myth of Buddhism and Jainism as social reform movements gets debunked, the authority of those who publicly identify with this myth will also be questioned” (ib.).  A large number of publications have been available in India for a long time which have been ignored by Western scholars, mostly of lay training and unwilling to take them into consideration.  They are fed by inexistent issues but involve a (comparatively) large part of the intelligentsia….—notes, 18, p. 228, [p.14]

REPLY: thank u swamiji. the subject is deep. both probramin n leftist writers have prefixed opinions to some extent. yet, fact remains that braminism engulfed Buddism by infusing Gopdliness to agnostic Buddah.untrue that bramins were tolerent.[exceptions there ] now, tamil nationalism n culturalism are to be recovered from bramins. – with love in Christ, anbalagan
 

@@@

Respected Sri Badrinathji,                                                                  Hosur, February 26, 2002.

Namaskar!

I want to thank you for your wonderful books : ‘Dharma, India and the World Order’ and ‘Finding Jesus in Dharma’.  With much regret I have to tell you that I got hold of your book only recently though it was published around ten years before.  Your scholarly research as well as analysing the facts in a systematic way opened my eyes on my own perception about me as an Indian.  It is a shame to tell that such a person like you is not widely known among the common people of India.  I wish and pray that all your writings should available to the common people of India to change their own misunderstanding about them as you have well concluded your book by asking the question: ‘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?

To give a small introduction about myself, I am interested in reading book, particularly related to Indology.  Though I am a Sannyasi, yet when it comes to the academic exercise I am only a lay man and do not hold much disciplined academic training in that art.  From the teen age I am reading a lot and often taking notes from the books which I have read.  Without much training and guidance I developed my own way of reading and analysing the subjects within my own limited knowledge.  Above all as my knowledge on English is very limited I several time struggled to understand the subject in their original context.  I read some of our Indian scriptures, again with the personal limitation of not knowing the languages in which they are written.  Of course being a Tamilian I read some of the Tamil scriptures in their Original form.  Regarding other scriptures I mostly read them from their English translations.  I also have very limited knowledge both on Hindi and Sanskrit (all that I know in Sanskrit is learnt from my family background orally).  However you book(s) helped me to approach all our perceptions in the right direction.

To be honest with you, I have to tell more about me.  I born in a Tamil Brahmin family.  As I was more interested in spiritual understanding of life (adhyatmic), after working as a sales man in a Medial Distributing Agency, left my job and become a Sannyasi.  Here also I become a sannyasi of my own way—not initiated in that order by any other sannyasi but on my own.  In my search for spiritual understanding of life, I found the teaching of Jesus Christ more humanistic, down to the earth and very simply.  Attracted by His teaching and Person, I become His bhakta.  But I never liked or believed in the concept of ‘conversion’ and so I still remain as a Hindu Christ Bhakta and never as a Christian in any form.  It is a long story to tell all about my struggle with Indian Christians (note the word ‘Indian’ please).  After learning through several mistakes and personal experience I feel that I am under an obligation to share my views to fellow lay people like me.  To tell the truth I am not a writer, though I have a strong inclination to write what I think.

In this process I first wrote a book: ‘Living Water and Indian Bowl’, published by ISPCK (1997, revised edition 2001).  Now I am attempting to write another book: ‘Understanding Hinduism’.  I have almost completed this book.  After completing this book alone I come across your excellent book.  However I thank God that I didn’t published it so far.  Now I am going to revise the book again adding several points from your book to give some scholarly authentic argument to prove my point that Hinduism is not a Religion but only a Dharma.  I wrote this book almost four years before and due to several reasons I couldn’t prepare the final manuscript so far.  Now I am happy that I can prove several of my points from your scholarly research and analysis.  Without referring and quoting you my book will always remain incomplete one.

I am not sure whether you will have some time to read and give your valuable comments, criticism and suggestion to this book before I prepare the final manuscript.  I know a scholar like you won’t have that much time to read and give your comments on such a lay man’s work.  However I don’t want to give up my hope and that’s why I am writing this letter to you.  If you are interested please let me know so that I can send the manuscript to you as soon as I complete the revision.

One more request:  Would you please give your kind permission for me to include ‘Some Main Conclusions’ from your book (pp.328-339) as an appendix in my book.  Because I feel that, as I cannot genuinely quote all your major points from the book in the text of my book, the Conclusion that you have give will encourage the reader to read your book completely.  One more reason for this request is that considering my limitation, as I don’t want to misinterpret or to give a wrong perception of your analysis on various points, this appendix will help the reader to understand you as you are—by your own words.  By giving your kind permission you will also help several lay people to have right understanding about them.

A final request.  Why not you translate your book in Hindi to reach a wider audience?  I also wish and pray that your book should be translated in most of the regional language of India.  God willing and if you give permission I may attempt to translate it in Tamil.  But I wish some other Tamil scholar like you should attempt this.  Here I close hoping to receive some kind of favourable response from you.

Sarve bhavantu sukinaha

Yours truly in upholding dharma

Swami Dayanand Bharati

7-9, V.O.C. Street, Surampatti, ERODE-638 009, Tamilnadu.

Note my email address: dayanand_bharati@hotmail.com

NB. Though I completely agree with you on most of the points, yet I have few doubts on some issues.  I would like to discuss about them with you, once I hear from you.

@@@

                                             Brahmin learning Veda from a Sudra

I always criticize my mother for wasting her time by watching all the (mega) serials.  But when Sri. Cho Ramaswami’s ‘Yenge Brahmanan’ (where is Brahman) was started in Jaya T.V., I was the first to sit and watch it from the beginning.  I am a fan of Cho.  I agree with most of his views on politics, though I have my own reservation about his interpretation on Hinduism.  I like his strong conviction—he will never changes his views, once he thinks that he is right, however others disagree with them.  That is why, when he began his mega project of writing on Hinduism (Hindu maha samudiram=The Great ocean of Hinduism), I never read it, because as a student of Hinduism I am not going to agree with some of his views on Hinduism.  And I know for sure that he too writes, not expecting every one to agree with him.

               However, in yesterday’s (February 4^th, 2009) part of ‘Yenge Brahmanan’ at the end, when Cho gave his explanation of Brahmin’s learning Veda even from Sudra (when no other three high caste teacher is not available) and thereby proving that even Sudras also learnt Veda, otherwise how a Brahmin could learnt from him, bit surprised me.  In way of explaining the reason for Brahmin alone is allowed to learn and teach Veda (Ksatriyas and Vaisyas too were allowed to learn) he pointed out the high moral standard is expected from (such Vedic) Brahmins.  But for me, this too is only an ideal and never implemented strictly in life.  However defending the point of allowing  Brahmins to learn Veda from a Sudra, he said (I think, as I couldn’t record the serial, I cannot refer it back, but could share only from my memory) that Manu also allow a Brahmin to learn Veda from a Sudra.

               I read Manu and I am not sure whether Manu ever made such a provision in his Code of Low.  What Manu says is:

A man with faith should accept fine learning even from a low-caste man; the highest Law [dharma] even from a man of the lowest caste; and a splendid woman even from a bad family (2:238)…..In a time of adversity, the rules allow a man to study the Veda under a person who is not a Brahmin; and, as long as he is studying, he should walk after that teacher and serve him obediently.  If he desires to attain the highest state, a pupil should not live all his life with a teacher who is not a Brahmin or who is a Brahmin but not a vedic scholar. (2:241-42) [ Patrick Olivelle, Manu’s Cod of Law: A Critical Edition and Translation of the Manava-Dharmasastra, New Delhi, Oxford, 2006, p. 107]

               Cho, interpreting ‘serve him obediently’ says that a Brahmin, learning Veda from a Sudra teacher should do all kinds of service to his guru.  However, Manu never wrote his treaty independently without keeping in mind the tradition as well as other Dharmasastra works.  Regarding the point of ‘obediently serving’ Prof. P. V. Kane, an undisputed authority on Dharmasastra writes:

In the absence of a Brahmin teacher, a ‘Brahmin may learn from a Kshatriya or Vaisya, but the only service (which as a pupil) he should render to a Kshtriya or Vaisya teacher is to go after him (and not shampooing his feet etc.) and after the Brahmin finishes his study, the Brahmin may go in front (of his Kshatriya teacher).’—History of Dharmasastra, Pune, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1973, Vol.II. Part.I.Ch.III. Teaching the Veda, p.108.

Endorsing this Gonda quoting Apatsamba Dharmasastra says:

…It is true that the texts now and then refer to a Ksatriya teacher or philosopher (e.g. Satapata Brahmana 8,1,4,10; 11,6,2,1ff.), but ApDhS. 2,2,4,25ff. lays down that the brahman alone can be the teacher (aacaaryah); only in an emergency (i.e. in the event of absence of a Brahman) may a member of the first order learn from a Ksatriya or Vaisya; after finishing his study he may however walk in front of his ksatriya teacher.— J. Gonda, Change and Continuity in Indian Religion, Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi, (1965) 1985,  p.231

A Person like Sri Cho Ramaswami earned his respect and position as a writer with a big followers to him (including me).  But he should be very careful while making such statement that even a Brahmin could learn from a Sudra and that time he should render all the services to his Sudra teacher as his pupil.  If he says this claiming his own ‘authority’, then no one will question it, but when he refers Manu (or any other Dharmasastras), then he should be very careful.

               I know that Cho won’t accept my comments and would say, ‘as there are so many manuscript of Manu, what these (scholarly) writers like Kane, Jan Gonda, Olivelle might not have read all of them.  But anyone who read Olivelle’s recent book: Manu’s Cod of Law: A Critical Edition and Translation of the Manava-Dharmasastra, [Patrick Olivelle,  New Delhi, Oxford, 2006] could accept such explanation, as he collected and refereed so many manuscripts to write this book.  The fact is that a Brahmin could never learn Veda from a Sudra, because, ‘….there can be no study of the Veda by a Sudra, for study of the Veda presupposes investiture with the sacred thread, which is restricted to the three castes.(UMS I.3.34)’[ Theology after Vedanta, An Experiment in Comparative Theology, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1993, p.138.] Of course Cho could quote some exception like Badari and other Srauta sutra (see the notes), but exception can never reflect the common practice. 

The main purpose for sharing my view is neither to uphold the superiority of Brahmins or to look down Sudras.  But as a student of Hinduism, I expect all of us remain true to the text, in stead of imposing our own interpretation on the scriptures.  I gave few more points in the notes on this subject.

Dayanand Bharati

Gurukulam, February 5, 2009.

Notes

…Gaut.XII.4 went so far as to prescribe ‘if the sudra intentionally listens for committing to memory the Veda, then his ears should be filled with [molten] lead and lac; if he utters the Veda, then his tongue may be cut off; if he has mastered the Veda his body should be hacked’…The Sudrakamalakara [pp.13-14] cites several passages from the puranas [p.155] to the effect that the sudra could not study the smrtis and puranas by himself.  Even Manu II.16 seems to suggest that only the dvijatis had the privilege to listen to the Manusmrti [and not sudras].  The only privilege conceded by the Sudrakamalakara to the sudra is that he can acquire knowledge by listening to the puranas read by a brahmana [p.17]; the Kalpataru and other works allowed the Sudra to read and repeat Purana mantras…It is however interesting to note that at least one ancient teacher (Badari) was found who advocated that [p.156] even Sudras could perform Vedic sacrifices.  The Bharadvaja Srauta sutra [V.2.8] states the opinion of some that the Sudra can consecrate the three sacred Vedic fires.  The Katyayanasrautasutra [I.4.5] prescribes that all can perform Vedic rites except those who are deficient in a limb, who are not learned in the Veda, who are impotent and Sudras;… –Kane, Vol.II. Part.I. Ch.III. Sudra not allowed to study Veda pp.155-57.

               Sankara presents a simple, stark version of the Mimamsa argument that Sudras are to be excluded, simply because the Veda excludes them:

The Sudra has no competence, since he cannot study the Veda; for one becomes competent regarding things spoken of in the Vedas after one has studied the Vedas and known these things from them.  But there can be no study of the Veda by a Sudra, for study of the Veda presupposes investiture with the sacred thread, which is restricted to the three castes.(UMS I.3.34)—Clooney, op. cit. p.138

…Drawing on several Mimamsa siddhantas as examples, Vacaspati’s purvapaksin argues that the intelligent appropriation of texts can have the desired result, even if none is explicitly mentioned.  It should therefore be recognized as a practice distinct from ritually—and caste-inscribed approved study, and even if Sudras are deprived of the right to the approved form of study, the intelligent practice of reading will still be available to them…

Moreover

Proper study is possible only for him who has been prepared by investiture, and this person can come only from among the twice-born.  Without investiture, that proper preparation (p.140) which constitutes proper study cannot occur; therefore that understanding which Sudras get by studying books, etc., cannot be fruitful.  It is therefore proven that because the Sudra lacks the scripturally authorized capacity, he is not competent for meditation on Brahman.

Though intending a universally pertinent domain, Brahman, salvific knowledge is nevertheless mediated by the Text, and access to the Text is mediated by the approved set of Textually articulated preparations and refinements.  As in the Miçmamsa argument, the exclusion of the Sudra is argued entirely in terms of an argument about the Veda; nothing is said about the natural abilities of the Sudra, nor about knowledge “in itself”—ibid. pp.139-40

@@@

                                    Building the Bridge

In a recent talk with Chakaravarti at his home in Bangalore on 9th February 2003, we talked about building the bridge between the gospel and Hindu world(views).  The context in which we talked is the Purusha (sukta) of Rigveda, who is a Proto-cosmic man, who in later part of the Veda (Upanishads) is related to the Atman.  This Purusha, then in (Sankhya) philosophy becomes the main person seeking mukti as well as the source of mukti; separating purusha from prakrti in Sankhya, he is again promoted to personal deity in sectarian scriptures as well as in Gita as Vishnu, or as Siva (in fact this could be traced back in some Upanishads like Svethasvatara Upanishad).[1] Though we may try to put these development in a chronological
way, yet we must keep in mind that while some later Samhita and Brahmana portions were still emerging, early and later Upanishads and Aranyakas as well as the Gita and other (sectarian) scriptures were also simultaneously emerging.  So to systemize any theological and doctrinal concept in a neat chronological fashion for our own purpose (and convenience) is not proper.
(However it can help us to remember the theological and doctrinal aspects in an over-simplified way.)

But the main point of our discussion was not about systematic theology but how to relate these points with Jesus and the Bible.  Then I pointed out all the wrong interpretations of texts which are often quoted out of context. “Then there is no chance for us to refer anything from Hindu scriptures and worldviews to our Lord.  I agree with you about digging out any hidden Christ in Vedas and other Hindu scriptures.  But what of the concept of Purusha of the Veda and other developments helping us to relate to Jesus as that cosmic Purush (which is mentioned by John in his gospel in the preamble)? Christian “fulfillmentalism”, particularly that related to Hinduism, should be avoided not only to uphold the uniqueness of Christ but also to show respect to the Other’s scriptures;” this was Chakaravarti’s question (these are not his exact words, but I
restated his words and thought for my convenience so as to answer his questions).

For me, selectively quoting of not only the Other’s scriptures but even the writings of great saints and teachers (most often being abused is Swami Vivekananda’s sayings about Jesus), to bend and twist them for our purposes, is wrong.  In Bryant’s words, “not as a source of authority to be exploited…” [2]   If Christ is ‘unique’ for us, so is this the case with every deity of every
sect and religion.  If the Bible is the Word of God for us, so are the scriptures of each sect.  So we should be careful not to ‘torture’ the other’s scriptures and writings for our (limited) purposes.  However, this doesn’t mean that we should not read or use other’s scriptures in any talk, dialogue and writings.

The best way to develop any bridge between the Bible and other faiths is not to start from God but from man.  So I always start from man, his need, longing, questions; all related to God, world and himself.  To say in a oversimplified way: this is the foundation of every theology.  If we imagine a pyramid, then either God or world or man could be the bottom line to which the other two lines are related.  And in this the main endeavor of theology is to trace out the mutual relation of these three.  However there is not only uniformity but also unity on this point between the sects or faiths in this world.  Even within a sect the same accepted minimum common doctrine is understood and interpreted in various ways.  This being the truth, the best way to deal with such pluralism of human understanding is not from God but from man, as we are the source of such pluralism (God being one, there cannot be any pluralism related to Him but only in our understanding of Him).  This doesn’t mean that we can completely avoid any comparison or reference related to God(-head).  For example, doctrines like grace, love (of God), forgiveness, etc., are inevitable doctrinal aspects even if we try to begin with man.  However, we can better
understand and relate to them in our efforts to build bridges to the other’s faith, if we begin from man – his need, longing, limitation and efforts to understand and relate to God and the world.

And if we begin to learn from the other’s scriptures related to human being in the above terms, we can make a good beginning for building bridges to the other’s faith.  Of course, even when we begin with man, finally when it comes to God and the world all kinds of doctrinal differences arise
(such as what is the relationship between atman and Brahman, Brahman and the world, etc.).  But to begin from God and world (creation) will not even help us to make progress in an initial step.  In this process, understanding a Hindu is much more important than understanding “Hinduism” as a religion.  Of course, for this purpose also finally we have to understand several (theoretical) aspects of Hinduism.  However, they should not be the starting point to build a bridge.

Dayanand Bharati, Mathigiri, February 16, 2003.

Notes

1.    The term purusa was very soon to designate empirical man, but in the  collection of hymns which contains the ‘Hymn to the Purusa’, man is designated in other ways and the term purusa only appears in the context of this cosmogony.  It rather means ‘the Male’, but at the same time the description of the parts of his body, which is divided up in the sacrifice to give rise to animate beings, starting with the four human varnas, shows that this Male has human form..(p.24) ..’Purusa” and “Brahman’ appear in the Upanisads as two names of the Absolute sought by the ‘renouncers’. (p.25)
…In another vein, in Purusa, in accordance with the semi-anthropomorphic concept Hindus have of him, is given another name, a name which moreover points to later developments in classical Hinduism.  In the Katha Upanisad, he is Visnu; in the Svetaasvatara Upanisad, he is Siva. (p.28_–Madeleine Biardeau, (tr. by Richard Nice) Hinduism The Anthropology of a Civilization , New Delhi, Oxford,  Sixth impression (1981)2002 , –pp. 24,25 & 28

2. Edwin Bryant , The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate.; Oxford University Press (2001) 2002 Indian edition, p. 309

Bede Griuffiths, A New Vision of Reality: Western Science, Eastern Mysticism and Christian Faith, New Delhi, HarperCollins, (1989), 1992, second Impression.

7. The Cosmic Person in Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam.

               Starting with Hinduism we begin with the famous Purusha Shukta in the Rig Veda.  The passage speaks of the cosmic Man or cosmic Person in whom the whole world is to be found.  It says, “This purusha is all that has been and all that will be, the Lord of immortality.”  Purusha literally means “man” and here it is the primeval Person, the primordial Man, in whom the whole creation exists.  “So mighty is his greatness, nay, greater than this is Purusha.  All creatures are one-fourth of him; three-fourths are ternal in heaven.” (Rig 10:90) The imnage is a little crude but its meaning is clear.  He is immanent one-fourth in this whole creation, while he is three-fourths transcendent beyond.  That is the figure of the cosmic Man who both manifests in the creation but also totally transcends. It.

               Then there is the very interesting concept that this purusha, (p.128) this cosmic Person, was sacrificed at the beginning of the world.  “The gods prepared the sacrifice with the purusha as their offering”.(Rig. 10:90)  So the primeval man is sacrificed and the world comes into being through the sacrifice of this purusha.  The whole creation comes forth from him and from him human beings also arise.  In the Hindu tradition the four varnas or classes of men, come forth from the purusha and form the “limbs” of the primordial man.  The brahmins come from his mouth, the kshatrias or ruling class, from his arms, the vaisyas or merchants and farmers from his things and the shudras or workers from his feet.  That was the basis of the caste system in India and its being thought tohave come forth from primordial man in the beginning indicates that these functions belong to the fundamental structure of human society.  Further, the belief in Hinduism that the cosmic man was sacrificed at the beginning of the world links the Hindu tradition in this respect to the Christian concept in the Apocalypse of St John, of “the lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world”. (Rev. 13:8)

               At the next stage the cosmic Person appears in the Upanishads.  In the earliest of these, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, it is said. “In the beginning this was the Atman in the form of Purusha.”(Brh.Up. 1:4:1)  This means that this whole creation was originally the atman, the Spirit, in the form of the cosmic Person.  So the whole universe, matter, life and man, all forms one original Person, the macrocosm.  Within this the human person is the microcosm, the small form of the macrocosm.  This concept of the Spirit in the shape and form of a person undergoes a continuous development.  The text goes on to speak of this person as “the person of light, consisting of knowledge.”(Brh. Up. 4:3:7)  This means that this being is conscious, or rather is consciousness.  There is achit, the unconscious universe, and chit, consciousness.  The cosmic Person integrates achit and chit, for he is the conscious being in whom the unconscious and conscious are held together (129) in unity.  In the Katha Upanishad, as we have seen, the purusha is mentioned as the summit of all creation and there is a path of ascent to purusha.  Beginning with the world of the senses and with outer objects you move to the manas, the world of the mind.  This is the level of rational consciousness.  Then you move to the level of the buddhi, or intellect, which transcends the ordinary mind and the reason.  From the buddhi you ascend to the mahat which is the cosmic order, the level of the gods and the angels.  Next you go to the avyakta, the unmanifest, the “ground” of creation; and then the text says, “Beyond the Avyakta is Purusha; beyond Purusha there is nothing.”(Katha U. 3:11)  So the understanding is that the cosmic Person is the Supreme Being in the universe and it is he who gathers the whole universe into unity.

               In the Sankhya doctrine which emerged at this time, after the Upanishads, the universe is conceived in terms of purusha and prakriti.  These are two complementary principles where purusha is spirit, consciousness or person, and prakriti is nature from which all the world emerges.  In the Svetasvatara Upanishad, which is one of the late Upanishads dated at about 300 BC, the doctrine of the purusha is fully developed.  Here we se the emergence of this cosmic Person as the cosmic Lord.  The personal God is clearly revealed. For instance, the text says, “Those who know beyond this world the high Brahman, the vast (the brihad), hidden in the bodies of all creatures and alone enveloping everything, as the Lord, they become immorta.”(Svet. Up. 3:7)  The “supreme Brahman” is the name for absolute reality and this text is saying that this absolute or ultimate reality is in the midst of everything and envelops everything and that he is the Lord.  He is not only the impersonal brahman but also the personal God.  In this way the idea of the personal God emerges.  The text continues, “That person, that Purusha, is the great Lord.”  The word “Lord” here is the same as the Kurios in Greek and the Adonai of the Old testament, and is the one who (p.130)  rules the universe.  He is the great Lord, “the mover of existence.  He possesses the purest power of reaching everything.  He is light; he is undecaying.”  It goes on, “He dwells in the heart of all, that Purusha not larger than the thumb, dwelling within, always dwelling in the heart of man.  He is perceived by the heart, the thought, the mind.”(Svet. Up. 3:11,13)  So this supreme Person transcends everything, and at the same time is immanent in everything and dwells in the heart of each person.  Each person is a person in that great Person.  In the next chapter of the Svetasvatara Upanishad it says, “He is the creator and supporter of the gods, the great seer, the Lord of all.”  The gods are the cosmic powers and they also all derive from the supreme Person, whom they manifest.  It goes on, “He transcends all understanding.  No one has grasped him above, or across, or in the midst.  There is no image of him, whose name is great glory.”(Svet. Up. 4:19)  Saying that there is no image of him means that he always transcends both one’s thinking and any attempt one might make to imagine him.  God is known as unknown because he transcends all human understanding.

               Finally, in the last book of this Upanishad it says, “Let us know that highest Lord of Lords, that highest God of Gods, the ruler of rulers, the highest above, the Lord of the world, the adorable.”(Svet. Up. 6:7)  At this point Hinduism reaches pure monotheism comparable with that of the second Isaiah in the Old Testament.  This cosmic Person is clearly the object of worship, the one to be adored, and yet he dwells in the heart of all.  He is both transcendent and immanent.  This then is the figure of the cosmic person, the great purusha, which appears in the Upanishads and one can see how close it is to the figure we examined in the last chapter, the cosmic person in the New Testament.

               Moving on now to the Bhagavad Gita we have an even more profound revelation of the cosmic Person.  This comes particularly in the later books, the tenth, eleventh and (131) twelfth where Arjuna is given the great vision of Krishna as the cosmic Lord.  Krishna says, “I am the origin of all, From me the all proceeds.”(B. G. 10:8)  He then proceeds to reveal himself to Arjuna as the Lord of creation.  Arjuna responds “I see thee without beginning or middle or end, boundless in potency.”  Thou art the supreme resting-place of the universe, the guardian of the ever-lasting law.”  The ever-lasting law is the sanatana dharma, which is at once the cosmic law and the moral law.  He continues, “Thou art the immemorial person.”(BG.11:18-19)  The Sanskrit for this is the sanatana purusha, the eternal person.  So these different aspects are gathered together in the Bhagavad Gita.  But another aspect of this eternal person is introduced when Krishna says, “I am time, devouring time.”  In all these traditions which we are examining the whole created universe, including time, exists within the supreme Person, within that eternal One.  Time is in eternity, not outside or apart from it.  Finally in the Gita Krishna says, “By my grace and my wondrous power I have shown to thee, Arjuna, this form supreme made of light, which is the infinite, the all, my own form from the beginning, never seen by man before.”(BG.11:47)  This is the great cosmic vision which Arjuna is given, and he is given a divine eye, a divyam chakshuh, to be able to see this form of God, this manifestation.  That is the supreme example in Hinduism of the revelation of the cosmic Lord.

               There is a further development of this concept of the cosmic Person in the fifteenth chapter of the Bhagavad Gita where a distinction is made between three purushas.  Here it must be remembered that all these words like brahman, atman and purusha can always be understood at three levels.  The brahman is the supreme Reality but he, or it, manifests in the whole created universe and in the human heart.  This means that sometimes the universe can be called brahman: “All this world is brahman.”  Or it can be said of the human being: “I am brahman, aham brahmasmi.”  He is thus the one Supreme manifesting at these different levels.  It is the same with the atman.  The atman is the Spirit, the paramatman, the supreme Spirit beyond all, but also the atman in the heart of every person, while even the body, and the physical universe, can be called the atman because the One is manifesting at each level.  The same applies to the purusha where similarly there are three purushas.  Krishna says, “There are two purushas in this universe, the perishable and the imperishable.  The perishable is all things in creation, the imperishable is that which moves not.”  This means that the whole physical universe, which is the perishable, is a manifestation of the purusha, and so also is the imperishable, which is the mind, the intelligence, the intelligible order above the perishable.  And he goes on to say, “But the highest Person, the purushottaman, is another.  It is called the supreme Person (purushottaman).  He is the God of eternity who, pervading all, sustains all.”(BG. 15:16-17)  So in the Bhagavad Gita the Purusha exists on three levels, the physical and the psychological and then beyond these that of the supreme Spirit, the purushottaman.. 

               The supreme Reality can be known as the paramatman, the supreme atman, the parambrahman, the supreme brahman, or the purushottaman, the ultimate purusha, the supreme Person.  In this last aspect he is the true cosmic Lord.  As Krishna says, “Because I, Krishna, am beyond the perishable and even beyond the imperishable in this world, I am known as Purushottaman, the supreme Person.”(BG. 15:18)

               So that is the revelation of the Bhagavad Gita.  Later we will go on to consider how this ultimate purusha, this purushottaman, is related to the supreme brahman.  In the Gita he appears simply as a manifestation of the supreme brahman, the supreme Spirit, but exactly how they are related remains a problem, and the different systems of the Vedanta attempt in different ways to understand that relationship.—p.13

The following material is un-edited and needs to improve.  So don’t circulate this.  Thanks.

I. YOGA: What is Yoga–kinds of Yoga– relevancy of Yoga–dangers of Yoga–Yoga a power encounter–Christian Yoga?

(read Kane op.cit. vol.V, part.II, Section, VIII, Ch. XXXII, pp.1385-1467)

WHAT IS YOGA 

            Yoga is both a sadhana (self-culture) and a philosophy.  It root word is yuj, means `Union’.  We can find two stages of its development in India.  In the early development it was more related to the “Yoking or uniting all the powers of the mind for a single end” 1.  In its later development it became theistic in orientation and referred to the fixing of the mind on God. 

ORIGIN

            Though we can find a glimpse of its origin in the Rig Veda [V.81.1], and in Kathaka and Taittiriya Samhitas and in a number of Brahmanas, yet it was systematically developed in Katha (I.iii.3-14) and Svetasvatara (II.3) Upanisads (orthodox) and Yoga Sutra of Patanjali (heterodox) philosophy.  And Gita deriving from both, developed the concept of Raja, Jnana, Karma and Bhakti-Yogas. 

TWO KINDS OF YOGAS

            For our understanding, Yoga can be divided in to positive and negative Yogas.  Patanjali’s Yoga is negative     Yoga of `sense-suppression’.  The positive Yoga of `Union’ is advocated both by the Katha Upanishad and Gita.  Gita’s Yoga is clearly theistic as it points out to a personal God for that union.

YOGA OF PATANJALI

            It is one among the six, Dharsanas (Philosophy).  It is called Sankya-Yoga as Sankya is theory and Yoga is the practical side of it.  The aim of Yoga in this system is to attain samadhi, a kind of spiritual perfection (trance)through the control of sense organs, and “through right discrimination between purusa and prakrti“2 and the separation of purusa from prakrti (vi-yoga).  For this eight fold path of discipline (astangayoga) is prescribed: 1) Yama (abstention), 2) Niyama (self-culture), 3) Asana (postures), 4) Pranayama (control of breath),  5) Prathyahara (control of senses), 6) Dharana (fixing the mind on the object of meditation), 7) Dhyana (undisturbed flow of thought around the object of meditation) and 8) Samadhi (concentration).  This samadi is of two kinds–i. samprjnata (conscious) in this consciousness of the object of meditation persists and ii. asamprajnata (supra-conscious) in this consciousness is transcended. 3

            God in this system is a special Purusa and he cannot grant liberation.  He can only remove the obstacles in the upward progress of the devotees.  Directly He has nothing to do with the bondage and the liberation of the purusas…the end of human life is not the union with God, but only the separation of purusa from prakrti. 4

            The Patanjali-Yoga system could be called as Raja-Yoga.  In this one need not have faith in anything, including God.  But Gita develops this Raja-Yoga in its theistic way.

            The two main dangers in this system are firstly without proper guidance one should not practice the physical and particularly the breath control.  Because “undue haste or improper exercise may cause nervous dis-order and even mental imbalance which will result in insanity” 5.

            The second is, at samprajnata (conscious) samadhi as one “discovers the immense potency of the mind”, and gains siddhis can perform Hypnotism, Telepathy and miracles.  This kind of misuse of the siddhis leads to again samsara” 6.

ADHYATMIC YOGA

            Jnana-Yoga; Karma-Yoga and Bhakti-Yoga can be brought under this.

            Jnana-Yoga is based on Upanishadic teachings.  Faith in oneself and desire for mukti are essential for this Yoga.  In Karma-Yoga `work is worship’ is the slogan.  But Gita’s crown message is `Niskamya-karma‘, never work for result (2:47).  Karma-Yoga is renunciation `in’ action and not `of’ action.  But Bhakti-Yoga is the climax of Gita which paved the way for salvation of common people.  Total surrender to a personal God, out of intense love is Bhakti-Yoga.

RELEVANCY OF YOGA

            Yoga has relevancy for a proper analyses of human psyche.  Yoga is not a monopoly of Hinduism and we can find a similar parable of `Chariot of Katha’ Upanishad in Plato’s PHOEDRUS 7.  Yoga, both as scientific approach for mind discipline (sadhana) and as deep philosophy has wide spread influence both in India and abroad.  Handled properly it would become the best mide-servant.

DANGERS OF YOGA

            Already we have seen the immediate dangers in Raja–Yoga.  Even as a sadhana for physical and mental discipline it must be carefully followed.  Once started, breaking in the middle will be more harmful than helpful.

AS A POWER ENCOUNTER

            Though misuse of `siddhis‘ (mental power) may lead to samsara (Re-birth), the real danger in it is that innocent people could easily be get cheated.  And once reached the `Super-conscious’ stage (asamprajnata) and as the mind is open beyond one’s own conscious control of it, it may directly OPEN TO THE EVIL POWERS TO USE IT FOR THEIR PURPOSE.

CHRISTIAN YOGA ?

            Yoga as, “…athlesis’- the athletic life, an ordered, disciplined training of all our power much more radical than any merely physical athleticism.  (St.Paul does not actually use `athlesis’ but he uses the verb `athleo’ and other words expressing the same ideas–ref: 2 Tim. 2:3-5; Phil.3:13-14; I Cor.9:25)…” 8 is useful for our spiritual life.   This,”…we may call the lower Christian Yoga of self discipline…but he (Paul) express the higher or Royal (Raja)-Yoga when he says, “But it is not I (the separate individual) that live, but Christ liveth in me.[Gal.2:20)”9

            But PRAYER is the Royal (Raja)-Christian-Yoga as a result it brings Peace which `passeth all kinds of our understanding’ (reason-mind) and at the same time remains samprajnata (consciousness) as it guards our `hearts and minds in Christ Jesus’ (Phil.4:6-7).  This will serve not only as a weapon against dark forces, but also as a sadhana to have direct contact with God.  In prayer we not only reach `above’ but practically bring `down’ God’s power to this earth to help us to live a victorious Christian life.  Prayer is the true Jnana-Yoga.  It opens up our mind to understand the mystery of God based on His words and beyond it.  It is the True Karma-Yoga as we can do greater service of Niskamya-karma through our intercessory prayer for others.  Finally it is the true Bhakti-Yoga as prayer is nothing but our acknowledgment of God’s sovereignty and our dependence on Him through total surrender.

                          NOTES

1. J.N. Rawson, The Katha Upanishad, Appendix-`Adhyatma-

   Yoga’

2. Dr. Chandradhar Sharma, A Critical Survey of Indian

   Philosophy.

3. ibid.

4. ibid.

5. T.M.P. Mahadevan, Hinduism at A Glance, pp. 66-74.

6. ibid. pp.66-74.

7. Rawson,op. cit. Appendix-`Adhyatma-Yoga’.

8. ibid- introduction.

9. ibid. Appendix-`Adhyatma-Yoga’.

@@@

Dear Nirmal,

This is my initial critic to Badrinath’s book.  I wrote several such critics in bit and pieces.  But I never posted them.  Now as you have come forward to edit, I think it is time for me to post them too in my blog.  But without reading the whole book by yourself, you may not understand my critic.  Anyhow try and if you need and clarification from me, I will do it.  Thanks.

Db

31-03-14

Scripture and idealism.  This is sent for website.

Chaturvedi Badrinath, The Mahabharata: An Inquiry in the human condition, New Delhi, Orient Longman, 2007.

Though one can ‘enquire the human condition’ from the Mbh. point of view, it never going to reflect the reality of life, at least here in India.  Because Indian worldview is shaped by various thoughts, apart from the known authoritative scriptures of sruti and smrti.  However, an average Indian use these thoughts either to explain away or justify his/her act than to take help from these thoughts to set her/his course of life.  Of course this should not be treated as a sweeping generalization.  This is my personal experience and observance of other’s life as well.  Unless we allow the scripture as the final authority to decide our action, then every (valuable) thoughts, coming from the scriptures or tradition will be ‘used’ to serve our purpose than guiding our life.  But the Hindu dilemma always is: which is the scripture that should one should submit?.—db.  Gurukulam, December 8, 2007, 11.05 pm.

…Thus, one’s relationship with one’s self and with the other is the central concern of the Mbh.  It is around this issue that every parable in it revolves, with which every discussion begins and ends, and it is in it that the philosophical and the political find their ultimate ethical ground.

               The Mbh. shows that it is not until one’s relationship with one’s self is right that one’s relationship with the other can be right, and the two being inseparable, it is by achieving a right relationship with the other that one comes to one’s self, fulfilled.  Disturbed in my relationship with myself, I will be disturbed in my relationship with everyone else.  Therefore, self-understanding is an essential condition of understanding the other.  The two are inseparable.

               But what is the right ordering of one’s life and relationships?  What criteria will determine what a ‘right relationship’ is?  And who will decide what those criteria are?  How are these questions to be answered without either taking them into the bottomless pit of philosophic abstractions or dispersing them into empty moralizing?  The Mbh. shows that the answers lie in the rhythms of man’s own being.  Any view of the ordering of life and relationships, if it is to have a universal meaning, must be derived from life itself, from the rhythms of life, and not be something in which the proof of what you want to prove is already provided.  Hence, the method it follows is inherent in life itself; it is not an artificial construct of the mind.  This puts the Mbh. above every school of philosophical and political theory.  In this respect, as in many others, the Mbh. stands distinctly apart from all systems of philosophy….— Chaturvedi Badrinath, The Mahabharata: An Inquiry in the human condition, New Delhi, Orient Longman, 2007, p.12

Though one has to agree that ‘deriving from life itself’ the Mbh. unlike other scriptures and literatures not providing any proof for one to prove about ‘ordering of life and relationships’.  But once it is written, Mbh. also falls in the same trap of ‘providing the proof’ through its characters’ life.  Not only this.  Mbh. never derive any of its ‘life oriented proof’ on its own without referring all the previous ‘bottomless pit of philosophic abstractions’.  However one claims that the ‘method it follows is inherent in life itself’ and ‘not an artificial construct of mind’, yet it is the construct of the mind of the author(s), who used either imaginary characters or historical persons to present his own view through compiling various writings as one book.  Above all, knowing the fact that Mbh. is not a single book authored by a single author, but it is an encyclopedia which grew from its original writing by various interpolations.  Whoever wants to share any of his/her view find a place to insert in Mbh. throughout its carrier as a literature.  So, I feel that in stead of claiming that Mbh. ‘stand distinctly apart from all systems of philosophy’, we could safely say that if any one (like Badrinath) wants to read any kind of exclusive teaching from Mbh. other than any kind of ‘philosophy and political theory’, Mbh. also serve their purpose of extraction as it allowed for interpolation.  Keeping the fact of ‘change and continuity’ of Indian worldviews, the ‘philosophy and political theory’ of Mbh. is a different in degree and not in kind.

Here I am giving some comments from the scholars, which endorse my view.  Though this is long, yet reading all the following points will understand my view from the scholar’s perspective clearly than giving some summary out of them:

Dayanand, Gurukulam, December 9, 2007.

…Scholars should always be careful and cautious, particularly in dealing with the Mahaabhaarata, because it is a vast work and because there are several recessions of it.–P.V. Kane. History of Dharmasaastra, Vol.I. Part.I. 14, The Arthasaastra of Kautilya. p.217.

…In the last parvan it claims that whatever is said in it would be found elsewhere and what is not contained in it would not be found anywhere else i.e. it claims to be encyclopaedic and hence there was a great incentive to later scholars to add to it fresh matter…It further states [Aadi.1.52] that different beginnings of the epic existed….—ibid. Vol.I, Part.I, 32. The Two Epics, p. 350.

…There was, therefore, great scope at all times for adding stories and didactic matters.  Thus the Mahabharata became very much inflated by additions made at different times.  Anyone could add a story by saying ‘atraapyudaaharantiimam itihaasam puraatanam’.  In the Anusasanaparvan alone in 25 chapters stories are introduced with these words, apart from several stories introduced in a different manner….—ibid. Vol. I. Part. I. 32. The Two Epics. p.362)   

On the whole, the traditional view has gained strength through the failure of modern criticism regarding the origin and development of the Mahabharata.  Thus, many scholars today accept the view that the Mahabharata underwent two major recensions: it began as Jaaya, a poem about the victory of the Pandavas over the Kauravas, of about 7000 slokas.  This is supposed to have been the work of Vyasa ….It was augmented to about three times its former length in the Bharata by Vaisampayana, who recited it at the snake sacrifice of Janamejaya.  The Suta, who heard it there, related it as Mahabharata of 100,000 verses to the assembly of sages in the Naimisa forest during the sacrifice performed by Saunaka.

               The present edition of the Mahabharata itself speaks of three beginnings: manvaadi, beginning from Manu, corresponding to the first twelve parvans (“chapters”) of the present work; aastikaadi, beginning with Astika, comprising parvans 13 to 53; uparicaraadi, from parvan 54 onward.– Klaus K. Klostermaier, A SURVEY OF HINDUISM, Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi,1990, p.76

…any discussion about dharm is always trouble some.  There is always trouble in dharm.  Then how to decide which is dharm and which is adharm?  Mahabharata fail to give any kind of answer to this question…. Mahabharata story is presented as the purvapaksha in Srimad Bhagavata.  There Vyas says that by composing Mahabharata he didn’t receive peace….Just think why Srimadbhagavad made Mahabharata as purvapaksha?  It was told through Narad, ‘O Vyas you have done a mistake by discussing about dharma  but you should have discussed about rasa and bhakti.  Srimadbhagavat told like this.—Prof. Daya Krishna, 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, 2000, p. 247

In accord with its own syncretistic nature and the general propensity of Indian sages and mythographers to appeal to a multivalent range of ideas in treating almost every doctrinal topic, the Mahabharata recognizes a number of different causal factors at work in arranging both immediate results and ultimate destinies….— J. Bruce Long, The Concepts of Human Action and Rebirth in the Mahaabhaarata,  in Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty , Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Traditions, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, (1983) Reprint 1999, p.40

…like their Vedic forebears, the epic writers were prepared to embrace (or, at least, to tolerate) a diverse array of doctrines, in the conviction that while reality is one, it can be designated by many names (Rg Veda 1.164.46).— J. Bruce Long, The Concepts of Human Action and Rebirth in the Mahaabhaarata,  in ibid. p. 42

…Thus the ‘orthodox’ religions of later times claim to be the continuation of the Veda or even represent themselves to be the Vedic past unchanged or purified and adapted to the needs of ensuing generations.  The ‘redactor’ of the Veda is considered to have compiled also the post-Vedic, early ‘Hinduist’, Mahabharata, that Encyclopaedia of Hinduism which is styled the fifth Veda beside the four ancient corpora. [caturo vedaan sarvaan aakhyaanapancamaan, mss. Of the Mbh. 3,55,8 cr. ed.] “The man who recites this Mahabharata should be regarded as skilled in the Vedas” [1,56,26, cr. ed.]….. — J. Gonda, Change and Continuity in Indian Religion, Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi, (1965) 1985, p.10

…The Brahmanas [Brahmins], who were the custodians of literature, utilized the epics, as they became popular, for propagation of their culture and religion.  So, many religious and ceremonial elements which did not originally belong to it, entered the huge body of the Mahabharata and it became a reference book for the Hindu religion.  The Mahabharata was regarded as a Samhita as early as before the fifth century A.D. [Buhler and Kirste, contrib. To the history of the Mahabharata.  Siteungsher wien, 1892. 4-27]….— Rajbali Pandey, Hindu Samskaras:  Socio-Religious Study of the Hindu Sacraments, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, (Second Revised Edition, 1969), Reprint, 1987 p.9

@@@

Dharma and Law

While I’m going through Romans 2, something stood out me is :- *How can we distinguish between  Dharma(Hindu context) and law of Bhagwan given to Jews & eventually we bakthas obey it ?*.

Any leads?.

Rakesh, 21-11-23

I think dharma in Hindu worldview is counterpart of Rta [cosmic order] that works in the human world.  We can say that it is human order.  We should separate Dharma from Dharma Sastras which are coded laws limited to place and time.  Whereas dharma is all pervasive human order which guides every aspect of our life.

Regarding Jewish Law others can say more clearly.  The Jewish Law could come close to Dharma Sastras but dharma is a completely different topic.

Db. 21-11-23

How does one read the primarily Jewish scriptures through Hindu eyes and heart?

CJ

But what is the need for that?  Let us try to understand Jewish Scripture for which it was given and our Scriptures [both Sruti and Smrti] for the purpose they were given.  In order to understand so many doctrinal technical terms we need to have a good knowledge about Jewish traditions [including their Scriptures].  But is it necessary for us to understand through Hindu eyes?  This question always remains a great challenge for me.  I am confused and confusing others as well.

So if Jewish scripture is only for Jews, why should we read it?  Only for academic purposes? And smrti and sruti is only for some Hindus? Or is there universal value. But how does one determine universal value in any scripture?

CJ

So someone has to provide a judeoxtian answer to rakesh’s good but judeoxtian question🙏🏿 so I dont drown us in my own  apparent confusion😉

Bhakti is the universal eternal thread that runs through the Jewish Bible, and Hindu smrti and sruti, and for me it is muktinath who holds that thread. 🙏🏿

CJ

21-11-23

As a bhakta of the Lord the entire Mukti Veda is the Word of God for me.  I won’t reject any one book creating a separate category like Jewish Scripture.  At the same time, every book does not make sense to me. 

The over simplified theme of MV is that God fulfilled His Covenant Promise through Muktinath.  This is a unique message that we cannot find in another religious world view.

My search for a Guru ended in Muktinath.  In order to understand His life and teachings I read and still read MV [everyday].  But I nowhere found in MV the concept of a guru.  However it is where my bhakti/faith begins, stands and continues.

There are so many doctrinal issues in Muktiveda.  Most of them remain IRRATIONAL to me.  But I never allow my REASON to have the final say regarding them.  I try my best to understand them and relate to my bhakti.  But my bhakti [read as RELATIONSHIP] never stands only because of those doctrines. 

As a Hindu my Hindu [or Indian] Scriptures are part of my cultural/religious heritage.  Unfortunately I didn’t read all of them, though I read most of the main line Scriptures.  My Indian Scriptures help me to carry on my Samajic dharma and also enhance my Sadhana dharma in the Lord.  But they never would have the final authority when it comes to my bhakti/faith.

In this process I want to understand each and every Scripture of every Religion on their own terms.  I don’t need to understand MV from Hindu perspective.  Nor do I need to contextualize everything in MV in order to dig out the Unknown Muktinath of Hinduism. 

I read Scriptures [or any other books] to gather information, as intellectual entertainment, and clear guidance in my bhakti in the Lord.  But I never limit my bhakti within the frame of any Scripture as my RELATIONSHIP [bhakti] goes beyond. It is an everyday walk [or tapasya] with the Lord. 

When I look back on my entire life so far, I clearly see how the Lord took control of it completely, never allowing me to do anything as per my wish or decision.  In fact so far I received only NO as the answer for most of my prayers.

This oversimplified statement will raise more questions than giving a clear message about my bhakti in the Lord.  But most of us don’t have time to go deep step by step asking questions and try to address them with various perspectives.

All won’t agree with me.  But I agree to disagree and move ahead in my life going along with them seeking their help and fellowship to abide in the Lord.

Finally as I often insist: WE DON’T HAVE A PRIVATE BHAKTI OR PRIVATE GOD, though each one of us have to develop personal RELATIONSHIP with Him.  The Lord is my Guru and Mother and I am HER bhakta and child.  That is enough for me.

DB

21-11-23

Continuing the thread on reading mv through a bhakti Hindu lens. Just an analogy. Do we take green chillies which came from Mexico to India, and only make Mexican dishes with it or have made it our own! Reading scriptures in their own context is fine as an academic exercise, but to get at taste and nutrition one has to process it somehow. Is there a Hindu bhaktic way of processing it or do we continue to rely on xtian theologians and interpreters.

Chak

21-11-23

Even this very Hindu bhaktic way of processing is another kind of contextualization.  Then we will do all kinds of text torture to fix certain doctrines within the frame of Hindu philosophy.  For example: atonement.  It is not prayaschitta.  Then how are you going to do a Hindu bhakti process?  What is atonement in Purva Veda.  How it was understood by the early bhaktas.  Begin from there.  Though I won’t hesitate to use our own Indian terms to convey or comprehend, trying to understand text in its textual, historical, social and to some extent theological context might help us to understand a particular doctrine.  Does any Christian theology exist?  All are their own denominational doctrines.  Well I am not competent enough to trend on this path where theologians and scholars fear to do.

DB

21-11-23

My view of understanding each scripture what it is than try to understand or interpret through the lens of another faith is based on the fact that there is no compatibility between MV and Hindu Religious philosophies on various doctrinal issues.  Some of them are:

Incarnation is not Avatara

Atonement is not Prayaschitta

There is no concept of Maya in MV as it celebrates the reality of Materiality in life. [Wherever the word ‘maya’ comes in MV, for example in Lamentations, it has nothing to do with the Hindu concept of ‘maya’.]

There is no place for Advaita in MV.  Though Vishishtadvaita might come close, still only qualified Advaita hardly can present MV in terms of Vishishtadvaita. [Avibhaga -Bhedabheda of Vijnanabhiksu could come much closer than Vishishtadvaita. Search Net for Avibhaga-Bhedabheda].

Karma theory is completely different in Hinduism, though MV also talks different kinds of karma

Big difference is creation ex nihilo versus emanation

Cyclical theory of creation and Linear theory in MV.

Resurrection is not Rebirth

The concept of Heaven and Hell and moksha in Hinduism is completely different from MV.

We can add so many major and minor other doctrines when we try to compare between Hinduism and MV.  This being the reality, neither contextualization nor some kind of Bhaktic way of viewing won’t help.  And an honest student of Scriptures should remain faithful to each one.

At the same time, we can use common words like grace, sin, salvation, mukti etc. of course clearly understanding the major difference in both religious traditions.

DB

22-11-23

BTW, for incarnation, recently in Varanasi, we came up with ‘swarupikaran’, a Hindi word.

Subhashan

As I said we can use Indian terms.  But Incarnation which actually means ‘enflshed’ hardly can be conveyed.  Swarupikaran is a good word.  Better than Avatara.  But if we divide the word as Sva [one’s own] + rupa [form]+ karan [making]  =svarupikaran could mean the divine form making or taking a form that reflects it’s original.  This is good.  But it won’t say God ‘enfleshed’.  But this word is much better and we should find more such words that comes closer to the thought of MV.

Though we need to welcome such initiative, it is better to understand the other side of the fact in Hindu tradition.  This I say not to confuse others, but to help to understand how vast is Hinduism which could accommodate all kinds of faith expression.

In Srivaishnavism, this Svarupikaran [Svarup = Image; Karan Forming himself] also means that in the Archavatara [archa + avatara] where the complete FORM of the deity dwells in that Image [icon].  That’s why ‘svayambhu’ viz., the image created itself without outside agency—either from earth, rock, water or fire is very much famous.  You can see this not only in Srivaishnavism but also in other sects.  Most of the lingas are claimed as ‘svayambhu’ [emerged naturally] as we find in Kedarnath. 

For example in Kanchipuram [or Kanchivaram] The Image of Varadharaja is claimed to have come out on its own from fire.  To prove this they will point out the burnt mark on the cheek and forehead of the Image.  There is another concept of ‘Thane Uhanda Tirumeni’ viz., the Image which the deity or acharya himself approved after liking it.  For example the Image of Sri Ramanuja in Sriperumbudur is called ‘Thane [oneself] Uhand [pleased] Tiru [Holy] meni [body]’ as Ramanuja hugged it approvingly.

So ‘Svarupakaran’ could either mean ‘sva + rupa + karan or Svarupa + karan.   Sevanand also talks about Muktinath as the Icon of the invisible God.  Brahmabhandab Upadhyaya uses this in Vande Sachidananda as =’Pirtru svaruupa’ Image of the Father, but he immediately qualifies it by adding ‘Chinmaya ruupa’ [chit + mai =ruupa Conscious of His divine nature].

Well, I share this for my own personal study [svadhyaya] and not confuse others.

22-11-23

Though I won’t compare the Prophets with Puranas, as a Hindu they are like Puranas in MV—a combination of mythology, history and oracle from God to warn the erring His own people.  I neither take the Purana narratives so seriously as historical events nor ignore it as mere mythology.  Added to this we should also keep in mind that most of the Puranas are sectarian in nature—highlighting its deity as the Supreme God and the rest of them as subordinate to Him/Her to do His/Her biddings assigned to them.  

Taxing your example of Mexican chillies, I don’t know how they are used.  We use it both dry and green.  However in South India, particularly in Tamilnadu [more specifically in a Brahmin house] after frying green/dry chilli in oil, when we eat the food, along with Kadi leaves [Kariveppilai] we will remove and won’t eat it.  But the same dry chilli powder is used in Sambar, Rasam and pickles, unable to remove it. So it depends upon how and where you use the Mexican chilli. 

db 

23-11-23

Continuing the topic of ‘prophets and our bhakti’, we have to remember that most of the prophets prophesied in secular events, of course in God’s name.  For example the central theme of Jermiah is: REMAIN LOYAL TO BABYLON’

Now how do we have to understand this message relating with our bhakti and need as Hindu bhaktas?

Jermiah again and again pleads to remain faithful to Babylon and when the TIMES come God will bring them back to their promised Land.  Then as a Hindu should understand that, as a saved sinner and struggling saint I am living in my exile on this earth and when my Time ends, He will call me back to my Promised land?  Till that time should I remain ‘faithful’ to this world in which I live as an exile?

Whereas Uttaraveda warns us to not to be confirmed to the IMAGE of this world and flee from this world.

But I find the life on this world is a wonderful gift from God; every beautiful thing in life is a gift from God; the world is not maya; I attained JEEVAN MUKTI [attained mukti while still living in this mortal body]; the body in which now I live is the Living temple of the Lord which I should take care.  By eating healthy food [no rice only millets (ragi is best), less salt (pickle allowed); no sweet (sugar free sweet is ok)], do exercise every day [minimum three hours in a day dividing two times], sleep enough {?!], keep silence [minimum two hours], read books, pray and meditate, celebrate your relationship with your family members, avoid gadgets and social media as much as possible, do art work [cross stitch is good, painting is ok, sculpture is best], try to live in rural area mingling with nature; 8 hours for these activities; 8 hours for sleep and 8 hours for office/home work. Finally DON’T GIVE A LONG LIST OF DOES AND DON’T like this.    

It would be an interesting study if we could get the central message of all the prophets and try to relate them with our need as Hindu bhaktas.  

23-11-23

It is important for us to learn from other’s points of view other than MV about certain values in life.  I find Tagore not only a great poet but a philosopher.  He challenges me to Re-think certain values in life.  The general view among the Hindu is that one who attained perfect knowledge transcends the demands of normal value—even in ethics.  Indirectly it means that one who attained perfect knowledge [pahunche huye aatma (पुहुँचे हुए आत्मा) in Hindi] won’t do any immoral activity.  And Edgerton quoting Upanishads says,  ‘The perfect soul is “beyond good and evil.” (Kausiitaki U, I.4; cf. BrhU,4.3.22, etc.)  Neither good nor evil can affect him.’  But also points out that,’ ‘for “he who has not ceased from evil conduct cannot attain Him (the Aatman) by intelligence.” (KathaU, 2.24)  This is similar to the Socratic notion that the truly wise man must inevitably be virtuous.’ [Franklin Edgerton, The Bhagavad Gita, Translated and Interpreted, Delhi, Mothilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd.  First Published Cambridege, 1944, Reprint: Delhi, 1996. Pp. 24-25]

But Tagore presents a more practical point of view about the importance of Laws:

It is only those who have known that joy expresses itself through law who have learnt to transcend the law.  Not that the bonds of law have ceased to exist for them—but that the bonds have become to them as the form of freedom incarnate. The freed soul delights in accepting bonds, and does not seek to evade any of them, for in each does it feel the manifestation of an infinite energy whose joy is in creation.

          As a matter of fact, where there are no bonds, where there is the madness of licence, the soul ceases to be free….Whenever at the call of temptation the soul falls away from the bondage of law, then, like a child deprived of the support of its mother’s arms, it cries out, “Smite me not!  ‘Bind’ me,” it prays, “oh, bind me in the bonds of thy law; bind me within and without; hold me tight; let me in the clasp of thy law be bound up together with thy joy; protect me by thy firm hold from the deadly laxity of sin.”— Rabindranath Tagore, Sadhana: The Realisation of Life, Macmillan And Co;, London, Indian edition, 1930, p. 119

It is like Sevanand says, ‘I am free but bound by Law’.  Here I am bound both by dharma and the Law of God. 

24-11-23

@@@

Dear Mohan,                                                         December 24, 1998.  Erode.

This letter I write to you only as a brain storm to share my feelings with you.  By addressing  you I am raising few issues both for me and to other Hindu Christ bhaktas and try to find some answer to these issues.  It may not be immediately relevant to you or influence you.  But wrestling with such issues, we may give some guiding principles to the future generation, though we ourselves may not implement them in our immediate life as we cannot approach the issues on objective outlook but with a subjective involvement, from which we cannot easily break.

Well to begin with a positive note, I am happy that Chaya’s marriage went well and you too co-operated with your family members by actively participating in all matters, including those parts of some ritual which are more related with social customs and blind superstition than on any personal faith.  But the way you have invited SO MANY CHRISTIANS, particularly from YOUR CHURCH shocked me.

I know that once Chaya’s marriage is arranged you have to invite your close friends also.  In those friends list, being a Christ bhakta, naturally there will be a list of Christian friends too.  As your family members are exposed to other people belong to other faith, community and nation, they too won’t feel anything unusual in it.  In fact they too might be happy to see so many other people are coming and blessing their daughter’s marriage.  But my main concern is what kind of impression that you are going to leave in the minds of your relatives, particularly that of your parents when they see this much of Christians presence in the marriage.

Thank God that you were wise enough to invite them or they themselves were wise enough to come only to the reception which is arranged immediately after the marriage so that they could not see your participation in some marriage rituals and customs which have noting to do with our faith in Christ.  However as these Christians do not have much understanding about our customs, they would have felt uneasy on seeing your active role and involvement in some of them.  I am not concerned about how they feel about our role in our family function but I am have concern about the impression which they are going to leave in the heart and mind of our family people.  Because as secular people they too might have several Christian/Muslim friends.  But this much, that too from local area goes beyond the friend’s list. 

They are a group of people from ANOTHER COMMUNITY came to participate in the marriage and not some of your Christian friends came to greet your Sister.  Of course your parents or relatives may not be in a position to use these kinds of technical terms (another community etc.)   Like wise my point here is not that I am intolerant towards the presence of other communities.   But what made such a big number of people from the other community to come on your invitation is the question that may raise in their mind (if you go and ask your parents whether any such question actually came in their mind, they will say NO.  Because common people have no time to think such issues in such a way that they can give objective type of answers like yes/no immediately to tick the correct answer to such questions.  But in their subtle mind such thought will emerge in future when your identity become a series issue)

People like you who try to keep a double identity as a Christian to the Christians (better a Brothern to the Brotherns) and Hindu to the Hindus may not easily understand the points that I want to raise.  It is not just for the sake of some objective principles that I am raising these issues.  But my concern is about both the principles (may be objective) and the LIFE that we are living as Christ bhaktas in our respective families and communities which may become some case studies in the days to come for the new movement which God wants to raise in this land to establish His Kingdom.

The level of our involvement with Christian activity the amount of time that we are going to spend with Christians are definitely going to influence our thought pattern.  People like us are always a welcome (not like me who is a controvercial person) both as substitutes and innovative in the new avenues of Christian activities.  On seeing such a welcome, naturally we too will be both tempted and convinced this as a call from God to involve in the Christian activity in the name of MINISTRY.  The result is not only too much involvement with Christian activities but gradually loosing our originality.  Soon we will talk in Christian technical terms, words in all our communication with our own people.  Worst still, we will leave a similar temptation in the minds of other Hindu Christ bhaktas whom we want to develop as witness in their own situation.

Regarding the Christian influence in our communication I myself is a victim.  In my recent talk with Bhuvana’s parents at Mylapore and also with my Sister’s family and mother I realized this.  However I was careful, without my knowledge I used several Christian technical terms which they cannot understand.  I was very careful in sharing the gospel or talking about Spirituality with them.  However care I may be, in the course of my talk as I have to concentrate on the subject and because of the fluency of the language, without my knowledge I used lots of Christian technical terms which didn’t communicate the message to them.  As this is a known issue I stop here on this point.  

Regarding the temptation which we will create in the minds of new Hindu Christ bhaktas is dangerous one.  In my recent talk with Prasad (on Dec. 22nd at Salem) he said that he met you at Bangalore Rly. Station (on 20th).  In the course of talk he said, ‘ Mohan said that he is the first Indian or South Indian to preach in one Hallond Church.  But without a firm business, how he get opportunity to go to these places etc.’  Just to convince him I said that as your sister is an Air Hostesses you get flight ticket on concession and that is how you often go to foreign countries.  Here my point is that your business trip to other countries should be a challenge to personas like Prasad and not your Christian activities.   It is also true that you went there not on the invitation of any church or no Christian agency paid your flight ticket.  But instead of mentioning about your successful business trips, you have shared only about your Christian activity.  Or you might have shared about your business too.  But what more appeal to the mind of a new believer in Christ is about your Christian activity, which according to them is the source of income to enjoy such a luxury of foreign visit.  Prasad, because of lack of time as well of my pressure keeps away from Christians.  This really help not only as a silent influence in his family but also for me to share the gospel there.  Now Prakash, his brother is regularly reading the NT and is praying.  But our Christian activities instead of encouraging them to be the inside witness in their situation is only tempting to entangle with Christian activities.

These are my questions—which I ask to myself.  If I am a Hindu Christ bhakta where should involve more?  With the Christian Community/Church/Mission or with my own people?  To communicate the gospel more properly in a language to my own people what are the steps that I should take to keep my Originality—in my thinking, talking, writing etc.  In order to show (if not to prove) that I am a successful human being which are the areas that I should keep under the carpet at least to the new believers, at the same time remining true my conviction as well to my conscious—particularly in the area of my involvement with Christian activities?  As an individual and also doing most of the above mistakes which I have raised, I alone should not try to give answer to these questions.  This we should think together and help each other.   Welcoming your comments here I close with much love and prayers.

Dayanand Bharati.

(not yet sent to Mohan.  I want to share this letter with Raman, Sekar, and few others)

Now Mohan is happily married with a foreign girl and doing some ministry somewhere in Karnataka.  I never sent this letter to him. –Feb. 6, 2007

@@@

Rajesh Ji,

Namaskar!!!

This morning I met Mr.Krishna. After talking to him I felt little difficult because he is not at all happy
with white people saying “what they know about hinduisam and brhmins” very proud i think upset with you Americans.  i have told the problams with the church, and asked about why church is not able to reach the middle class and uppar  class people. i think at this stage hoping this group is may be a little bit helpfull.
But I have already thinking about do some thing about on my own. Since Diva is here I am also making fresh rellation with Christians like Ashok naidu, (he is started a fellowship at his residence) the style is very dificult for me accept but it will help me personnelly keeping warm in the Lord.

I have some issues to share with you if you have any answers of my issues please reply.

My mother has come to stay with me we are having a very good relationship at this moment.  Since this is sravana month she want my wife to do some small rituals last year she did at my home but this time I am in the mids of “C” so far no problam from Usha & Diva I dont know how i can continew like this I request you or Swamiji please send the Bhajans & Slokas what we have with us so that i  want to do SANDHYA VANDANAM and evening  KUTUMBA ARADHANA at my home there are some hindu belevers i am meeting at church and other places what to invite them at my place. Hope with the help of God and people like you, swamiji, Ashok, and Diva ofcource they may not fully aggree with us but things may change once i am able to stand on my own. (Financially)

Rajesh what about you magazine aLL THINGS TO ALL MEN please give printing job to me only. or i can print once you send the matter and send the magazine to the respected people. If you dont like this idia please say NO and continew the communication.

I just had paid 2nd installment of my loan. i got a order of a book of Bengali Durga pooja souvenir and other some works.

please pray that I will get more orders.

Thanking you,

Sharma U.G.K.

P.S i have to pay some childrens fees by August please some work order will help me.

@@@

Mahatma Gandhi, the Missing Laureate

by Øyvind Tønnesson
Nobel e-Museum Peace Editor, 1998-2000
December 1, 1999

 Mohandas Gandhi (1869-1948) has become the strongest symbol of non-violence in the 20th century. It is widely held – in retrospect – that the Indian national leader should have been the very man to be selected for the Nobel Peace Prize. He was nominated several times, but was never awarded the prize. Why?

Read on:  http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/gandhi/index.html

If the social space in India is polluted by castism, all the public events are polluted by (petty) politics.  Even Gods needs the favor of politicians to have his hold on people through his temple etc.  So Gandhi and Gandhism is there only to accommodate the conveniences of the politicians and not for their ideological conviction.  While Gandhiji lived he served the people now his name serving politicians.  Personally I feel that we don’t want Gandhi to get any noble prize as a recognition for his ideology and seva to humanity.  He stands taller than all such recognition.  He is a MAHATMA, who need not recognized by some titles recommended by politicians.  Above all if Gandhiji gets a Noble price recommended by the politicians, then in future that itself become a controversy, as anything the (Indian) politician do, do keeping only their personal and party interest and not that of people or nation.

dayanand

@@@

PS: I have had some very encouraging conversations with Sathya. He has been trained in the Dvaithic traditions of Madhavacharya where dualism is central to their teaching. I pray that he learns to understand and express Christ and Biblical teaching within that rich context. I told him that from my understanding of dualism and nondualism –  both of these ideas which seem apparently opposed have essential elements that are found in the Biblical view of life. Is this true? I `simply’ equate dualism to trascendence and
nondualism to the immanence of God. I think we need to be comfortable with the tension in holding onto elements of both views. God is definitely the Other and yet He indwells us in profound ways. In the incarnation the Other become us so it appears in Christ both views coexist.  Extreme positions in both views lead to distortion. I would love to hear your response. Does this kind of limited theologizing fit into our context.  If not, how do we dialogue with nondualists as they form a large part of the Indian
professionals.

Chakravarthy,

The last part of your mail (nondualists as they form a large part of the Indian professionals.) is a mere exaggeration.  It is the claim of all Neo-Vedantians, in particular those identifying Hinduism with Advaitism.  Of course most of the High caste people (particular among the Brahmins) proudly identify themselves as ‘advaitins’.¹  But in truth they are more bhakti oriented people than strictly following or understanding advaitic non-dualism.  After the Neo-Vedantians promoted a Neo-Hinduism which appeals to all, they easily made a Universal Hinduism.  But in bhaktism, they least worry about their particular theological stand.  Once God become their personal god through the concept of ‘ishtadevata’ or god of one’s own choice, then it is relationship, in which one can have all kinds of theology—non-dualism (advaita), qualified-non-dualism (vishitadvaita) and dualism (dvaita), have some place.  But how to relate all these kind of subtle and hair splitting theology to understand our doctrinal position with the bible is a Himalayan task.

For example, I feel that Ramanuja come closer to the bible in his theology to Sankara.  At the same time Madhava’s theology of Brahman as suvantra (completely free) speaks well about the God’s relationship with His creation (both nature and atman).  But it left to each Hindu Christ bhaktas to think how much s/he can assimilate her/his particular theological tradition (if at all s/he has some clear understanding about it) in her/his bhakti with Muktinath.  So a person like Satya has to think and write his thoughts based on his dualistic background and his faith in the Lord, which will benefit others.

Coming to your ‘limited theologizing’, within four years of your home coming, if you could talk this much about ‘transcendence’ and ‘immanence’ of God using Hindu theological categories (which, of course you can do only in your visit to the promised land), you already began to resolve to hold the tension of going to one extreme.  However, such a theology will appeal to niceanity people who want to please every one in their (theoretical) dialogue.  But will it neatly fit in strict academic and scholarly theology—who wants to be faithful both to their respective text and tradition?  Such an endeavor will always remain a challenge.  So if you want to resolve your tension become a member of niceanity or if you want to work further sincerely on such contextualizing the gospel and biblical theology then accept the challenge.  Whether we will have dialogue with non-dualists or not (which always remain as one way traffic limited to academic circle), we have to struggle to resolve this tension for every sincere and serious Hindu Christ bhaktas to assimilate her/his faith in Muktinath in a meaningful way to be a witness for her/his family and community.  And in this extent you have kicked the ball.  And at least for this you often go outside India, where you will have some time to think objectively.  Fell free to send this to Satya.

Dayanand, Mathigiri, May 20, 2003.

1. Once Advaita was established by exponents of neo-Hinduism and Western Orientalists alike as the connecting theological thread that united Hinduism into a single religious tradition, a great deal of popular authority has become invested in the Sankaracarya sampradaayas in modern India.  This cultural power is not so much because modern Hindus see themselves as adherents of the advaita position, but rather because, even at a popular level, Hindus have been educated to believe that Sankara was a central figure (p.129) in their cultural and intellectual history.  Thus, Advaita has gained a significant degree of generalized cultural power in modern India as an iconic representation of Hindu religion and culture without necessarily being able to depend upon widespread adoption of or adherence to its fundamental belief system or traditions by Hindus.— Richard King,        Orientalism and Religion, Postcolonial Theory, India and ‘The Mystic East’, New Delhi, Oxford, 1999, pp.129-30

@@@

‘Finally faith alone is important, whichever may be the way of approach to attain that reality. With sincere faith, even if one worship a stone, he can find God. God sees the sincerity in our faith, not the medium through which we express it. If God is what He is and we being his own creation, wouldn’t and shouldn’t be offended by our childlike or even childish way of approach to Him. Hence we accept as well as respect all forms of worship o know him and never despise another man’s faith—however degraded may be it in it express’—this will be the worldview of an average Hindu.

               When we sit and talk with any Hindu (not agreeing with the artificial division of popular and philosophical) it is beyond our capacity to convince him to understand, not even to accept the uniqueness of Christ, whom we claim as the only way to know god.

               Nothing wrong in holding such a faith on the uniqueness of Christ based on our personal as well as scriptural evidence. But if we expect others to have the same kind of approach, then it become bit hard for them to digest such a ‘spirituality’ or ‘religious system’.

               Here we need not talk about the need in our approach for proper communication on our part of God’s ‘election’ on their (or His) part. Taking a middle path, how we can equip ourselves to present the truth about Christ to our fellow Hindus? Is the vital issue before us to face. 

               Faith cannot be the ultimate criteria to determine the sincerity about our worship or even about our faith, itself. One can have a wrong faith and be very sincere about it. No doubt he is sincere, but he is sincerely wrong.  However one has to agree with the principle that however crude and primitive may be our expression, God may or will accept it. But true religion or spirituality never stops there alone If any ‘form’ is merely an outward expression of our iner faith, then our outward life is the only criteria to determine about the sincerity of our expression, worship and finally faith itself.

               But the main stumbling block here is that yet one has to find a PERFECT human life which can become the criteria to acceptable others to follow.

               This is one common human cry to find out a true ‘marga darshan’ way of life to read upon it. This may not find in an universal expression, yet one can locate its call within one’s own soul, expressing itself in any form.

24/2/96

Namaste,

How are you swamiji.You are coming next week to delhi.

tell me what to do, at certain times i feel so tired.

girish

Doing routine things in life makes one feel tired.  So some break from routine life is a necessary.  This does not mean that you have to change your place or go somewhere else (though the latter could bring some change).  What you have to think about is some creativity, which will give a break from mental tiredness.  For example gardening or painting or learning music etc. are best creative activity.  Because when you grow plants, every day you will see some change.  When a new bud comes or new shoots branch our, then it gives some satisfaction in your mind.  So best option is try your hand in some kind of creativity.  Merely seeing T.V. even for entertainment will never help in this area.  Those who don’t have the habit of reading can do it also as a creative activity.  When new thoughts are coming to us through reading, then we will begin to think about it and that could give some break from your routine.

I will arrive Delhi in October end, but will immediately go to Chandigarh.  Actually we can meet only in the last week of November or first week of December.  Take care.  God bless you.

Dayanand
 

Namesta Swamiji,

i have never forgotten you, not even for a moment. I would like to appreciate the quickness with which you answer my quiries.I feel nice when i am in company of somebody so gardening does not suits me. please give me some more suggestions.

How will you celebrate janmastimi.

girish

Dear Girish,

Shanti!
 

You don’t need to do only gardening.  Thinking about some kind of creative activity which will suit to your temperament–reading, painting, music, art, visit and even talking with good people is a worth try.

Regarding Janmastimi, I don’t celebrate any festival in my life.  As a sannyasi, I am not interested in such things.  However when I stay with people, I participate in the festivals which they celebrate.  For me Krishna is a ‘tatva’ or ‘vicar’ (concept etc.)  So in stead of simply personifying these concepts from mythology, I would rather try to understand those ‘tatva’ or ‘vicar’ (concepts) and try to integrate in personal life.

Though it is very difficult to prove either the historicity of Krishna or to deny it, what is more important for us, as Indians is to understand the teaching more in personal way, then merely celebrating their birth etc. events through some rituals and then completely forget about them.  For example, whether Krishna actually gave advice to Arjnua in the battle field or not, yet the best teaching from Gita is ‘nishkamya karma’.  Why not we try to practice it in our day to day life, then merely celebrating his birth day through some rituals?  And if we truly integrate such teachings of our acharyas and gurus, then we are celebrating them, not merely their birth days in our lives.

Dayanand

Dear Swamiji,

Yes its true. But my believes in fasting and pooja.

Yes i do keep visiting and talking to people for that time but i donot have the the stamina even to initiate these things i thoe very moments.

girish

I cannot understand you point on fasting and puja.  If you have faith in fasting and puja, then what is the motive behind in following those sadhanas?

Fasting is both a physical and mental discipline.  Whereas if one fasts just for the sake of fasting, where as busy all the time not sit quiet to think, contemplate and pray, then fasting is merely starving.  As a Hindu I had several such experience, where most of the rituals are done just for the sake of ritual, and all the meanings behind them are get lost in the tide of tradition. 

The same is the case with puja.  Such sadhanas are done to train the mind to concentrate.  Whereas when pujas are done just for the sake of pomp and show or to do certain ritual or for the sake of others, then it won’t help us to train our mind.

Every ‘form’ or ‘symbol’ has a meaning behind it.  When we use them without any effort on our part to understand them, then we cannot get much benefit out of it.

dayanand

Dear Girish,

I am writing this in continuation on the topic of ‘puja’ and ‘fasting’.  When I went for my evening walk to day I thought about what actually fasting is:

For me first of all it is not to bend the mind or will of god to make him to dance according to my tunes.  It is not even to block mail him to do some favor for me.  Though it is consider more as a mental discipline than physical one, it is not just some thing merely related to my mind alone or some kind of spiritual sadhana minus god, like yoga, where one can keep god as one of the several objects to concentrate, but not necessary so for it.  So what then fasting actually is?

Traditionally in our Indian society fasting is part of ritual and sadhana.  Particularly in India, woman fast for the welfare of their husband and children—whereas men rarely fast for the welfare of their wife or children.  But as a Hindu you and I know that it often ends mere religious duty or to seek some kind of favor from god.  Of course nothing wrong in it.  But fasting as a sadhana—both as spiritual endeavor and mental discipline should help us to shape our character.  And if one fasts to seek some favor from god, then it should be more to know the mind and will of god even in seeking such favor, than merely pleading him to do some favor.  Whereas if one fasts for the welfare of others, then it is seeking god’s mercy for that person, by expressing our agony over the suffering etc. for that person.

One helpful point from the bible about seeking any thing from god is to pray ‘according to his will’. 

Rest after hearing from you.

Dayanand

What do you think after reading the following report from Times of India:

Pushkar’s other-worldly problem, Sanjay Singh Badnor, reports from Pushkar.

The world’s only Brahma temple has moved court asking for money from a Savitri temple because she’s his wife.  The Savitri temple is refusing to yield and is asking for alimony.

Even the gods quarrel.  But it takes two priests in Pushkar to carry on the bitterness of a tiff between Brahma and Savitri in this day and age.

               The only Brahma temple in the world has gone to court asking for money from a Savitri temple, because she is his wife.  The Savitri temple refuses to pay a penny.  In fact, it has sought alimony on the grounds that Brahma had deserted her.

               The earthly sequel to the divine tiff began when Mahant Laharpuri, the undisputed guardian of the Brahma temple, filed a case in Pushkar courts against Benugopal Sharma, head priest of the Savitri temple.  Laharpuri demanded the right to perform puja at the Savitri temple for five days every year and—this is important—to take the offerings coming his way on those days.  As guardian of the Brahma temple, he said it was his right to visit the dwelling of the wife.

               The five days coincide with the Pushkar fair when pilgrim attendance is at its peak.  The priest of the Brahma temple in Pushkar has laid claim on the Savitri temple for five days every year on the basis that Savitri is Brahma’s wife.

               The exact collections of Savitri temple are not clear but a considerable part of its annual revenue comes from these five days, when the Pushkar fair is on.  The Brahma temple is more visited and is said to collect Rs 15-20 lakh yearly.

               Last year, the court dismissed the dispute.  However, a fresh appeal has been now filed in the District and Sessions court at Ajmer and the hearing is slated for September 17.  According to legend, when Brahma was searching for an ideal place to perform a yagna, a lotus fell from his hand onto a spot which came to be called Pushkar.  The auspicious hour was selected.  Brahma and his wife Savitri were to jointly perform the yagna.

               But as the time for the ceremony drew near, Savitri was still preoccupied beautifying herself.  An enraged Brahma, under the compulsion of performing the rites with a wife, married a local cowherd’s daughter, Gayatri.

               Once Savitri learnt of this, she cursed Brahma that he would not be worshipped anywhere on earth except at Pushkar.  She deserted him and sat on the nearby Ratnagiri hill.  There, today, is a Savitri temple.  The legend provides the backdrop to the battle between the priests for decidedly earthly returns.

               O P Bansal, counsel of defendant Benugoapl, fought Laharpuri’s claim with the argument that since Brahma had deserted Savitri, he cannot insist on any rights on her.

               When TOI contacted Laharpuri, he was not in a mood to speak.  In the case that has seen innumerable adjournments, Laharpuri had consistently pleaded with the courts that due to religious reasons, he cannot leave the Brahma temple and attend the hearings.

               Bansal argued that if he could not attend the court he cannot go up to the Savitri temple either.  Bansal says, as defence counsel he had told the court that since Savitri was Brahma’s deserted wife she should be given alimony instead by the Brahma temple.  However, this was rejected by the court on the grounds that it cannot be done in regard to idols.

Swamiji

It is really strange to read all this.It is looking like shooting of a mythological movie. But is it reallly true that we have only one Brahma temple at Pushkar.

girish

I too know that there is only one temple for Brahma at Puskar.  But my point was not that.  I want you to think rationally about such mythology and try to relate with your question of puja etc.

dayanand

Namesta,

How are you
This is for the first time i am writing you an email.That day we were discussing Geeta at Mrs.Eelane residence.I have also few doubts.

1 I could not understand how Karmayoga is different from Gyana marga.  HE says that Karma marg is best but i suppose that they are the same. Even in Karma marge we are supposed to it without expecting any results.

2. When lust is the basis of life how can we get rid of it.

3What are the seven chakra of energy.

I hope you we never mind my straight forward questions. I am trying to bring your first suggestion into practice. It was ‘Start every day as a new day’.

namesta.

Dear Girish,

Shanti!

I am happy to receive your first e-mail and appreciate the way you could ask precise question.  It is easy to write lengthy answer but difficult to ask short and precise question.  Keep this spirit and you will (im)prove both as a good student and a better teacher.

1 I could not understand how Karmayoga is different from Gyana marga.  HE says that Karma marg is best but i suppose that they are the same. Even in Karma marge we are supposed to it without expecting any results.–Girish

Regarding your question on Karma and Jnana, there is no easy and simple answer, if you strictly want to find it through our scripture.  Because each concept is not only explained in various ways but also interpreted according to one’s own understanding and conviction.  Limiting ourselves to Gita itself, it is not easy one.  But I would prefer to begin from our lay man’s understanding of these terms—though we will be equally benefited if could refer the scriptures.

Regarding Gita’s teaching on these concepts we can continue later.  But for our simple understanding all these three important terms in our Indian philosophical system—karma, jnana and bhakti are complimentary to each other.  But in each school of thought these terms are explained and interpreted in various ways.  And each scripture itself has its own textual context to understand these terms.  For example in general what all the Gita talks should be understood in the context of ‘varnashramadharma’—doing one’s own duty as per the varna (not caste) and stage in life.  If we miss this context all kinds of various interpretation on Gita will not remain true to the core context of it.

Now coming back to our simple understanding on karma and jnana, as I already said they are complimentary to each other.  As a living ‘being’ (including animal world) no one can remain inactive (a-karmana).  About this Gita says, ‘For no one can remain even for a moment without performing action; everyone is made to act helplessly by the impulses born of nature.’ (3:5, Gita Press translation)  Though I said that we can discuss later what Gita’s teaching on these concepts, yet here I have to point out that, a clear understanding on various technical terms that we found in each scripture is important.  Because here when Gita says, ‘impulses born of nature’ it is referring the Sankhya concept of prakrti based impulse of three guna of sattva, rajas and tamas.  Every action, according to Gita (based on Sankhya system) is the result of the three strands of gunas.  That’s why Gita says, ‘helplessly by the impulses born of nature’.

What ever may be Gita’s further explanation on karma, for our practical understanding we cannot spend one moment of our life without doing any karma.  But are we going to do it mechanically, as we are ‘helpless’ against nature?  Here alone the concept of jnana can help us.  Most of the activities that we do mechanically not paying much attention to them.  Here I don’t mean certain activities like eating, breathing, sleeping etc.  But even most of the activities that we do consciously paying attention are often done mechanically without paying any attention.  For example when we eat, most of the time (particularly when you sit before a T.V. or talk with someone else) we don’t eat it properly.  Just we push something to our stomach.  But if you eat the food enjoying it, instead of quenching the hungry instinct, the very karma of eating food will give us joy.  The same is the truth with every activity.

So jnana helps you to do your karma properly and also to enjoy it.  But this jnana is not some abstract intuitive knowledge or mere collected information about certain karma (for example how the food was cooked or what kinds of recipe is followed in preparing the food).  For my lay man’s understanding jnana is not only to know about a karma but how to do it properly.  In this sense karma and jnana is complementing each other.

If you could understand what I have said, then we can further proceed on what Gita talks on these concepts.

2. When lust is the basis of life how can we get rid of it.

It is the problem with the language.  The word ‘lust’ is always carries with it a negative connotation.  As far as I understand all the basic needs in our life do not have any negative connotation with it.  Desire also is not the proper word as it could also mean for that longing to get more than what we have or enjoy at present.  But as Indians we can easily understand this concept using our own Indian term: kama.  All the basic kama that we have with us is natural ones.  And we need not and should not get rid of them, but fulfill them through proper manner.  That’s why Krishna says in Gita, ‘I remain as the kama in every being (note not merely human being) which is not opposed to dharma’ (7:11, my own translation).  Of course Bible while warns us against, ‘lust of flesh, lust of the eyes and pride in life’ (I John. 1:17), does not oppose to enjoy any legitimate right in the world.  Not only scriptures but also every tradition and moral values do not expects us to get rid of any legitimate right.  But lust in its proper or narrow sense is the desire to enjoy the pleasures of the world in an illegitimate (adharma) way.  Even though every one is expect to get rid of such kama oppose to dharma, it is the very area where everyone struggles.

In general such lust is always mentioned in various traditions as: Money, Power and Sex.  Among the three the first two are not within the reach of every one.  And I personally feel that both money and power are men made concepts and not a natural instinct.  However in the area of sex, every living being has to struggle individually.  However in human world sex becomes lust once it crosses its lakshman reka.  Every one has to get rid of lust, but legitimate sex is a God given natural instinct, which should be respected.  When men began to disrespect such God’s gift s/he brings her/his own problem.  One current example is HIV.  We never heard of HIV among animals, as they never cross the lakshman reka in their sexual instinct.  But, as our mind is perverted the gentle feeling of sex takes an ugly lustful form and to quench such lust we have violated natural principles.  And we are not punished for that violation but by it.  The remedy is also in our hand.  Sex as a subject  is not complicated one but lustful one—as one begins to think or talk more about it, it become lustful.  No amount of reading, counseling and discussion will help any individual much.  Of course we can warn everyone not to cross lakshman reka.  But how to act within the boundary can be learnt only on personal level and each one is her/his own guru in this area.

3. What are the seven chakra of energy.

I don’t know.  However such topics are related to Tantrik field and I never done proper study in that field.

Rest after hearing from you.

Dayanand

@@@

Ganesha Symbolises The Supreme Truth by Lakshmi Venkatachalam.

There is a deeper meaning to the form of Lord Ganesha that can be understood when we dwell a little on the symbolism.  To contemplate on the formless and transcendental essence, some of us need an idol that can be seen and worshipped.  Thus the idol represents an ideal, a medium for us to get in touch with our spirituality.  So let’s take a look at Ganesha’s symbolic representation in our scriptures and what they mean to us.

Our ancient seers or rishis discovered a basic unity or harmony underlying all of life and its forms, despite the apparent chaos. Life has three stages of evolution, according to Vedantic thought: Birth, growth, and death—the trinity, a continuous chain taking place again and again, with progress achieved in each scale of evolution. And one supreme power controls and guides this. 

Our sages with their rich imagination, foresaw obstacles in cosmic progress, and installed the first born of Shiva, the destroyer, and his consort Parvathi, as the god to be propitiated, for removal of obstructions and to achieve success in any work undertaken.  This god is none other than Ganesha.  His name is invoked before starting any new venture.  He is called Vighneswara, lord of obstacles.  He is also called Ganapati, the leader of Shiva’s servants or ganas; Vinayaka, the supreme leader.  He is the master of knowledge or vidya, and the champion of worldly achievement, avidya.

According to Swami Chinmayananda, Ganesha represents, “That perfect wisdom of a fully-realised vedantin a follower, or student of Vedanta.  He is the highest and the best that has ever been given in our scriptures”.  Ganesha has an important position because he is invoked not only by Hindus at the beginning of any work, but even the other gods in the Hindu pantheon pray to him, according to the puranas.

Ganesha is depicted generally in a seated pose.  It signifies that in him the mind and intellect are totally integrated.  The entire world is at his feet, waiting for his command.  The pose also resembles that first primeval cosmic sound in Sanskrit—Om—the beginning of creation itself.  He has a bulky body, symbolic of the entire cosmos.  This big belly symbolises space.  The mastermind has to digest all experiences of life.  The  snake around his expansive waist is like a girdle.  It symbolises energy in all forms.

He has an elephant’s head, symbolic of the intellectual capacity one must have to understand the supreme truth.  The large ears are symbolic of the sravana or careful listening one must give one’s teacher, to understand Vedantic truth.  Not only must the student understand the concepts, he must also have the sensitivity and the discriminatory power to distinguish the mortal form the eternal, impermanence from permanence, the gross from the subtle.  This is symbolised by te trunk that starts from Lord Ganesha’s forehead.  An elephant’s trunk can lift a log of wood as well as a blade of grass.  The two tusks on either side of the trunk are symbolic of right and wrong, good and evil.  Ganesha possesses the faculty of being aware of the duality of the world.

But one tusk is broken.  This means that as the perfect student, he has gone beyond the pairs of opposites, beyond the subjective and the objective—to  a higher plane of consciousness.  The broken tusk also symbolises that nothing is too precious to be sacrificed for intellectual progress.

Ganesha holds in his four hands—an axe, a rope, and a rosary of beads, while the last hand is held up in benediction.  With the axe, he cuts off the worldly attachments of his disciples.  The rope brings them nearer the path of truth.  The beads remind one of the continuous pursuit of supreme knowledge that the believer should engage in.  His trunk holds the sweet stuffed rice-ball modak.  It is symbolic of the self that resides within us and which has to be realised by each one of us.  The fourth hand blesses his believers for success and joy through life’s journey.  On another level, the obstacles in life—subjective and objective—can be surmounted and realisation attained with Ganesha’s blessing.  The modak signifies the sweet satisfaction one gets in travelling the spiritual path.

The mouse, at the feet of the lord, symbolises material desires that can destroy the good within us.  Though it’s a small animal, it can play havoc with many things—food grains for one.  Ganesha has subjugated this mouse of desire and kept it under control.

–The Speaking Tree; http://spirituality.indiatimes.com  The Times of India, New Delhi, August 22, 2001, p. 12

–what a vivid and fantastic interpretation of symbolism!  It even ‘transcends’ the very symbol and become a ‘symbolism’ of all interpretation.  Our philosophy of ‘as many souls so many views’, gives hope to give any and every kind of interpretation which converts a mythology into a vedanta and the vedanta into mythology.  Who gives the authority?  One’s own anubhava!  If Shankara is today with us, he will regret for making Sruti as the pramana(evidence) and will be forced to bow before the Iswara of anubhava.

Do whatever you like with myth and symbol.  But why distort vedanta?  With all respect to Swami Chinmayananda, we have to point out that in his anxiety to make an organized Hinduism, in the context of Hindutva agenda gave such interpretation.  It doe’s mean that he is the recognized authority to be quoted for any kind of interpretation on symbol.

Idol though called a pratik or Symbol, in fact as a symbol it neither can represent God nor can interprets Him.  Though a symbol can help us to visualise the invisible, still how far it can do this regarding God is questionable.  Though the concept of archavatara in which after proper consecration the very spirit of God indwells in that idol is familiar among the Vaishnavites, yet it can in no sense limits the unfathomable form of God.  So then what is an idol.  In my understanding an idol expresses our limitation of understanding God who is beyond our human comprehension.  It is a symbol of our limitation.  And those who try to worship God through an idol only try to communicate their limitation.  Though it is a good way to express and accept our limitation yet it is not necessary both to understand and express our limitation, because it may directly or indirectly restrict our efforts to understand God in our spirit beyond all human limitation

Coming back to Ganesha and Vedanta, Shankara along with the worship of other four god (Sun, Siva, Shakti and Vishnu), also introduced the worship of Ganesha.  There also existed a separate sect called Ganapatiam.  But all these worship of various gods and deities were kept on the level of Vyavakarika (mundane) and Vedanta transcended to the level of Paramartika.  And that’s why the question is raised by the Scholars, ‘Is Advaita in the strict sense compatible with Bhakti?’ (Prof. Daya Krishna, 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, 2000, p.224) and following is the answer arrived:

1. Is Advaita in the strict sense compatible with Bhakti?

Once non-duality or monism is the basic doctrine of advaita, realising one’s Self or Oneself as the eternal Brahman is considered mukti.  Though the existence of god is not denied in (Sankar’s) advaita, yet his role is only limited as an Iswara or Lord in his relationship with world.  In a strict sense God is not at all necessary in Sankara’s advaitic philosophy.  So in the ‘strict sense’ advaita is not compatible with bhakti.  However  because of the already existing tradition of bhakti, ‘Even Sankaraacaarya had to bow down to bhakti … and that is why saguna brahma had to be incorporated by him, though, of course, the final end is nirguna brahma.’ (Dr. Rukmini, p.17).  And advaita never remained as the monopoly of Sankara alone and even his own followers disagreeing with him, particularly in their attitude bhaki incorporated various thoughts related to bhakti:

According to the Advaitins up to his [Mandana Misra, who was converted to advaita by Sankara himself] time once we knew the Upanisadic mahaavaakyas such as ‘tat tvamasi’, we attained moksa or liberation.  But Mandana differed from this view.  According to him, knowledge of the mahaavaakyas was not enough.  It has to be followed by upaasanaa [  ], abhyaasa [practice] and even the observance facilitates the grahana [receiving] of vidyaa [education].(p.44)

So, karma is not to be completely left out.  This is another deviation from Sankara in the Advaita tradition itself.— Prof. Shiv Kumar Sastry , pp.44-45

            It is also important to note that (advaitic) tradition ascribes several devotional works to the credit of Sankara, though there was no scholarly consensus regarding the actual work of Sankara.¹  Even if we deny works like Sowndaryalahari, Aanandalaharai, Annapurnaashtaham etc., Bhajagovindam, at least the first 12 stanzas are generally accepted as the work of Sankara, in which he gives a call to worship the Lord.  But in spite of such place given to god in advaita yet considering the fact that while, ‘The Vaisnavas prefer individuality while the Advaita Vedaanta prefers universality.  In Advaita there is a tendency to natural unity.  And, hence it preached a different kind of bhakti.’(Dr. Krishna Sharma, p.80)²

Knowledge (jnana) is prominent in advaita for mukti and not bhakti.³  But this knowledge in advaita is not the knowledge about god but based on sruti (veda).  That’s why though, ‘A bhakta is a jnaani among other things as Krsna has said in the Bhagvad Gita.  It is perhaps a matter of emphasis.  But we should remember that Caitanya was against Advaita and against any talk of jnana.  He said that he only wanted Krsna and that Krsna was all.’(Dr. Krishna Sharma, p.81).  That’s why though some scholars tried to reach a compromise by stating (because of jnana in one form or the other) that both advaita and Vaisnava tradition is not actually contradicting each other but only tries to complement is not accepted by all:

…a statement has been made in the book and in the presentation of Dr. Krishna Sharma that the non-Advaitic acaryas were not exactly against Advaita, but that they wanted to adapt Advaita to the Vaisnava tradition.  But how can one make the Advaita thought of Sankara compatible with the Vaisnava tradition?– Prof. Daya Krishna, p.99

…Basically Sankara started with adhyaasa, and the refutation of adhyaasa was the first priority of all the theistic schools.  Therefore, the first task of Ramanujacarya was to refute adhyaasa before establishing the gunas as tattvas.  Only, after this refutation did he start the interpretation of the Vedaanta-suutras according t his doctrines. To say that Advaita was adopted to suit the needs of these people is a simplification and it shows the ignorance of the facts on the part of the scholar who has said this.—Mr. Rajamani, p.100

Prof. Daya Krishna: Agreed.—p.100

Like wise the argument that the word ‘saccidaananda (sat = truth or existence; cit = conscience and ananda = bliss)’ as an attribute to that eternal Brahman in advaita indirectly point out the acceptance of God with attribute in a transcendental level is not exactly compatible with the true spirit of bhakti tradition:

Pror. Dwivedi:  There is a common feeling that saccidaananda brahma is the Advaitin’s technical expression.  Such an expression never occurs in the Upanisads.  There is no sentence like saccidaananda brahma, though we have sentences where we have the word satyaani: satyaani jnaanam anantaani, and so forth.

Prof. Mishra: Yes, but in the Advaitic tradition saccidaananda does not occur.  Brahman in Advaitic tradition is anirvacaniiya [beyond words  ].  Since it is anirvacaniiya, it cannot be defined.  If we are trying to define it, the first and perhaps the best definition may be to try to define it through silence.  So, mauna[silence] is the best possible definition.  So, this is the first possible definition, and naturally one is not satisfied with it.  So, the second possible definition is through negation: neti, neti [not this not that].  But neti neti also does not satisfy us; we want something positive.  So, then Brahman is described as sat, cit and aananda.  But this is with the understanding that this sat, cit and aananda is an expression in the positive way of the negative definition.  That is, sat ultimately culminates in this, that it is not asat, cit culminates in this that it is not (p.190) acit and aananda culminates in this that it is not duhkha.  When one is not satisfied even with this, then there is the tatastha laksana: janmaadyasya yatah.  That is, it is that from which the world has arisen.  There, too, ‘janmaadyasya’ is not to be taken in the sense in which it is taken in Nyaaya.  It is not by inference that we are trying to prove Brahman, that there is a world and therefore there is the creator of the world and he is the Brahman.  It is an expression of the Vedic experience that Brahman is the source of creation.  But in what sense is it the source?  It is only in the sense of being the ground of the lokas.  Adhisthaana maatrena kartrtvam.  So, that is why sat, cit and aananda are not three qualities, gunas, that have Brahman for their aasraya.  There is no aasraya-aasrayii-bhaava.  They are not even its constituents as the three gunas are in prakrti.  Rather, they are words with the help of which we try to have some understanding of Brahman, that it is not duhkha or asat or something like that.—pp.190-1

Thus in a strict sense advaita is not compatible with bhakti.  However not limiting the word advaita with monism of advaita philosophy, if it is interpreted as non-duality in the sense of a bhakta becomes one with his Lord, then advaitic bhakti is possible among the bhaktas:

Bhakti is service which is not possible without duality.  If service is there duality will be also there.  There is no entry for advait in it.  If we explain bhakti according to Vaishnavism, that great saint Uddave cannot see anywhere the advait in the way he could see the deepest way as found among the Gopis.(in Hindi, Purushotam Goswami, p. 32)

                                                Notes

1.. ‘You remember Sankara’s statement: Siva saktyaa yuktoo; yadi bhavati saktya prabhavitum…– Prof. Dwivedi, p.20

[I typed in Roman script from Devanagari without any diacritic mark.  But several scholars do not accept this Sowndaryalahari from which Prof. Dwivedi quotes as the authentic work of Sankara.  Olivelle 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)

2. ‘…the Vaishnava bhaktas are trying to counter the challenge of Sankara in various ways at a philosophical level.  The Vaishnavas were first and foremot worshippers of Vishnu and of avataaras or incarnations of ishnu.  Now if Advaita Vedanta or Sankara were to be taken literally and accepted totally, then there would be no scope for the worship of an avatara.  The concept of a personal deity would not have been there.  Although Sankara did not say it openly, he had to make compromises.  He only said, your Vishnu is also atma, your Rama is also atma.  But it is obvious that this did t help matters.  The path of the Vaishnava tradition of the worship of personal deity was bound to be affected adversely in some way or other…’—Dr. Krishna Sharma, p.80)

3. ‘Advait philosophy never believes that moksha is possible through bhakti.  For them moksha is not at all possible through bhakti.  This is against the doctrine.  In the view of advaita moksha is not possible through bhakti.  All the bhakti literatures also say the same thing.’—in Hindi, Purushotam Goswami, p. 31

 

–dayanand bharati,

Ranikhet August 24, 2001.

@@@

From my diary of October 1, 1998.

Yesterday I talked with Sharma who….O.M. has asked him to leave by June 1999.  Sharma’s wife is hurt.  Though I talked with Sharma about finding some secular job, after several years in Christian Organization, he is trying to find some job in other Organization.  But I made it clear to him that no Organization can give him future security.  Above all I feel personally that he is not remain TRUE in several areas.  This I say knowing my own limitations and weaknesses.  God being our judge who am I to judge others.  But, the Truth is that we found in Jesus Christ and the Reality of the world (flesh also) force us to compromise several times in our conviction ad commitment to that TRUTH that we fond or claim to find in the Lord.  This struggle is going to be with us till the end of our life.  The resolutions that we make never come in hand to help to fight back with the word and flesh.  Grace nothing but Grace of God is the only solution.  Though this Grace is not cheap, yet what else sinners like us can TRUST?  Our own mind? Will power?  God give me more of your grace to abide in you day by day.

After lunch left for Kanpur and arrived to Dr. Jhon’s house by 5.00 pm.

Evening few came to see me.  Among them were two students who claim that they are atheist.  Next two hours I discussed with them on this point.  I told them that the longing within us to find satisfaction on various level is the search for God.  Spirituality itself is another form of science.  “What you call as science is nothing but ‘vidya‘  As you are searching for the meaning of the world outside us through that vidya we do say that doing the same search within us, again to find meaning for our existence is spirituality.  If you do not want to use the word God, you can use other terms.  But the reality is that even your search for emotional satisfaction itself is the proof of your need for a Higher Principle other than you.

One of the two after narrating two incidents try to prove that how religious people themselves are selfish.  For this I said that spirituality and not religion or religious activity will give answer to their questions about God.  I know the limitation of such arguments.  I also made it clear to them that no amount of argument will prove my point.  If they have real search about spirituality they can find the answer.  After they left John said some of my points really helped him to under the topic more clearly.

The same way to her question about re-birth and Karma I told Sridevi that try to find answer to several human problem or take refuge in those doctrines won’t really help us to face the reality of the life.  To the question on suffering we Hindus have this ready made answer of rebirth and karma.  But they cannot stand on close scrutiny.  Where as “Rejoicing in suffering” (Romans 5:4) is the right answer to this problem.

@@@

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.

@@@

                        Gita Class at Ranikhet

The following is my class at Ranikhet conducted in August 2001 in Hindi.  I am typing all the points only English.

Introduction:

We cook food only to eat.  In the same way all the scriptures were written to understand them and merely to memorise.  The authors of those Scriptures have written them to convey their ideas to their audience so that they can read, think, reflect and apply that teachings in their life.  But people have some general impression that any scripture written in Sanskrit has some impersonal power by merely chanting those slokas.  Take for example of any other scriptures written in regional language like Ramcaritmanas, Kabir bhajans etc. People never give much importance to them like that of Sanskrit scriptures.  If any Pandit comes and chant few Sanskrit slokas and mantras then we praise them as great Sanskrit scholar.  But several times neither that Pandit knows the meaning of those slokas nor the audience.  In our country that much importance is given to Sanskrit that mere cnanting the slokas and mantras or even mere listening itself give great merit.

But we have to think about this bit carefully.  As Hindi is the common language now (which is not even older than a couple of centuries), in ancient time, at least some part or community Sanskrit might be a common (lingo franca) language of the people.  So those people wrote their literature in their language with which they are familiar.  But as now we all cannot understand them like Hindi, can we give some kind of supernatural power itself to Sanskrit and began to worship it like God.  If we do then, we will miss the very heart and mind of those authors who wrote those literatures/scriptures for people to understand.

The same is my intention in this Class on Gita.  I never believe in giving long pravachan (lecture).  I would prefer to teach.  Let us learn little, but let us try to understand what we learn.  My intension is that after learning hear tomorrow you too can go and take classes for others on Gita.  It is easy to make gold by using paras.  But it is important to make paras out of paras.  A true guru should not aim merely by making many shishyas for him, but make many more gurus.  So you have complete freedom to stop and ask me any question which you didn’t understand because of my language (Hindi) or way of teaching.  So sit in a relaxed way as we came here to learn.  I consider myself always as a student learning from others.  Because most of the time the listeners never learn much like a teacher.

If we don’t understand the intension of the author of any scripture, then we will never understand the importance of that scripture either.  For example Valmiki never wrote Ramayana in order to promote the cult of Rama.  Valmiki’s main aim was to help people to follow their particular dharma in the life—as a father, mother, husband, wife, king, citizen, brother, friend etc.  For this he created a Ramkavya.  He either might have created imaginary characters or used some well known figures in the society for that purpose.  Take for example of any modern cenima.  The director of that film might have produce the film (apart from the commercial motive) to convey any central message.  But most of the time the viewers remember the dress of the heroine and songs and not the central theme of the film.  And still worse is that several Fan Clubs are started for that actor or actresses and not for the Director who aimed to pass some important message.  Last month, at Guru Purnima, in Calcutta, the Fans of Amitab Bachaan even worshipped the idol of Amitab as their guru.  But Amitab bachan’s personality is a make up personality.  But none of his fans know anything about Amitab as a person to accept him as their guru.  These kinds of mistakes have been often repeated in our country.

Instead of understanding the central message of a scripture, people started Fan clubs for those characters who gradually become their guru, even Gods. And gradually rituals developed around such gods and people began to believe that by doing puja to such gods, they will even derive the benefit of reading the scripture—without knowing the message of it.  By worshiping Amitab as a guru won’t help his fans to win any prize in his programme ‘khon banega karodompati’ (who will become a millionire). For that one has to win the context.  The same is the case with the scriptures.

Until we try to understand and assimilate the teachings which Valmiki tried to convey through his character in Ramayana, there is no point in either worshiping Rama¹ or reading Ramayana itself. I often tell as a joke that the main aim of reading Ramayana (even worshiping of Rama as a god) is to become like Rama.  But most of the time we expect the ladies should become like Sita, but men are not ready to become like Rama.  If you cannot become like Rama after reading Rama, your wife will also remine only like Surpanaka and she will never become Sita.  So in this class on Gita, we should aim to learn the central message of the author of the Gita.

Of course when the message is understood, then the messenger become our model to follow (or not to follow) and even could become our guru.  But the danger always comes when we began to venerate the character as God without resettling to understand the message first.  There is no point of following people or tradition by saying all those millions of people who worship(ped) are not fools.  But in spiritual life unless one has personal experience with the message, merely following the mass will only end up blind faith and superstition.

What is the meaning of Srimad Bhagavad Gita?

The song given by God or Bhagavan.  But no where Gita itself never claims this title.  It is the title later added to it.  It is part of Mahabharata.  We Hindus take pledge in the court keeping their hand on the Gita.  This system was introduced by Britishers, because it was not the custom in our country.  People generally promises in their trial before King or local panchayats only in their name of their children or relatives or even in the name of their respective personal/family god.  This system of taking vow in the name of the scripture might have started because of the Christian influence in the west as they take their scripture—the Bible very seriously. If any one after taking vow in the name of the Bible, tell lie, it means that they have proved the Bible as wrong or violated the command of God given in the Bible and therefore eligible for the punishment from God.

That’s why any serious Christian, after taking the vow in the name of the Bible refused tell lie.  Even those who doesn’t take the Bible seriously, yet take their conscience seriously, as the influence of the Bible created some kind of guilty conscience in the western worldview.  That’s why President Clinton and the late South African Captain Cronije finally accepted their mistake.  But the influence of scripture never created this kind of conscience in our worldview.  We have shame conscience.  Until we are exposed we will continue in our evil practice.  Even if we were caught, instead of accepting it, we will try to explain it out easily—as Goswami Tulsidas says, ‘either we blame, time, or karma or even God’.  Of course we have fear ‘for’ God and know that God or dharma will punish us.  But in general we don’t have fear ‘of’ God in our life based on the teachings of the scripture.  That’s why I would rather prefer to change the system of taking vow on Gita.  Because as its teaching doesn’t penetrated in our collective conscience, we never take the vow also seriously.  In stead we should bring back the old system of taking vow in the name of children or parents etc.  Because for most people Gita is the scripture of the Pandits or Brahmins.  If some one is going to die, then they will arrange the chanting of Gita in that house.  There ends its value—as a ritual book, which will bring merit to the person who is going to die, as he will listen at the time of his/her death Gita.  During that time also no one pays much importance of it.  After arranging for the chanting of the Gita, it is left to the Pandit to chant it and others will be very busy with their regular work.  Neither the pandit or the household of the dying person are going to give any importance to understand the meaning or teaching of the Gita.  We need not talk about that dying person.  Such an attitude towards our scripture reduced the importance of the teaching given by the scripture and even the very book itself becomes the object of worship.  But this is not the intention of the author who wrote the scriptures.  At least the British govt. gave equal respect to the Gita by asking Hindus to take vow on it.  Whereas we, who claim it as the scripture, do not show this much respect to it.

The reason for me to share this with you is to remove this blind faith of chanting Gita to a dying person.  Rater try to understand the teaching of Gita and implement in our life.

Then we have to look in to the context in which Gita appears in Mahabharata.  It comes in Bhismaparva from 26 to 42^nd chapters.  But here Bhismacharya was already wounded in the war and is laying down on the arrow bed waiting for his death.  Whereas in the Gita, the war has not yet started and just before the beginning of the war the dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna took place.  Some people find a contradiction here.  But we have to try to understand this complication.

In general there are three opinion regarding the relations between the Gita and Mahabharata.  The traditional view is that BG is the heart of Mbh.  Those who defend this generally base their argument on the similarity of the two and much common subject matter in both BG and Mbh, viz. dharma.  `…According to Vinoba Bhave, Vyasa, the mythic author of the epic has taken out the cream of the whole Mhb and put it in BG, “Standing in the middle of the epic”, he adds, “BG is like an elevated lamp which throws its light on the whole of Mbh”‘

            The second view is that BG partially belongs to Mbh  According to this school of thought BG has several authors and the `…Mbh portion of BG is a very small one’.   Adherants of the third position `…doubt or deny any substantial relationship of BG with Mbh.

Regarding the interpolation we have say few words.  It is a common practice in India and never was considered wrong.  Because once a scripture or author become famous and well accepted in the society, later people wrote in their name and inserted in the scripture.  Almost every major scripture and author’s work have such interpolation.  For example there are around 400 works in the name of Sri Sankara.  But scholars only give a small number as the authentic writings of Sankara.  The same thing happened in other parts of the world as well.  Particularly Mbh. itself was an edited work in which always new materials were added.  There is a Ramayana in the Mbh.  Like wise there are several versions of Ramayana.  Take for example of Vyasa who compiled Mbh.  He is also claimed to have compiled Veda that’s why he is called as ‘Veda Vyasa’.  Most of the important works were credited to him.  But this Vyasa himself might be a mythical author or one famous writer whose contribution is claimed on several major works.  Some scholars even talk about 14 Vyasas.

Coming back to Gita and Mbh. few are of the opinion that someone used the story and background of Mbh. to convey his ideals and found the context of war well fits to this and inserted it there.  And those who support this view, point out the difference in the Person of Krshna both in the Gita and Mbh.  In Mbh. Krishna is not god but only a statesman, scholar, diplamate, ruler etc. like our PM Sri Vajpayeeji.  Whereas in Gita he is the eternal God, Parabrahman. That’s why those who support the view of interpolation points this difference about Krishna both in Gita and Mbh.  Those who claim different source for Gita also point out the difference both in language and style in Gita and Mbh.  But considering the vastness of Mbh.  it is difficult to compare the language of Mbh. with Gita as there will be difference even within Mbh. itself.  Of course certain words in Gita gained new meaning.  For example while Sankhya means number in Gita it means renunciation.

But the strong traditional view is that Gita is the heart of Mbh.  To support this view they point out that the central theme of Gita and Mbh.—viz. Svaharma are one and the same.  However regarding the central theme or teaching there are several opinion prevails.

I personally feel that Gita is an integral part of Mbh.  But to solve the contradiction regarding the context in which Gita is placed in Mbh?  First of all we living in 21^st century cannot judge the style of writing some 2500 years before.  Even today the way we write does not have any single and accepted formula.  For example, I write my diary every day.  But if I go to a particular Conference or meeting, because of lack of time, I won’t write my diary every day.  But after the three days of Conference, when I write my diary, on the first day itself, I will write about all the major sessions and classes as well as theme discussion that we had.  For example if the Conference held on Friday to Sunday, on the Friday itself I will write all about the Conference.  For Sauterday and Sunday I will write other important things that happened.  And if someone later read my diary may say that this is not my personal record, but someone later wrote some of their view about the conference and discussion and inserted in my diary on the Friday record.  But they didn’t notice my way of writing and come a wrong conclusion.

So we living this time of history have no right to judge the way of writing some 2500 years before.  Whatever may be Gita’s relationship with Mbh. at least from the time of Sankara it is known as Saptasatasloki—poems of 700 slokas.  Of course there are more slokas found in some other Gitas found outside India.  So instead of entering too much about various controversies about Gita, let us now turn to the central message of Gita.

Some Problems in the Gita:

Generally the natural question that would arise in a rationalistic mind is the occasion of such dialogue in the Gita.  Is it possible for two important people of war to enter in such a dialogue when the war is about to start?  But like the literary criticism about Gita, about which we have already seen, we have to approach this problem also.  In fact the dialogue that happen between Arjuna and Krishna is reported by Sanjay to Drudrirashtra.  So in a sense the actual dialogue is not between Arjuna and Krishna but between Sanjay and Drudrirashtra.  As a blind King, Drudrirashta he wants to know what actually happening in the war front and Sanjay with a special vision is narrating all that happens in the war front and in that context also narrates the dialogue between Arjuna and Krishna.  He is like a commentator like in our Cricket match.  However the interesting fact is that while in the Gita the actual dialogue begins between Sanjay and Drudrirashtra, is that again Gita ends with Sanjay’s concluding remarks about the dialogue between Arjuna and Krishna.  So is the real dialogue between Arujna and Krishna is actually preserved on which further points were latter added either by Sanjay or by the author himself is again a question.  But to give answer to such questions based on our present day historical criticism won’t help us.  Because though some historical facts we could find in Mbh., yet it contains various mythological narrations.  So a hair splitting analysis on each and every minute details about the literary criticism won’t help us to understand Gita as it is.

Most of the (religious) scriptures’ aim in India is not to give any historical validity about the main characters or events but only impart the teaching.  And the teaching was given for us to lead a practical life based on the teaching and not to make the main character of the scripture as a deity and worship him, forgetting the main teaching to be implemented in our practical life.  This one danger we often come across in our land.  We take the Person seriously and not his teaching.  But we cannot respect a person at the cost of his teaching.  This is not limited to us Hindus alone.   Even the followers of several other faiths have similar attitude.  For example Bhagavan Jesus (Muktinath) clearly says that ‘those who practise and preach’ alone is the greatest person in the Kingdom of God.  Not mere acceptance of the teaching is important, which might be easy one.  That’s why even He warns that merely repeating His Name as ‘Lord, Lord’, won’t enter the Kingdom of God.  But we have to implement in our lives and that’s the main intension of the author of any scripture.  So teaching is giving not for entertainment or for even acceptance but to practice it.

Another point on which some doubt regarding the relationship of Gita with Mbh. is the concept of avatara of Krishna.  Yet I have to do proper study on this subject.  Yet based on my limited understanding of Mbh. it is generally pointed out that the concept of ‘avatara’ comes only in Gita and nowhere else in the Mbh.  Based on this also some argue that Gita is an external addition to the Mbh.  Because, if we accept one of the major concept of Gita is about the avatara which Krishna would take in order to protect dharma.  But this concept comes only in Gita and in other place in the Mbh.  In principle and necessarily as a tradition, in most of the big stories and novels we could trace either the main theme or major concept would occur implicitly or explicitly throughout the story.  For example the concept of ‘avatara’ one could trace out in most of the places of Ramayana.  But the absence of ‘avatara’ in rest of the Mbh. except in Gita give room for one question the divinity of Krishna and well as Gita’s relationship with Mbh.

            Now the war has started and Arjuna asks Krishna to bring the chariot between the two army and after seeing the other side, refuse to fight and drop his bow and sat with depression. And in this context the dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna begins.  His main dilemma is ‘to be or not to be’.  Because he has to choose between equally to good thing or bad thing.  Tension always comes in life when we have to choose between two good or bad things.  If we have to chose either good or bad, then tension won’t come and we will choose according to our nature.

But when tension comes then we cannot entirely depend upon our mind, as tension may not even allow our mind to work properly.  Can we depend upon our conscience?  Most of the time our conscience functions like a monkey.  We always make our conscience according to our desire.  We will try to justify even a wrong as right and then claim our conscience to do as per our justification.  Most of the time we make our conscience as ourselves than a friend or adviser.  In general conscience is our worst master and best slave, so we never allow it to become our master.

As we can neither trust our mind or conscience, then can we approach our scripture or another person to guide us.  But we can give our own interpretation even to our scripture in such tense situation, our personal approach to resolve any tension won’t help us much.  Even those people—our neighbor, friend or relative—several times give their counsel keeping their own personal interest than to give impartial decision.  For example If some one whom you approach to seek help in your tension and if s/he expects some kind of favor from you, then s/he will give her/his opinion in such a way which will please you, so that in future her/his expectation will be easily fulfilled by you.  Most of the time people’s never impartial opinion.  And in this area we should also keep another point in our mind.  Because some time people will give counsel to create division among us to take revenge on us.  Sakuni is the best example.  He actually took the side of Duryodana not to help him but to take revenge on him as he killed all his other 99 brothers in the cave.  So when such people like Sakuni takes our side, we feel encouraged and even find reason and righteousness in our fight against our own people—as Duryodana saw.  But such people’s intension is not to do justice but to fulfill their personal agenda.  Those who try to settle any dispute among the people whether doing it to bring reconciliation and unity should be the question that we should keep in our mind.  Bhagavan Muktinath says in one place that ‘blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God’.

For example wherever I go to take some classes on scripture, I would like to remain faithful to the text as much as possible.  Just to please someone I cannot twist and turn the fact.  For example when I talk about Valmikiramayana, my interest would be to teach about the central theme of it—viz. dharma.  But I will never project Rama as a god, as that is not the aim of Valmiki.  In the same way if we have to learn about Gita, we have to focus more on its teaching not the person.  We may have our particular point of view about any scripture, but what the scripture says is much more important than our views.  Several times truth is very hard to digest.

Coming back to Gita—so Arjuna faces a dilemma, which Gita calls at dvand or in Hindi we call it as ‘duvita’.  We all face this dvand in our day to day life—to be not to be is the tension we face in our life too. To overcome such tension we cannot merely depend upon our own mind or conscience or seek the counsel of such people who would take advantage of our problem.  However we have to seek the advice of someone, but we have to choose one who will impartially and without any reservation will give correct answer—even if it is not acceptable to us.

So ‘to be or not to be’ is the question of Arjuna in the war field.  And now we have to   consider the question whether the decision which Arjuna took is correct or not.  He starts the question by pointing about the delusion in his mind.  The tension which he faces even dries his bones.  Because his delusion is related to dharma and not mere virtue or personal salvation.  But one good thing here about Arjuna is that he not only accepted his confusion but also sought the counsel of Krishna.  Here we can learn from the humbleness of Arjua to accept his inability to take decision.  Blessed is the man who knows his limitation.  Bible clearly points out this by saying, ‘Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you’.  Don’t  become a wise man in your own sight. 

To follow personal dharma or social dharma is the main confusion of Arjuna.  As a Kshatriya he has to fight—but for what is the question before him.  The dharma of a kshatriya is not merely to fight but to protect the people.  For this he has to follow the four fold way of sama, bedha, dhana and danda.  But Aruja has to fight not for his personal right but against adharma.  Because he who is not fight against adharma is a coward.  Some times we can give our personal right in order to maintain peace.  But to protect other’s interest against any adharma done against them we have to fight.  This we find in the life of Bhagavan Muktinath.  When he was crucified on the Cross He refused to fight back.  Whereas when the woman caught in adultery was brought before Him, He fought for the adharma done against her, by asking her accusers to throw the first stone against her, who never done any sin.  Of course the woman was brought before Him only to test and trap Him—whether He will punish as per their religious law or forgive as per His teaching.  But He not only kicked the ball in His opposition court but also done justice to the woman—at the same time both forgiving her as well as warning not to sin any more.  That’s is the best example of God’s justice and mercy done without contradicting each other.  Because by forgiving her sin, now He left the decision of doing any sin in future to herself.  Once forgiven, if she repeats the same sin, then there exists no more prayaschita for her.  Awakening the conscience towards ethical responsibility to personal level is much more important than providing or prescribing any ritualistic prayaschita for sin.  Similarly He refuse to fight back when the soldiers came to arrest Him on false charge.  But He never hesitated to chase the money changers and others who occupied the outer courtyard—which belongs to the gentiles to worship God (as Jews won’t allow the non-Jews in the temple).  Of course those money changers and other who sell the cattle there are only helping other Jews coming from far off land to buy the animal for sacrifice, as they cannot bring their offering from such distance.  But in the name of helping their own people to do their religious ritual, they denied the right of other’s which Jesus couldn’t tolerate.

Here the decision that which Arjuna took is not right considering his responsibility towards dharma.  If it is related to his personal likes and dislikes, he could have taken any such decision.  Here the decision which he takes is based on mere emotion.  Because the war has already started.  All the efforts to settle the dispute through peaceful negotiation failed and finally it was decided to go for the war.  Now after every preparation in the eleventh hour he has no right to change his mind suddenly.  No individual has any right to take arbitrary decision which was already decided collectively.  Above all here the question is whether to kill his kith and kin or not.  Because the same people in the opposite camp never thought like that.  Similarly Kauravas never treated Pandavas as relatives but always considered as enemies.  Regarding the Pandavas acharyas in the opposite camp also joined hands with Duryodana knowing the consequence.  So in every sense Arjuna here moved by emotion refuse to fight.

The next point to be noted is that as per the condition after 13 years their Kingdom should be returned back to them.  This was the promise given by the King himself.  Whereas moved by his love towards his son, King Drudhirashtra becomes blind within himself.  In stead of remaining as an impartial King, he become a weak father.  Now it is not the question of any dispute between relatives but a King refuse to fulfill his promise to his own citizens.  If Arjuna refuse to fight then he is allowing the King to do adharma.  Such license given to the authority will be used against week and poor also. So refuse to fight Arjuna will become part of adharma.  It is not the question of fighting for his personal right but to oppose adharma.  It is the duty of a King to stand and protect the innocent.  The very purpose of judiciary system is not to punish a criminal but to protect an innocent.  Even by mistake one innocent man should not be punished that is the main aim of judiciary.

Another objection one could raise against Arjuna’s decision of not to fight is that one cannot compromise with the principle because of one’s personal temperament or character.  Personally I may be a peace loving person and ready to give up my personal right in order to maintain peace.  But if it is leading to compromise with the principle of upholding dharma or opposing an adharmi, then, leaving aside I have to raise up to fight against any adharma.  Unlike that of Arjuna there could be different means for me to do so—but as a Kshatriya, Arjuna has no other option left with him, that too when all other means failed.  So sometimes we have to go against our personal temperament for a common cause.  There could be difference means for us to oppose adharma, but because of our personal temperament we have no right to compromise with the principle.  It is interesting to note that ahimsa or not to fight is not even the temperament of Arujna and he always fought several times.  But in that given situation, due to tension he couldn’t even think properly and decided go against not only against his temperament but also against principle.  Though he too is a common citizen like others in the Kingdom of Dridhrashtra, yet he is also part of royal family and so a leader.  So unlike a common people, as a leader he cannot compromise with the principle.  Because then he will set a bad example and provide a poor leadership to his own people.  That’s why there is no personal feelings and emotions for a leader when he deals with a common problem.  In our Indian stories we can come across several characters who gave up even their right and relationship with their kith and kin, in order to uphold the principle.  Harishchandra lost everything, including his wife and son as he refuses to tell a lie.   So not only for his personal right, to uphold dharma and as a Kshatriya he has to fight but as a leader he has to fight or oppose adharma.  But such a untimely sense of cowardlyness—which is not in his temperament or in his previous action as a warior.  But he began to think which he ought not to think as Krishna rightly rebuked him later as ‘Arjuna, you grieve for those who should not be grieved for, yet speak words of wisdom.  The wise grieve neither for the living nor for the dead.’ (2:11)  There is nothing wrong in thinking, but to think in wrong time and place is not correct.  Already Pandavas thought various ways and means to obtain their right and as every other means failed, now they have decided to fight.  And now think about war is out of place.  About this Kural says, ‘Before doing any thing, think properly; one you have started after careful consideration, don’t began to think about it from the beginning (467).  We can do some revision or change, but try to abandon the entire work is not proper.  Regarding this Jesus also says,“Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? ²⁹For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, ³⁰saying, ‘This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.’³¹“Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? ³²If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. (Luke 14:28-32).  Of course the context here is about counting the cost of a disciple to follow Him.

            Like Arjuna we too will be trapped because of circumstance.  Our mind would become confused.  But the one good lesson that we can learn from him is that we should not think like him but to seek the counsel of wise people.

Even one time Gandhi told that “Non-violence in its dynamic conditions does not mean weak submission to the will of the evil doer, but it means putting our whole soul against the will of the tyrant.”  But this resistance must always be non-violent in both the negative and positive sense; so that the satyaagrahii, while resisting an opponent unto death, always cherishes a true love for him….Gandhiji, in fact, would prefer even violence to cowardly non-violence: “I do believe that where there is only choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.”  But, of course, true non-violence, the non-violence of the brave, is best of all and “infinitely superior to violence.”– R.De Smet and J. Neuner, (eds.) RELIGIOUS HINDUISM, Editors  Fourth Revised Edition, 1997, p.383

Because he refuses to fight based on his filial relationship.  And his further question is also that what is the use of attaining the Kingdom or even the abode of Indra by killing all the relatives.

The following is from class four:

‘ayam aatma balahinene na labyase’—the atman is not reachable for weak one, says one Upanishad.  In order to make progress in spiritual life, we need mental and spiritual strength or we should not be weak in our mind and spirit.  Because making progress in spiritual life is entirely different from observing routine rituals like puja etc.  We should not confused with spiritual life with ritual life.  As we have noted several time the ritual discipline (sadhana) is to develop concentration.  ‘cita sudhya ye karmana; na vastu upalabdaya; vastur siddhi vicarena na kinchit karma koti bi,’ says (Sankara)acharya in Vivekachudamani.  It is only to cleanse the mind that rituals are performed and not to attain moksha.  Mukti is possible only through proper inquiry and not by crores of work.  Generally we say we don’t have time to inquire about spirituality.  On the other Tripatiji came to my room and while we were discussing on this point he said that a typical family man does not have time to think about spirituality as he is surrounded by thousands of worries and things.  This is true.  But if we can spend half of the time which we spent on ritual, we can begin from somewhere.  So I consider it as mere excuse to say ‘no time’.  When we have enough time to all other activities, when it comes to spiritual matter, we have all kinds of explanations.  When we have enough time to visit temple, do puja and make elaborate arrangement for vratas etc. why cannot we set apart little time as a disciple for spiritual inquiry?  We all know that several hours are spent in preparing several kinds of dishes and eatables for a vrat and puja, and within few minutes the puja is completed.

So unless we develop a desire towards spirituality, we cannot even get that strength to proceed for it.  Of course our own nature is the first impediment towards this effort as Gita says, ‘each one is motivated by his own nature and even a wise man walks according to his nature and so what is the point of stopping one to follow his own nature’.  (my own translation, better take the exact translation).  But can we find some excuse blaming our nature?  Suppose one is short tempered and quick to fight, can we say it is his nature and so we should allow him to go with his nature? We advise him to change his nature.  In order to cope with others, we are forced to change our nature.  If there is a daughter-in-law who is short tempered, then she will be advised either to change her nature or home.  So we should make some efforts and take at least the first step towards spiritual life.  Because God won’t accept our excuses and explanations.  He accepts our weakness and limitations but never our excuses and explanations.  Whereas people will easily accept our excuses but never our weakness.  If you go and tell about your weakness in any area of life, then it will become a subject for gossip in your neighborhood.  But people easily accept our excuses, though they themselves know that we are telling lie.  As they themselves have several excuses, we know each other in this area.  God works in the reverse way, because He is our inner witness (andaryami).

In order to receive even the grace of God, we should strive more for spirituality and not satisfied with mere ritual.  Because even without some kind of spiritual aim, mere ritual wont’ even cleanse our mind.  Suppose if we spent several hours in arranging for a puja and spent lots of time in preparing various kinds of eatables and prasad.   But there is not much co-operation from other family members and the priest also came very late.  And when you sit to do the puja, already you are tired after doing lots of work.  Added to this there is irritation and angry because of lack co-operation from other family members.  So when you sit to do the puja, you have more angry and irritation in your mind and it is going to dominate your mind.  Such a puja is not acceptable to God.

Blessed is the man whose heart and mind is pure as he will have the darshan of God, says Lord Muktinath (Jesus).  And to attain such pure heart and mind is the aim of spirituality for which we have to make effort.  But several times we take all our ritual and preparations itself as spirituality.  But God is more concerned about what we are than what we do.  Suppose if one comes to your house and you serve food in an unclean plate and that too in an unclean environment, do you think that he will accept it.  Whereas if you serve a simple food on a clean plat in a clean atmosphere, that is acceptable.  God is more concerned about our plate and not what we serve on it for Him.  All elaborate arrangements are mere pamp and show.  And almost all our pujas and vratas have a limited aim—some personal gain in this life.  We do it to gain some more wealth and desired objects etc.  And nothing wrong in those desires.  But only to gain them if we do puja, the it becomes an end itself.

There is nothing wrong to have some desire to live properly in this world.  But to do puja and ritual to attain only them, then we will bring our own misery in the life.  Because when we develop some desire, its negative side is to gain for some and loss for some.  And desire also leads to the inevitable result of controlling others.  But in every family each one has their own desire—which means to except other to co-operate with him to fulfill it.  But the problem in life is that we each keep ourselves at the center of the life and except others to co-operate with us to fulfill our desires.  Several times in this process we conveniently forget that the another person also keep his life at the center and excepts we to co-operate with him.  So each one expects the other to dance according to his tune.  And the end result is that every one wants to make only tune and no one is ready to dance.

To remove this self centredness from the life, we need spirituality.  We always think and relate with others from our point of view—my wife, my husband, my child, my house.  We rarely think or act that I am his wife, her husband etc.  And try to removal of this ‘ego’ aham, possessiveness is the aim of spirituality, which no ritual can help us to achieve. But possessiveness is different from accepting responsibility.  To say in other words, there is nothing wrong to think others with our relationship as my wife, my husband etc.  But spirituality will help us also to think that as she is my wife, I am equally her husband.  God has given me this home to serve others.  A mother-in-law will think how she can help her daughter-in-law to become a good mother-in-law in future.  Even to develop another person to do his/her responsibility will possible only when we aim for spirituality.  To develop another man as human, a person to do his dharma properly is also part of spirituality.  For this we should strive to remove this ‘aham’ or ‘mine’, which is not possible by doing merely some rituals.

Some times by doing rituals we become very proud also.  We began to compare our ritual life with that of our neighbors and began to brag how we are better and doing everything meticulously as per the tradition.  And this will lead also to look down others without knowing or understanding their limitation and struggle in doing such rituals.  Whereas true spirituality will make one become more and more humble.  It will motivate us to think about other’s good quality and make us to feel shy and shame, which we lack within us.  Rituality leads to arrogance and pride and spirituality leads to humility.  We keep our rituals as the measuring rod to compare ourselves with others.  This is well illustrated by the story which Lord Muktinath told: (Luke 17:9-14).

In this story the sinner not even compared himself with the priest.  He just confessed his own sin and seek the mercy of God.  But the priest who has done all the ritual as per the tradition, only compared his ritual with that of the sinner and never asked even God’s blessing on his life to continue to do the ritual as before.  He actually never came to ask some thing to God but parade his ritual life both before God and man.  In this story the sinner is strong in his heart and mind but the priest was weak in those areas.  The sinner depended upon the Grace of God whereas the priest trusted his own ritual activities.  The priest counted his ritual as his strength whereas the sinner depend upon the grace of God for his inner strength.  Who knows he might have not even noticed what the priest was doing by standing next to the alter, as he was not even had the courage to life up his face towards God.

Similarly unless we too become interested in spiritual life, even our day to day life in the family and society won’t be smooth.  Not ritual but spiritual life alone will give us inner strength.  And to gain such spiritual life we should began to inquire about our need before God.  ‘Without gaining knowledge even by taking hundreds time birth one won’t attain salvation’, says acharya in Bhajagovindam.  Kabir endorses this by saying, ‘there is rosary on your hand but there is struggle in your heart.  Oh! Fool, you never cleansed your heart and mind but go around and preach from Gita and Bhagavat.  Tulsi says, ‘as long as desire, anger, lust in our mind; we all are same whether we may be a learned Brahmin or unlearned fool.

A disciple went to his guru and said, ‘I have a serious problem in my life.  There are two dogs fighting in my mind all the time.  One is white dog and another is dark.  How to overcome this struggle’.  For this the guru said, ‘which dog wins and which dog looses’?  And with much shame and tears, the disciple replied, ‘to whichever dog I feed that wins, but the tragedy is that I wantonly feed only the dark dog’.

In order to make the dark dog weak no amount of ritual will help us.  Because if actually there are two dogs in our mind and atman, we can easily make one strong and another weak.  But it is our mind, budhi and atman itself is both white and dark dog.  One time it behaves like a white dog and another time as dark dog.  The struggle the dvand which is with me is happening in my own mind and bhudi or atman.  So it is not that much easy as the story says that we can feed one dog and make another one to weak.  Several times we may refuse to feed the dark dog, but what we feed to the white dog is silently taken by the dark dog, even without our notice.  We think that we are feeding only the white dog, but unless we remove the dark dog slowly and completely, no amount of making it to starve will solve our problem.  Like a parasite it will silently eat what all we feed to the while dog.  Gaining inner strength is not that much easy.  In this area every one has to struggle—whether you are a family man or a sannyasi.  For this you have to do the tapasya each second in your life.  Consciously we have to be alert not allowing the dark dog to come back again through any door in our life.

People, due to their fallen nature, laziness and even fear of people will prefer the easy way to follow.  Some times doing certain rituals we get some kind of satisfaction.  Something is better than nothing.  But the danger in such attitude is that once we begin to get satisfaction from that ‘something’, then in the long run we will be satisfied with it by saying ‘spiritual’ life is not within our reach.  When you start a business you are not satisfied with your small business.  You dream for a big venture and make every effort to achieve it.  But when it comes to the spiritual life, if we try to replace it with ritual life, then we will be satisfied only with it.  This is in our nature.  And to overcome it and to take even the first step towards the spiritual life needs strength and courage.  Ayam atma balahinene na labyase.

One easy excuse on our part is that we have to go with the world other wise we will be left behind.  True.  That’s what the bible says that broader is the way in which may walk, but narrow is the way in which few prefer to tread.  But which one we choose?  At least in this area cannot say that we have to go with the world.  A dead fish float along with the current but only a living fish swims against the current.  To swim against the world, you should have life in you—which no ritual life will give.

By saying all this I am not against any kind of ritual.  Because even all the sadhana which we try to do to begin a spiritual life itself would become a mere ritual.  Ritual has its own place in our life.  But a thing which should become a means should never become an end itself.  Reading scripture, keeping quite time, meditation, prayer, self analysis might even replace visible rituals and will even become more subtle and dangerous ritual.  Spirituality is the conscious ual. me, meditation, prayer, self analysis might even replace visible rituals and will even become living with God, walking before Him, following His dharma and not ours.  Karma (ritual) knowledge (inquiry) and bhakti (living in God’s presence) all the three ways are important to achieve this.  Unless karma and knowledge help us to have that bhakti in our life, they themselves become an end in themselves.  And particularly when knowledge becomes an end in itself it is more dangerous than outward ritual.  At least in performing rituals there will be someone to point out the vanity of them to us.  But when knowledge itself becomes an end in itself, no one knows about it.  So unless both karma and knowledge lead us to have right kind of bhakti, we should guard ourselves from them.

The Purvamimsa tradition gave so much importance to karma that even pushed God to a secondary place.  The priest who has to perform the sacrifices properly become more important to God to whom the sacrifice is performed.  Similarly the Uttaramimsa tradition completely annihilated God and make our self as God.  Of course a typical vedantian may say that I am giving a wrong interpretation to Vedanta.  It is true.  What the Vedanta says is to remove ignorance to find out that the atman is Brahman.  But in theory it is very easy, but in practice—I won’t say it is difficult, but none could achieve it.  Then what about all who are venerated as the greatest vedantians like Sankara.  I don’t want to enter here any kind of dispute with them.  Let them believe what they claim.  But I am an average human and I can talk only in ordinary human terms to other humans.

So which one is important for spiritual life—karma, knowledge or bhakti.  And in our context of Gita, what is its answer.  According to my understanding Gita never gave a clear cut answer to this question.  It is good that it never gave any one particular sadhana as the means for spirituality.  Mere karma may lead us to routine ritual.  Only knowledge may lead us to become proud.  Mere bhakti may lead us silently to blind faiths—aiming more and more to satisfy our gods through more sadhanas.  There is a subtle danger in bhakti as bhakti without knowledge will become mere blind faiths and superstition.  True bhakti and blind faith are two parallel lines which will never meet together.  Wherever there  blind faith is, there won’t be true bhakti, wherever there true bhakti is, there won’t be any blind faith.  Such blind faith leads us to follow several superstitions.  Then those superstitions replacing God become our gods.  We began to fear the superstitions more to God.  True bhakti won’t allow us to serve both the masters.  True bhakti will make us to make total surrender to God, irrespective of the treatment that we receive from Him.  ‘Either you do good to be or bad, I least bother about anything as I have totally surrendered myself to you already’, says Abiramibhattar.  Such true bhakti is possible only by spirituality and not rituality.  And more you become strong in your ritual life, more you will follow blind faith, because it will kill the very spirit of spirituality.  True spirituality will never give you satisfaction and the feeling of fulfillment like that of rituality.  The person who is satisfied with his ritual life is half dead.  He will think that I am doing puja nicely, follow the rules and arrangements correctly (that too comparing with others), he is half dead and closes his heart and mind to spirituality.  But true spirituality will always give a longing to become more spiritual.  That longing is to mould the inner person and not observing outside rituals.  Becoming more humble, loving, serving, obedience etc. are some out word sign of such spirituality.   One may say these are mere moral and ethical rules, which one could even possess due to temperament. 

Yes every one is born with certain ethical and moral qualification which is provided and shaped by her family, community and society.  But these qualifications are the sign for us to measure our growth in spiritual life.  Until we cultivate these qualifications with the help of spiritual life, they will disappear and will be replaced by bad qualities.  We are born with both good and bad things.  If any one who denies this, at least has to accept that when we grow, these two opposite qualification began to develop according to our environment.  But how we develop them is left to us individually—though our environment can help us to make progress.  And here the spiritual life will help our progress and mere ritualism will put stumbling block in such progress.

At the same time, this spirituality is not merely developing our moral and ethical qualities.  Because the aim of true spirituality is to give us mukti from bondage.  Such mukti is not limited to gain freedom from certain bad habits and characters.  It is the assurance of salvation (moksha).  Only when we have the assurance of this salvation, then alone it will help us to live up to its visible mark in our mind and conscience through our spiritual life.  Other wise mere ethical and moral qualifications themselves will create another kind of pharisaism with in us—making these qualifications another kind of ritual.  The spiritual life is the visible mark within us that we have the assurance of salvation and without out such assurance we cannot even progress in our spiritual life.  They go hand in hand. 

Whereas rituality is followed either to attain certain worldly gain or for mere mental satisfaction or even fear of the consequence of not performing them.  But at some point, in spite of its blind spot, such rituality may even give satisfaction.  But more we grow in our spiritual life, more we will long for it.  This longing others may not know (or should not know).  It is in our inner desire however others will notice that growth in us.  Once we begin to walk in such spiritual life, it will never allow us to die to it.  This we can term as ‘life’, which the assurance of salvation gives in our life.  There will be ups and downs in such life, but it will never die.  It will never give us satisfaction. 

Lack of satisfaction is possible even in enjoying and accumulating worldly pleasure and things.  To some extent such longing to have more towards the pleasures in the world may not be wrong—which we can term as legitimate rights and pleasures (which is not opposed to dharma according to gita).  But progress in spirituality will help us to guide, control and make best use of such pleasures and wealth for common good.  It will give us right kind of wisdom to steer our life never allowing us to drift away in our search and longing for seeking more pleasure and wealth.

So spirituality should not be confused with some moral and ethical qualities alone.  It is the assurance of salvation.  What this ‘salvation’ is a different question, which various according to religions.  But the point that we should keep in mind is that mere rituals never help us to attain it.  Though written in the context of advaita, yet the following two quotes from Vivekacudamani will show how mere ritual will never help to get correct knowledge to attain moksha.

citasudhdaye karma n tu vastuupalabhye; vastusidhir vicaarene n kincit karmakootibhi.

–Karma is only to achieve purity of mind not to attain the truth.  Truth is reached only through proper enquiry (knowledge) and not by doing crores of karma.–11

n yogen n sankhyen krmanaa no n vidyaya.  brahmaatmaikatv boden moksha sidyati naanyata—Neither by Yoga nor my Sankhya nor my Karma, nor my vidya (learning).  Moksha is possible only through the knowledge that ataman and Brahman are one and the same; not through any other means.–56

  xÉ ªÉÉäMÉäxÉ xÉ ºÉÉÆJªÉäxÉ Eò¨ÉÇhÉÉ xÉÉä xÉ Ê´ÉtªÉÉ*ù ¥ÉÀÉi¨ÉèEòi´É-¤ÉÉävÉäxÉ ¨ÉÉäIÉ: ʺÉvªÉÊiÉ xÉÉxªÉlÉÉ*ù*ù–úVôLjRôXuß, ^ôe¡VjRôXuß, LoUjRôXuß, Lp®VôXuß, ©WmUØm Rôàm Juß Gu\ A±®u ®¯lTôp Ød§ £j§d¡\Õ; úYß YûL«p CpûX.–®úYL. 56

 ÊSÉkɺªÉ ¶ÉÖvnùªÉä Eò¨ÉÇ xÉ iÉÖ ´ÉºiÉÚ{ɱɴvɪÉä*ù ´ÉºiÉÖʺÉÎvnù-Ì´ÉSÉÉ®äúhÉ xÉ ËEòÊSÉiÉ Eò¨ÉÇEòÉàÊ]õʦÉ:*ù*ù–U]§u çnûUdLôLúY (LoU) ùNVp; EiûUlùTôÚû[ AûPYRtÏ Auß.  EiûUlùTôÚs £j§lTÕ BWônf£Vôp; úLô¥dLQdLô] LoUeL[ôÞm £±Õm £j§dLôÕ.–®úYL. 11

Coming back to Gita, even though it propounds all the three ways, yet it clearly never says this is the best one.  That’s why in ch. 18 Krishna, after giving all his teachings finally says, ‘do what you think the best one’. (  ).  Thankfully Gita never binds one to a particular thought.  It gives the freedom for one to choose which one best suits for him.  By following which path we could progress in spirituality is left to us.  Which way would remove my ignorance, ego and help me to get right knowledge?  This I have to decide taking help from my tradition and values.  However we can infer that only through right knowledge one can get right devotion through which we can surrender ourselves to God and make progress in spirituality.

So we should never think that doing the ritual in proper way is the knowledge to grow in spiritual life.  We are doing all the rituals all through our life.  But how far we manage to overcome our ego?  Who become my master?  Which dog I am feeding?  In stead of searching for some excuses in time, tradition, family and society, let us begin from our self.  But to walk in spiritual life, we have learn to walk ‘alone’.  Others may help to some extent.  But until we have personal thirst and desire no amount of classes, teaching guidance will help us.  Similarly we should never say, ‘no body is doing it’.  Let us do it.  Of course God will sent right person to help us to make progress in our spiritual life, once we take the first step.

@@@@

Conclusion:

The message of Gita is applicable to all—though there is no unanimous agreement among the scholars what that message is.  However it is for the living, who cannot make his own decision and not for the dying.  In several places when the old people are dying, then the household people arrange for the chanting of gita, as if it is going to bring some merit for the dying person.  But Krishna was giving his teaching to Arjuna and not to Bishma who was laying on his death bed.  So it is in one sense we are degrading Gita by arranging such rituals for any dying person.  It is for the living and not for the dead or dying.

So do your duty as it is your dharma.  Never support adharma by stepping from your duty.  Oppose it.  Not for reward but not to leave a bad example you have to do your dharma.  Never allow the circumstance to defeat you like that of Arjuna.

Question:  What jnan mean.

Response: To know oneself properly is knowledge.  Not to know about God is knowledge, because no amount of our will help us to know all about God.  Of course without proper knowledge about God we cannot love Him and worship Him.  But this knowledge is possible only when we began to think what I need God.  What is the main stumbling block in me to know about God?  Once we begin from this, then the grace of God will reach us to reveal about Himself to us.  And this revelation is possible only through spirituality and not through rituality.  The role of any scripture should help to us to know about ourselves first.  The duty of a doctor is not to give treatment but primarily to diagnose the decease.  Of course we go to the doctor also for our treatment.  But this he does first by diagnosing the decease.  He will never prescribe some medicine.  Similarly any scripture which only motivate to do ritual it won’t help us to grow in spiritual life.  But the tragedy is that several times we ourselves make the scripture as mere ritual book.  Just read few chapters or chant few slogas without knowing what it says, we are degrading it.

This is what happened to me when I read bible.  It clearly pointed my decease—wretched sinner I am who shall deliver me from the body of death?  All those years I was reading all our scriptures—of course myself making them as mere ritual book.  This is what our family tradition teaches us.  This is true even among the Christians and Muslims.  But when we allow the scripture to diagnose me, then my spiritual life begins from this.  Unless we allow the doctor to diagnose us, he cannot do anything on his own.  Here in our life such a spiritual doctor is our guru, who can guide us.  But however we try, we cannot find that guru.  And when our heart and mind is prepared, he himself will find us.  This is what happened in my life too.  Finally I found my guru in bhagavan yesu.

@@@@

…He [Vedaanta Desika ] argues that there can only be one true god and it is possible and urgent to decide which deity is that true God.  Since religious practice and salvation are ultimately dependent on a right relationship (p.453) with the true God, it is possible and necessary to know this God correctly.  Proper exegesis and clear reasoning will indicate that Narayana alone is the lord of the universe, neither Siva nor Brahma.—pp.453-54– CHAPTER 21.  Restoring “Hindu Theology” as a Category in Indian Intellectual Discourse.  Francis Clooney, SJ in The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism. Gavin Flood (ed.), UK, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Indian Reprint 2003, pp.453-54

Notes

1. “…The man who reads the Ramayana thinking that from the beginning he is dealing with God, will get nothing out of it.” [V.S. Srinivasa Sastri, Lectures on Ramayana, , pp. 6&7]  “Deal Rama not as a man in whom there was all knowledge, all propriety, all virtues from the very beginning, unfailing till the very end.  That is not the way to read his life but as a man who struggled, was tempted, who had his weakness.  These characters are full-blooded men,” [ibid. p.13] who, at times, like many other men, have emotional explosions under the stress and strain of life.— Benjamin Khan, The Concept of Dharma in Valmiki Ramayana, Delhi, Munshi Ram Manoharlal, 1965, pp. 2-3

@@@

Nasadiya Temper, Gurcharan Das,

The recent controversy over Islamic cartoons in Europe is once again testing the boundaries of religious tolerance.  Most Hindus, of course, believe that they are tolerant and trace their broadmindedness to their many gods.  Some even ask: how did our tolerant pluralism turn into the intolerance of Hindutva?

               Hindu pluralism is grounded in the Rig Veda, Wendy Doniger, the Sanskrit scholar, tells us in a wonderful essay, “Many Gods, Many Paths”.  It may well have originated in the charming humility of the Nasadiya verse (10. 129): “(In the beginning) there was neither being nor non-being… (but) who really knows?… (for) the gods came afterwards.”  This questioning attitude, adds Doniger, might also have led to the invention of a God whose name was the interrogative pronoun, ka.  For the creator once asked Indra, “Who am I?” Indra replied, “Just what you said: Who.”  And this is how the creator got the name, Ka or Who.

               The pluralism of the Rig Veda, however, did have a monistic hue for the very substance of the universe was divine.  Each God had a secondary or illusory status compared to the divine substance, yet was a powerful symbol of and a guide to the divine.  Hence, many gods co-exist comfortably in a non-hierarchic pantheon.  And the devotee of many, non-hierarchical gods is more likely to see the many sides of truth, and thus be more tolerant.

               By the time that this unassuming outlook is enshrined in the famous, “Neti, neti” (“Not this, not that”) attitude of the Upanishads, the seeds of monistic certainty have been firmly planted.  It’s charming the way open-minded kings in the Upanishads invite holy men of various schools to debate religious issues.  But the modest openness of neti becomes a “submerged form of intellectual imperialism” when we come to Shankara.  A belief in the unity of brahman and atman may lead to a belief in the unity of all persons but it does not necessarily lead to a respect for all viewpoints, as the argumentative followers of Shankara and Ramanuja will testify.

               Thus, social pluralism doesn’t always follw from intellectual pluralism.  The problem is that when I speak with certainty about my beliefs, I cannot help but suggest that what I believe in is superior: I secretly want you to renounce your opposing view and accept mine.  Hence, all such statements are attempts at conversion.  Here lies the leap from tolerance to intolerance.  What stops one from trying to convert others is good manners.  Fundamentalists lack these and take the further leap and threaten death.

               The source of Hindutva’s intolerance, or for the matter of any fundamentalists’s, is a political one and it is futile to seek answers in belief. All fundamentalists are insecure, and seem to take an excessive interest in others.  They would do well to see Walt Disney’s 1942 film, Bambi.  In it is a rabbit named Thumper, whose mother asks him, “Thumper, what did your father say?”  Thumper replies, “If you can’t say something good about a person, don’t say anything at all.”  Islamic, Hindu and Christian fundamentalists ought to consider joining Thumper’s School of Social harmony.  They might also consider following Albert Camus’ sensible advice: “To be happy one must not be too concerned with others.”  The ordinary Hindu on the street, I am convinced, is tolerant in belief.  She has the unassuming nasadiya temper of the open-minded seeker in the Rig Veda, and all fundamaentalists could learn something form it.

Dear Sri Das,

Shanti!

Again, I enjoyed your article ‘Nasadiya Temper’ (Times of India, Bangalore, Feb. 12, p.6).  I agree with you completely about Hindutva fundamentalism.  Having said this (I am neither a Hindutav vadi nor a supporter of any political party), I would like to ask you few questions:

You started with the recent controversy over Islamic cartoons, but immediately changed to Hindutva fundamentalism.  If you only want to target Hindutva fundamentalism, you can directly start from that subject.  Some common people like me forced to think why, like the politicians, the media use any and every opportunity to target Hindutva fundamentalism only.  Our politicians are playing the minority appeasement only for the sake of vote bank politics and like wise several medias (Particularly English) always bashing Hindu fundamentalism and never dare to challenge the other religious fundamentalism openly.  Secularism in India has a strange definition: opposing anything and everything about Hinduism.  I hope a balanced writer like would also directly address the other fundamentalism directly. 

I like the article that appeared on The Times of India, Bangalore, Feb. 13, p. 18: Attacking Islam, by Javed Anand.  May Allah add many more such writers to the English Media.

Dayanand Bharati

Dear Dayanand.

I want to thank you for taking the trouble to respond to my article in the Times of India. Writing is a lonely business and it is always nice to get a response. I found your ideas thoughtful, interesting and valuable, and I shall try to address your concerns in my future writings.

Again, many thanks for writing, and let’s remain in touch.

Warm regards.

Yours,

Gurcharan Das

P.S. Since you read my columns, you may also enjoy reading my recent books, “India Unbound” & “Elephant Paradigm” published by Penguin in India.

Dear Swamiji,

For some the reason the article by G Das has not appeared online yet and I am thankful that you have forwarded it to us. I really liked the article too since he always presents something that I can think about. I did not feel that G Das was attacking Hindu fundamentalism alone and even if he did he has the right premise for being identified as a Hindu himself. Similarly, I guess, Javed Anand has done his rightful duty to address Islamic fundamentalism.  I am not sure if you had a chance to read G Das’ article titled ‘I am a Hindu, but…’ (included below) and it is very insightful as well. In the light of his two articles, I do not think that he belongs to the camp of the English media that is looking for every opportunity to bash Hindu fundamentalism.

Pranam

Basu

I am a Hindu, but…
Gurcharan Das

Times of India, 8^th Oct 2005

The confident, handsome friend of our son gave a telling reply to a visiting nglishwoman the other day in Khan Market. “I am a Hindu, but…”, and he went into a winding reply about his beliefs. He hastily added that he was an Indian first. It was a perfectly honest answer, and any other person might have made it about Islam or Christianity.

But I sensed an unhappy defensiveness — the ‘but’ betrayed that he was ashamed of being a Hindu. This happened a few weeks after I got a call from one of Delhi’s best schools, asking me to speak to its students. “Oh good”, I said, “in that case, I shall speak about dharma and the moral dilemmas in the Mahabharata.”

The principal’s horrified reaction was, “Oh don’t, please! There are important secularists on our governing board, and I don’t want a controversy about teaching religion.” I protested ineffectually, “But surely the Mahabharata is a literary epic, and dharma is about right and wrong. Where does religion come in?”

As I think about these two incidents, I ask myself, why should these two successful young professionals be embarrassed of their heritage? Something has clearly gone wrong. With the rise in religious fundamentalism, it seems to me that it is difficult to talk about one’s deepest beliefs.

Liberal Hindus are reluctant to admit being Hindu for fear they will be automatically linked to the RSS. I certainly blame Hindutva nationalists who have appropriated our culture and tradition into a political agenda. But I also blame our secularists who behave no better than fundamentalists in their antipathy to tradition.

One of the strengths of Western civilisation is that in times of crisis, it seeks sustenance and inspiration from the rational ideals of Greece and Rome, from Homer, Pericles and Virgil.

My fear is that modern, liberal Indians may not have any use for their past, and they will abdicate our wonderful traditions to the narrow, closed minds of fanatical Hindu nationalists. If Italians are proud of the Divine Comedy, the Spanish of Don Quixote, and the Greeks of the Iliad, why should ‘secularist’ Indians be ambivalent about the Mahabharata?

Why should it become ‘untouchable’ for a sensitive, modern, school principal? In part this is due to ignorance. We do not read our ancient classics with a critical mind as secular works of literature and philosophy, as young Americans read the Western classics in their first year of college as a part of their “core curriculum”.

So, we depend on our grandmothers or Amar Chitra Katha or second rate serials on Sunday morning television. Meanwhile, the Sangh Parivar steps into this vacuum with its shrunken, defensive, and inaccurate version of our history and happily appropriates this empty space.

And the richness of tradition is lost to this generation. No one reads Edmund Burke these days. He opposed the French Revolution because he feared that killing the church and aristocracy would cut off links with the past.

I too value continuity in our “custom, community and natural feeling” in Burke’s language, which is so necessary to realise our full human potential. To respect tradition means that one must criticise it as our 19th century reformers did. But I fear that our secularism is unwittingly undermining tradition.

The challenge before modern, decent Indians today, it seems to me, is essentially the same as the one Ram Mohan Roy faced in the early 19th century: how to grow up mentally healthy, integrated Indians? How do we combine our liberal modernity with our traditions in order to fully realise our potential?

Dear Basu,

My main point is that, unlike Javed Anand, certain Hindu writers like Gurucaran Das, do not openly come out to say something against the Islamic fundamentalism.  If he started with Cartoon controversy, (which is the current context for his article) why he should suddenly change and began to bash Hindu Fundamentalism?  I think, some Hindu writers, like some political parties do not come out openly Islamic fundamentalism.  As a Hindu he has every right to target Hindu fundamentalism.  But in this particular article, he is not sharing anything about Islamic fundamentalism, particularly in the context of cartoon procession.  I am also posting Das’ response to my mail.  Of course I know that he is not agreeing with me and only evasively (not to offend) just wrote those few words.  But I feel that we need to challenge the opinion makers to be brave in opposing every kind of fundamentalism.

db

Dear Sri Das,

Shanti!

I agree with you that there is no ‘good’ country or ‘bad’ country (your view on NDTV March 2^nd on the occasion of President Bush’s visit) but only ‘powerful’ and ‘powerless’ country.  And for our national interest, we have to go with the powerful country.  But there is another part of our own conscience and also the prevailing Indian worldview that we have to fight against any kind of suppression.  Those who do not oppose evil are in one sense supporting it indirectly.  Of course, each one can express their opposition in different way, but somehow we have to oppose it.  And those who cannot do it, at least can keep away from supporting those who do evil.  I am not saying that all that America does in the world is evil.  At the same time, always keepings its personal interest, America’s foreign policy has some evil aspects.  Now after becoming a partner and also dependent on America for our nuclear need, what if we too are forced to side with its wrong doings in some other countries like Iraq.  An opinion maker like you also has to spell it out for the common interest of land and also to educate lay people like us.

But I totally agree with your points (NDTV, We The People of India, March 5^th) about giving 25% reservation for the underprivileged class in private schools, provided govt. keeps its hands away from not interfering with the school’s administration.  We all familiar with our politicians and govt. officials.  Though slowly public opinion is bring some change in them, yet allowing them to interfere in private school will affect the quality of education.  I too agree with you that it is mere ‘lunatic’ decision not to have examinations.  Thanks for sharing your point with deep conviction.  We need people like you who can take a firm conviction to mobilize public opinion.  May god give you long life and good health to serve this nation.

dayanand

Dear Dayanand,

I appreciate your wise remarks. Yes, we should criticise America’s wrong doings, but do it as private citizens. It should not make us forget our nation’s self-interest.

Thanks for writing.

Warmly,

Gurcharan

Don’t despair over integrity, Gurcharan Das, The  Sunday Times, Sep, 10, 2006, p. 6

Dear Sri Gurcharan Das,

Shanti!

One need not go to England to see ‘the same Indians behave differently when they cross the immigration line at Heathrow airport’, but go to any Consulate to see the same Indian’s disciplined behavior and even obedience to the watchman at the gate when stand there to get their visa.  And just see our behavior, once we step to our territory outside the Consulate to know our true color.  So, still you believe that ‘There is nothing wrong in the character of Indians’?  Without changing our character merely ‘reforming our institutions’ won’t bring any change that you dream.  Without diagnosing the decease, merely treating the symptoms won’t cure any sickness. 

dayanand

@@@

Au×s[ B£¬VÚdÏ,

YQdLm!

éû]dÏ VôWôYÕ U¦ Lh¥jRôu BLúYiÓm. §Ú. G^. ÏÚêoj§ úTôu\YoLs GqY[ÜRôu £\lTôL LtßjúRokÕ Gݧ]ôÛm, AYoLû[l úTôu\YoL°u U]§p, £kûR«p Es[ ¶kÕ ¾®W YôRj§tÏm VôWôYÕ T§p ùNôp­jRôu BLúYiÓm. B]ôp AoLû[lúTôuú\ô¬u LÚjÕdLÞdÏ G§oLÚjÕdÏ Õd[d úTôu\ Tj§¬dûLL°p CPm ¡ûPVôÕ. G]úY CdL¥RjûR EeLÞdÏ Aàl© ûYd¡uú\u. ®ÚlTm CÚkRôp ©WѬdLÜm. Su±.

Au×Pu,

D. Anand, Hosur.

Copy to:

Sri. S. Gurumoorthy,

Editor, Junior Vikadan.

Editor Kumudam.

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

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) 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§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 ùLpXôm 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 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®W ûYxQYoLÞm, 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¥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× 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.

…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

@@@