RELIGION

GENERAL

(Aug 2013)

Definition of मतं (religion)

मनः is the word for mind in संस्कृत. The two words are phonetically close. But, the meaning and derivatives of मन are far more pregnant.  मन is so called because it thinks (मननं). मतं is thought or opinion derived from मन. As we know, मत is the word for religion. Religion is an opinion of human mind about ‘Reality’ or ‘Existence’ (definition of God).

Now, no two persons may have the same opinion even about things that the senses can grasp. So, diversity of opinion about God that stands above the grasp of senses is inevitable. That is to say, plurality of religions is a fact of life. This is the characteristic of Hinduism. It conceives a real basis for the universe, but is not dogmatic about how it may be perceived through the minds of men, which is in most cases a deficient medium.

 

Why religion

July 3, 2015

Need for religion·

Religion has a miserable basis and a happy ending because religion starts from the premise of misery and promises happy ending to its adherents. Will someone assuage me by disabusing me of this miserable thought?

It looks to me to be primitive to decide on god based on suffering, either personal or universal. No one seems to have deviated from this perspective. Even advaita believes that overcoming samsara which is misery is the goal of life. It seems to be a very partial grasp of reality and hence the conclusions arrived at from it are most likely to be defective.

There are those who believe that singing the glory of god is the eternal bliss. It also seems to miss the truth of life.

I am a firm believer in the need of religion. But, its role is in shaping our mind and behaviour. Once we are rooted in virtue (peaceful living in harmony with others, with reasonable activity), the role of religion is subsidiary. We pass to share the wonder of life, delve into its recesses to find its core and to appreciate a oneness which many have visualised, but which lies covered by layers of duality and conflict. We launch into spirituality, which can of course bypass religion altogether.

Neither misery is the sole definer of life, nor happiness its unique goal. The two alternate no matter what your ideological preference. Human purpose is exercise of all the faculties optimally. Thinking marks us as special, and thinking has to get us to the regions shut to direct perception, by suspending selfishness from thought. That is, we must have recourse to the parallel streams of science in the world of matter and contemplation and meditation in respect of the self.

 

1980

All people do not need religion. Rationality, agnosticism cannot be assailed. But, we need a system of values and social acceptance for such a system. Communism is a modern version of religion without the allegory of religion. Force as a means to a justifiable end is approved in communism.

To bind and unify a society, fear of god is quite essential. Belief in superhuman supervision of our deeds is a sine qua non of social order and peace. Equally important is faith in the inexorability of natural justice dispensed by divine means.

The creed of a society is the result of centuries of evolution. A thing is not great by virtue of its age, but in society acceptance of a common creed is a slow process and comes off by internal conviction instilled through ages. There is no good trying to overthrow it; we must have a substitute which is clearly better.

If one can be good and accept social responsibility without having to believe in ultimate triumph of truth and natural justice, if the ceaseless and unreasonable sufferings can be put up with amidst efforts for amelioration even in the absence of hope of imminent reward and if all things are taken in their stride, people may not need religion. The fact remains that we are imperfect and our surroundings are incompletely understood by us. We do need a faith to work with. The basic morals are needed and faith in such morals requires a greater faith for sustenance.

Very strangely, God is said to be proved when reason is missing (miracles). That is irrational belief by definition.

 

 “The deistic attack upon the orthodox creed had subsided as the sceptics came to realise that they had nothing to put in its place as an aid to individual morality and public peace.” Will Durant.

“..the chronic melancholy which is taking hold of the civilized races with the decline of belief in a beneficent Power.” Thomas Hardy.

“We walk by faith, not by sight.” New Testament.

“Religion forms a part of our destiny.” Napoleon.

Religion has played a great role in my life and happiness. Several instances have made me realise the impact of a mystical influence. Most people derive solace from religion. Those who decry religion are misguided and a minority.

Hindu Acharyas have been candid to accept that scripture is the only source to know God. Pascal said, ‘God is, or is not. Reason cannot tell.’

Cheats, and chinks in the armour of an institution do not necessarily make the institution suspect or invalid. Democracy has a thousand flaws and a legion of abusers. No one will talk of discarding democracy seriously. It is in the nature of any organism or organization to decay. Nature takes care of it by renewal in some form. We must do likewise with our own creations. That there have been imposters is not a tenable argument against religion.

Facts are dicey. What we know to be a fact today may be interpreted as a partial view later. The same thing is viewed differently by different people. No credible believer will ask you to accept a patently wrong thing.

Myths are useful, but we should keep in mind that they are myths and are not some historic facts. Avatars, resurrection, revelation, are all myths, but serve some purpose. We may continue believing them if they afford emotional fulfilment, but it is as well that we remember that they carry a torch to truth and not truth itself.

How do we know transcendental existence is a myth? No one can prove it. What we do not understand does not cease to exist. We can say with a shrug of the shoulder that I have no clue and cannot believe what I cannot understand. I do not believe that there exist gods of whatever name or description in some geographical location to be revealed selectively to the meek and pious, but I cannot say with any certainty that there does not exist such gods. I have no desire to engage with someone who wants to play hide and seek with me. That is about it.

 

Religion a way of engagement

The problem with religion is not belief but indoctrination. It is true equally of atheism and communism.

All our essence of life is not in science, or in need of validation by science.

Religion is a way of engaging oneself. Faith is an anchor for life. It is not to be decried as superstition and waste. In fact, it is rationalism that is waste.

I do not watch movies. But, an overwhelming majority do and derive not only entertainment, but also useful info. But, there are certain downsides, not venial in any reckoning. It will be silly to decry films because of either its artificial nature or the ills it generates. So with religion – an overwhelming majority believe in it and derive satisfaction, whatever may be the reality of god and soul.

We may, if we care and think, review our pursuits from time to time and reorient as our mental development needs. We need not feel ashamed of our past beliefs. Our past had its role and was in order in the past.

Religion is required for children and socially. We may grow out of it individually as we mature.

 

Life

20/2/2011

Life is one off

We have only one life for all intents and purposes. Any other is a matter of faith and metaphysics. It is intellectually unsatisfying. Does it mean that we can live this life any which way we like? There is no singe answer to this query. Our answers vary as our circumstances and development.

Dharmic forces are at work relentlessly. We do not understand its totality at any given time. How they work is again left to inference. That an intelligent supermind apportions fruits of actions is subject matter of belief that is often working in our minds as a cumulative social conscience.

God, regardless of its nature, cannot be separate from anything else, good or evil or whatever else. If God is not susceptible to our senses, there are bound to be differences in our inferences as extrasensory perception is by definition unverifiable and inexplicable. Quarrels on this count are not meaningful.

Science covers the facts and forces of the physical world based on sensory experience, theorization and conceptualisation, and further cross-checking and direct verification where possible.

The forces of life and the origin and destiny of living beings is also covered by science, but less conclusively than on purely physical forces.

Spirituality is not in the domain of science, but is certainly amenable to scientific spirit.

 

 

We have to believe fully in this life. Any other life is in the realm of conjecture. We have to believe in ourselves as all others exist only in our perceptions and thoughts. ‘I matter to myself’, ‘I am the most important person’, are attitudes that are positive and helpful. To have done anything at all is creditable no matter how inadequately it has been done. To strive for perfection without straining others is nobler. To achieve a poise of mind whereby the world’s boundaries melt is the pinnacle of one’s development.

 

Belief without experience is blind. We may believe in a state of fear to anaesthetise the mind, to turn it away from the thoughts and feelings that rekindle that fear. We may live a full life without realising the truth or otherwise of what we believe. A person whose thought processes do not rest with acceptance of one’s limitations in this front and make do with a comforting belief in total surrender, may choose to go mad or broken-hearted rather than give up in believing unquestioningly. The questions that arise are not those of an atheist. They are fundamental to life.

 

 

Purpose of life

Religion and metaphysics lead us astray. It is universally claimed that the purpose of life is to attain happiness. To be happy is surely a desirable state, but it is not a product or byproduct, but a question of attuning the mind. With the judgement that happiness is the goal of life, religion prescribes a code that is supposed to guide us to the goal, but the perceived outcome belies the promise. Not to be outdone, religion invents another world for reaping the fruits of following its commandments. Is it not the height of greed to expect plum and permanent reward for paltry and desultory efforts in a tiny life?

Misery and misfortune are the starting point of religious indoctrination and metaphysical speculation. They are attributed to evil, but the reason why evil overcame god is unconvincing. A dispassionate look around and reflection without any predisposition would tell us that life is an uneven mixture of good and evil, enjoyment and suffering. From the stories, chronicles and mythology, we may infer that it has been so always. While religions of revelation assure us of an eternal dwelling in heaven, religions based on philosophy enjoin us to renounce the life or its fruits. Luckily, not many have been tempted.

All of us want to live this life. It is a good natural instinct for us to want to live whether happy or unhappy. Human effort must be to make our life worthwhile and that cannot be a straitjacket. It has to be in different ways for different people. Observations, trials, socializing, empathy and so on will help us to live the short life richly. Religion and philosophy can engage quite a few of us to enrich our lives, but cannot pre-empt other choices and outlook. Much of mankind, and everything outside it, has no consideration of such intellectual stirrings as ignite the minds of philosophers to a glorious flame, about the first or final cause, or the future of present life.

It does not help to take a pessimistic view of life. It is not warranted. Life is full of changes and surprises one way or another. That is its beauty and attraction. We need t live it as a precious one-off gift in a manner befitting living in a group.

Putting the soul in front, and not the self, is spirituality. All are animated by the soul. Soul is not about god and another life, but about us and this life. We do not know about the history and destiny of the soul, nor can we know. It is not required either. We need to feel as the soul. That is all that is required.

 

 

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Religion is a private matter

‘Religions have triggered many conflicts, wars and violence in general. Therefore, religion must be abolished.’

This is not a viable argument.

Many, an overwhelming majority, find solace in religion. Many need it for morality also. If religion has to share the blame for strife, it must also be given credit in keeping a majority away from evil and violence. The bhakthi movement in India has been a constructive occupation of time and is a source of peace of mind.

Religion is there. It is undemocratic and impractical to wish it away or proscribe it. Communism, a quasi-religion, tried it and has floundered. Faith has resurfaced in the countries where it was suppressed brutally. Interestingly, faith has deserted many people in the democratic west. It is therefore in the interests of ‘rationalism’ to let freedom prevail in faith!

But, modern world does demand that theocratic state be avoided. Government is a mundane function and should not be on the basis of religion. Religion must be private and we must submit to governance based on secular principles.

Let governments be there for this world. Religion can take care of the next.

(I believe in god and the need for religion in this world, as I do not believe in another world/rebirth. That is a personal matter).

Religion is a way of engagement. There is nothing sacred or stupid about it. Sacredness comes from inner worth, not externalities. Stupidity is when we think of others as stupid or do not appreciate our limitations in understanding.

Eternity has been a human craving and most religions, if not all, thrive by assuring eternity. Eternal bliss is, of course, the promised reward for pure belief.

Eternity and individual identity appear to be mutually contradictory. Eternity is possible only by self-effacement, but then the macro concept of identity is a stunning blow to the pampered ego. The attitude develops when one may question: ‘Do I care if I merge into a whole, without the attributes that made my life worth living?’ But change of identity does not negate the possibility of eternity of the underlying force. Our being disinterested in such a possibility does not alter its significance.

Religious experience need not be considered irrelevant in the absence of eternity of the individual. Life is an experience however short it may be. Whatever enriches the experience should be welcome.

 

August 26, 2016

Mythology is real

Beliefs shape a society. Beliefs are inculcated through mythology. Mythology which is soaked in virtues is therefore essential for a good society to develop. For sure and obviously, mythology is mythology; it is not history. This cannot be held against the purpose mythology serves.

 

Science has achieved in waking up people from slumber and dream, and instilling a desire to be with the real and rational. I studied science but kept sleeping and dreaming, philosophising and questioning what passes for certainty derived from science.

It is a vast subject whether science in fact leads to any certainty. But, it is assumed that science has shown us the way to the untimate there is to know. I do not propose to walk that way which I do not know.

I want to speculate on what I feel life has meant to me.

I grew on a heavy nourishment of mythology and superstition, which was freely available. I am now at a stage where I can see the human hand in their build up, but am not convinced that it is sheer waste. I would also not like to be harsh on my past, nor would like anyone else to feel that he was stupid yesterday. We will have occasion to feel about our today’s stupidity if we live long enough. Judgment of any type is not required based on later knowledge.

We are told that mythology cannot stand up to rational scrutiny. I wonder what aspect of our life can. If reason is to guide our life solely, life will be meaningless. It will lead us into flight from life, not into life. If we are to be guided by utility, then the argument for mythology is won. We do not live life in the company of Buddha and Socrates. It is more colourful with Rama and Krishna. We are creatures of emotion than of reason. We have to find an anchor for our emotion.

If we sit up and argue, we will be able to demolish mythology wholesale. And in fact, many people have tried it. But, mythology is there. Despite very powerful atheists and so-called rationalists, belief is dominat, not reason. Why? It must have some hold somewhere. What is it? Foolishness? Then I vote for foolishness. I am happy to be a fool.

Indian life, which I have imbibed greedily, draws heavily on mythology. At every turn it is mythology.

When a pouranika describes the story from mythology with such intensity making the story come alive before my mind’s eye, it is reality of that moment to me. When MS sings ‘Hari tum haro Janaki bhiru’ with devotion and feeling of divinity, it is reality to me for that moment. When I see a koothu performed and Dussasana disrobes Draupadi (a male in woman’s make-up) and faints in the process, it is reality for me at that moment. When I read gopika githam with its eroticism-tinged bhakthi in vivid detail with no euphemism, it is reality for me then. I can go on. Any reality that we appreciate in other contexts also are changing phenomena. I have seen some samples of other realities also. The reality of mythology is nourishing, edifying, ennobling and emancipating.

I feel at home in my twilight years mulling over many things like mythology, philosophy, music, literature, science, and a sense of spontaneous gratitude for all that happened beyond what I should have hoped for. Prayer has helped me emotionally and even tangibly. To use the filtered wisdom of today forgetting the process of its culmination will be dishonest.

Someone asked why Sankara wrote hymns if advaita was his conviction. He was an Acharya. He knew that students are there from primary stage. He cannot cater only to doctoral students. One-size-fits-all is not our tradition.

Let each choose his reality. Let us live in our world and let others live in theirs.

India is a land of mythology. Let us pass it on, not pass it.

 

January 20, 2016 ·

Miracles

I read of miracles by a revered guru.

The biggest miracle is that we live, think, reason, agree and disagree, enjoy and suffer. Look around, the zest for life and the quest to make it and make it interesting, provide an amazing variety. That is the miracle.

To look for what we don't understand and attribute it to divinity is a primer.

We easily slip into thinking that whenever science hits a cul de sac (particle-wave duality, uncertainty, etc.) there is an opening for divinity. That is mixing up issues.

Let us admire miracles if we experience any, but let that not be the arbiter for belief.

 

 

Scriptures      

“The works compiled as Vedas may one day perish, but the truths enunciated there are eternal.” Swami Chidbhavananda:

Scriptures are described as apourusheyam, taken as not created by human mind. I heard an interesting interpretation of apourusheya – that whose truth is eternal, not dependent on history (time or author).

Many Hindus claim that all there is to know is detailed in Hindu scriptures. Muslims claim that Quran is the latest, final, irrevocable message from god and contains all knowledge. Christians swear by the Bible. So, it goes.

No scripture contains all one needs to know for living this life meaningfully.

Modern life as we lead is based on knowledge derived outside and beyond such sacred texts. We cannot think of life without artificial power based on fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Even our dreams may revolve around such secular knowledge.

Scriptures contain inaccuracies and are relevant only for understanding soul and god, which our perception and science cannot elucidate. They are supposed to take care of life after death, which, to me, is an oxymoron. I find them useful for this life mentally.

 

Bible is a good primer on religion. Everyone should read it. There is no equivalent scripture in Hinduism. Gita and Upanishads are for spiritual experience at a later stage.

 

Mar 6, 2006

Those who wrote or conveyed the scriptures, depending on whether you believe them to be the result of human imagination or divine inspiration, must have faced the dilemma of establishing their authenticity. Science enables us to infer many things, but all scientific conclusions are tentative. If someone who was witness to the whole process could tell us, it would be the final word. So, scriptures are revelations of God. God knows everything. He tells so. There is no questioning what God tells. The authority is thus propounded.

 

Religious instruction for children

In Vedanta, a methodology is followed called adhyaropa-apavada: ‘false superimposition (अध्यारोप) followed by retraction (अपवाद)’. It may be compared to ‘reductio ad absurdum’.

As regards religion, I feel that we should follow something similar. Children must be initiated into religion tentatively, and as they grow they must be encouraged to come to their own conclusion based on their reading, understanding and experience. Faith in god is an acquired thing, not a natural endowment, and is required in formative years. Any religion is ok, but regimentation is not. The instinct to question must be strengthened, not suppressed.

 

Faith

From my diary (7/10/2000)

I watched a T.V. programme showing Thirumalai; two lame persons were climbing the hills with crutches. I compared myself with them. They have practically nothing. I have almost everything. Their faith is immensely superior. They have reason, if reason it is to repudiate God; why did God cripple them, if it is God who did it? Or, they have more reason (?) to pray to God! We are miserable because we look at ourselves and our own physical comforts and ways of feeding on the mind whose demands multiply in geometric progression to its gratification. We shall be so happy if we look outward selflessly.

 

 

Creation

August 31, 2014

Why God created the world

The world is all we know by our senses. Beyond our senses what exists, we do not know. To say nothing exists beyond our senses is non-sense as we have come to know of many things (waves, microbes, etc.) through other aids that supplement our senses. Still, we have not known all. The mystery has not only continued, but deepened. Religion that asserts the existence of God is man's imagination and speculation. God may be true, but all knowledge about God including creation is a product of human mind. The stories of creation in mythology of whatever sect have been proved wrong. The earth itself is billions of years old. Life may not have started as a finished product, but may be work-in-process. These ideas may still be proved incorrect, but we act on the basis of knowledge at the material time. To the extent religion opposes the current knowledge, it is useless. To assume that God created the world and then try to find a cause in his mind is like searching for a black cat, presumed to exist, at night in a dark room. Having said that, I wish to add that religion may serve a useful purpose regardless of the truth about God. We have a yearning to connect with one another and with the source that sustains all of us. It may be mechanical as Hawking tells us, but there is a charm in animating it and adoring it. Nothing is lost so long as we do not force it on anyone. The debate will be inconclusive, but it satisfies a churning mind.

 

Feb 5, 1999

All religions appear wrong in their theories of creation and forewarning of the future. Science, which is nothing but an advent of the human intelligence, tells us not to trust religion. However, religion serves a useful role in human life no matter how irrational such belief may be. The claim of Christianity to be a superior religion is hollow. Its claim to become a universal religion is founded in goodwill but cannot be accepted. It is the most refined religion, but it does not explain the life process satisfactorily. It is not possible to accept Jesus as the sole messenger, son of God or saviour. Anyone who believes will have a good life. All people, irrespective of their faith, will be absorbed into God. the accounts of heaven and hell and eternal suffering or bliss are not relevant in an enlightened state. They are necessary just to instill morality in people who may otherwise choose to remain tuned to the whims of their minds.

India has produced far greater number of people with authentic religious experience but with no proselytising zeal. Jesus is just one such person with divine experience. Many precede him and succeeded him.

 

 

Creation is perhaps a speculation. 'Everything must have a maker' is how the argument starts, but is a questionable assumption. Who created the creator' is dodged by another unproved axiom of uncaused cause. I do not see anything more than verbal jugglery.

Stephen Hawking said finally that the world does not need a starter. The physical laws are sufficient to explain its existence. I cannot understand the complicated science, but I believe him. Ultimately we have to believe somewhere. There is no a priori proof of any of the concepts and theories we talk of as settled.

Buddha was wise not because he knew but because he skipped what we do not know and what we cannot know. He was genuine and did not go around faking miracles. He did not make any earth-shaking discovery but addressed social and individual issues by 'home remedies' as it were. There is a saying that sarvam paravasam dukkam - everything under another's control is misery. 'Another' includes priests and saints, even god. I am not an atheist. but I do not accept a personal god of whatever description except as an emotional necessity.

As for Christianity, i see that you have been subjected to indoctrination and regimentation that has left a bitter taste. But, as a non-Christian I find Bible chastening reading. I cannot believe in original sin, immaculate conception, son of god, resurrection, day of judgment, heaven and hell. I can still cherish the message of Bible. To me the central message of Bible is 'Love thy neighbour as thyself' and 'The kingdom of god is within you.' I take what suits me. There is a Tamizh couplet which advises us to take from whatever another says what is true in it:

எப்பொருள் யார்யார்வாய்க் கேட்பினும் அப்பொருள்

மெய்ப்பொருள் காண்ப தறிவு.

 

 

‘We do not know the beginning or the end, we have a glimpse of the middle,’ says Gita.

अव्यक्तादीनि भूतानि व्यक्तमध्यानि भारत । अव्यक्तनिधनान्येव तत्र का परिदेवना ॥

A very matter-of-fact statement.

The accounts of creation and destiny of the world in religious texts is a matter of unquestioning belief.

Swami Paramarthananda says:

“First before understanding the topic of creation, we should clearly know that the very word creation is a misnomer because nothing can be created. The very law of conservation of matter and energy was accepted long before modern science came.

Then if at all we use the word creation, it only refers to the manifestation of something which was potentially un-manifestly existent. So what is un-manifestly, potentially existent in dormant form, that can come to manifestation.

What is meant by the words manifest and unmanifest? By the word unmanifest, we mean Pramānam Agocharam. Unmanifest is that which is existent but is not available for perception or transaction like the butter in the milk.

Nothing in the creation is non-existent. It was existent in potential manner. Later it becomes manifest, which means available for transaction. Our scriptures point out, before the origination of this cosmos, it should have existed because of this simple law of conservation. And if this creation existed before, it should have existed in unmanifest form or potential form or dormant form which we can call as the seed of the creation. In Sanskrit we use the word Bījam for this.

Bījasyāntarivānkuro Jagadidam Prān Nirvikalpam Punah

Nirvikalpam means un-differentiated and unmanifest in an un-transactable form. And we will use for the word ‘Causal form of matter’ – matter in its causal form which is the source of all forms of energy and all forms of matter. Scientists are trying to arrive at one basic matter that can explain all the sub-atomic particles, that which can explain the micro and macro. The scientists want to reconcile the General Theory of relativity at Macro level and the Quantum Physics at Micro by a theory of everything.”

 

Creation seems to be a split second affair. Big Bang took a tiny fraction of a second. Evolution thereafter took eons. So with reproduction.

Big Bang and evolution explain the creation of the universe. No religion got it right. As for the time span, Hindu mythology seems nearest to it. But religion and spirituality are on a different plane or paradigm. We cannot believe against facts or reason, but we can believe in what we feel from our unbiased state of mind. Science describes life; it does not define it.

 

 

 

Design

Religion is based largely on the basis that universe must have a design from a powerful mind. Scientists are not sure. Atheists pooh-pooh the reason of design as in their unassailable intellect no design is palpable.

Stephen Hawking titled a book of his ‘Grand Design’. That is an apt title. It gives a succinct account of a physicist as to why, rather how, universe exists. All ingredients and ‘intelligence’ needed are in the system, no need to look at the sky except with telescopes.

Much error and dispute arise from the unquestioned initial assumptions. In religion, we look for a design from the sanctity of human life, not from the holistic point of the universe which has a minor part called homo sapiens.

There is a design for the universe. There is a design for the homo sapiens within the design for the universe, not as a prime motive for all existence and not to ensure its supremacy.

Initial assumptions must be put to test and must be refined to arrive at correct understanding. Knowledge and science are the way to get at truth. To live this passing life, one may be content with mental constructs that afford satisfaction or joy, and hope even if insubstantial.

 

 

Religion vs Science

Friday, August 22, 2014

Faith and Reason

Mahabharata:

(From a side story)

'In my former life, I had much useless learning. I always sought for reasons and had very little faith. I was a slanderer of the Vedas. I was devoted to the science of argumentation which is based upon ocular or tangible proofs. I used to utter words based on reasons. I used to speak irreverently of the declarations of the Srutis and address Brahmanas in domineering tones. I was an unbeliever, sceptical of everything, and though really ignorant, proud of my learning. I have obtained in this life the status of a jackal as a consequence.’

The idea of posting is to understand how the argument between reason and faith is quite old.

Reason and faith travel in two contiguous, but non-abutting territories, in a manner of speaking. For understanding this world (there is only one world, this world is what the senses reveal and the other world is what sense reveals), reason is the guide. But, the extra-sensory world, is not in the grasp of senses because we have defined it so. The faith vs reason is thus a futile war, a shadow boxing, but it goes on from time immemorial. That is the point I am making. I have no qualification (virtue and penance) to talk of the path of faith, its winning or whatever. I believe in mysticism and in mystics. I do not hope to travel further.

The jackal in the story says that it questioned vedas (faith) based on reason and as a result it was born as jackal. I am not so interested in the judgement as in the argument. The argument was there in the times of MB, nay, even in Vedic times. The illustration proves it is as old as MB at least. The modern day atheists have not dug up any new argument. Now, I am in the same boat as my fellow travellers. I see as much in the horizon as others. Sometimes, I also mistake a cloud sighted as an island. I enjoy the ride, though bumpy at times. But, I feel in my being that there is a grand truth, called Brahman by the Rishis, and I am ill equipped to understand it myself, but I believe that there are those who have seen it (mystics). That is what I have tried to say.

 

 

Religion talks in religious way and science in scientific way. It is not proper to look for science in religion or religion in science.

Religion may not have truth, but science is yet to find the truth.

For most of us religion is integrated with life, science is not. In a tiny, flickering life we do not have the luxury to arrive at truth and organize life accordingly.

 

 

Semitism disfavours science altogether. It even executed the scientists. It is opposed to Darwinism which negates 'Genesis' and Big Bang theory which establishes the age of the world infinitely longer than 5000 years. I read Osborne write that early Christians believed in rebirth, but the Church in cohorts with Constantine, but for whom the spread of the religion might have been doubtful, obliterated it. The only lasting point of Hinduism is that it has been after truth. Thus, science is not a challenge to it (the sangh parivar may be). We can reinterpret many of the truths as understood by the Rishis consistently with science. (One must read Devdutt Pattanaik for the very interesting lessons he derives from mythology and Rajiv malhotra on the paradigm difference between Abrahamic religions and dharmic religions).There is also a lot of mythology and misconception as in other religions. We have to work towards the substance of it rather than be bigoted about the shape given to the ideas in partial knowledge. I am confident the great spiritual truths intuited by the Rishis will stand for ever.

 

July, 2004

Scientific spirit requires that a theory explain all known observations or facts. A theory that explains most but not all is probabilistic. Religion propounds theories that defy this requirement. It makes unjustifiable extrapolations in furtherance of its theory.

‘Good will prosper and the wicked will suffer’ is a religious tenet. It is highly debatable as to all the key terms which are underlined. Based on this, religion extrapolates that the enjoyment or suffering is carried over to another birth or heaven or hell. This looks to my mind to be highly arbitrary and devoid of any evidence. It is also not required to believe in after-life reward or suffering. A society based on minimum morals can be founded even without the sanctions of a religion. But religious experience/spirituality needs to be explained. It cannot be said that it is a myth.

 

September 28, 2016

It will not be difficult to believe or even prove that all personal gods have sprung from human minds. It is a different issue whether they serve a purpose in life.

But, from the point of view of science our concern is whether there is anything that binds the universe apart from forces, whether there is an intelligent and conscious being as its source and rest. Perhaps, we will never find it out. Science can only be neutral on this issue perhaps.

The two issues which will bring more understanding are the nature of the world (whether the apparent continuity is 'real') and the nature of consciousness.

I have this thinking for the moment that science is not the ultimate, but clarifies understanding and helps remove untenable beliefs.

Life is all there is. The way we approach it seems to define it. When we approach it through science, we may not be quite right in judging the other perspectives from the scientific perspective. You can study water as a drink, a liquid or compound, or even a demon when it causes havoc. It is the same water. So with life. The most troublesome aspect has been that people of religion project that perspective as sacrosanct and 'god-given.' Much of what they say has been shown to be not valid.

The Upanishads have attracted scientific minds also, because there is a rigorous search for truth in it. The final result is that it has not been discovered in a way that can be stated explicitly. But, the journey it entails is fascinating.

Life existed without upanishads and science and will exist whatever these searches may find. That is my 'belief'.

 

Scientific enquiry has accumulated enormous heretical evidence, but we need not object to it. Nor need we be daunted by it in our spiritual pursuits.

Science and religion offer the opposing viewpoints and one does not invalidate the other. Science explores the basics; religion prepares us for the ultimate. Science believes in analysis, religion in synthesis. Science breaks down everything to as simple a unit as possible to be in a suitable premise for development of knowledge and attainment of progress. Religion aims at coherence of the seemingly diverse identities and integrates the individual into an unknown great. We need both, even as we need two eyes for better sight. Science gives us material comfort and religion reinforces it with spiritual satisfaction.

The baneful effects of science are by no means few or insignificant. Science has ushered in more of destructive techniques than of creative forces. The beast in man has to be tamed and it is not possible without religion; and if it is not tamed, the destructive forces may overpower man and set the clock back. All civilisations will come to naught if the method of science is not tempered by the spirit of religion. Science is truly a double-edged weapon and needs controlled handling.

 

 

Science: Is it the new religion?
Religion held sway for a long time and in fact does even now over vast
sections of humanity. Its first serious challenge came perhaps from
Karl Marx. Communism attracted a large number of people next to
religion and became a quasi-religion. It became a more sombre,
totalitarian, authoritarian and oppressive regime outdoing early
religion.
Now, when I look at where science seems heading, I wonder whether
science has become the new religion.
Reason is the altar in which everything must be sanctified. Human life
depends less on reason than on values which reason and science cannot
father.
One of the charms of religion was promise of immortality. People tried
in various ways to make their earthly presence permanent, but none
succeeded. Religion invented a lie that there would be a day of
reckoning or some such thing when individuals would regain their
identity in a deathless and painless life for the small fee of worship
of a god. Now, I read scientists holding out hope that soon in a
couple of generations, death would be a thing of the past. It will be
wrong to ascribe this to the entire scientific community, but the
research into genome is raising the hopes continually. People believe
it also, though they do not understand what is being talked about.
That is the crux and bane of religion, blind belief which now extends
to matters of science. A scientist says and so it must be true; the
scientists have taken over from the prophets and priests.
The human tendency is to clutch at any straw and believe.

 

June 06, 2011

Religion, Literature and Science

I believe in religion, literature and science.

Religion is what most of us start life with. From a young age we are asked to fear God and are told that we are being watched uncannily and that we should stick to the path of righteousness.

We start learning letters and then logically the words in language take over. We learn the art of expression and ideas are provided by literature. Literature holds a mirror to life. That which does not is not literature. Any fancy is not literature; it may be entertainment.

Science comes next. Science has been defined in different ways, but to me it is simply search for truth and becomes indistinguishable from philosophy, and in a very true sense it is the same as spirituality.

Religion offers continuity as a platform to work on. Literature keeps the fire of life burning. Science tells us the method to work for truth. A scientist cannot get satisfaction from the accolades of the masses. His satisfaction results from his convictions based on the knowledge he has acquired by observation, deduction, experimentation and conceptualization. He is prepared to change when unbiased evidence comes up on a sustained basis. Russell says he is not prepared to die for his beliefs because he is aware he could be wrong! That is the candour of scientific spirit. A spiritual seeker is no different. He tries to find out the meaning of life, a luxury affordable only by those for whom life is assured. When you are left fending for day-to-day existence the spirit may ever be dormant. It also seizes the rare individuals who are not worried about the day-to-day living in the physical sense. A spiritualist is not eager to enunciate a truth or propagate a way. It is the handiwork of the religious-minded. It is naïve to believe that there is a chosen path or a chosen race or a chosen saviour. We cannot with our limited intelligence and knowledge unravel the mystery that surrounds us at every step, when we look for the why and what next.

What does this lead one to?

We respect the process of life and the process of our development. We had no choice in our birth (I go by popular notion in this regard, though I feel strongly otherwise). The act of giving up the ghost one day is a certainty amidst all uncertainties. It is one inalterable fact, about which neither science nor religion can do anything about. Our job is in between. We came in eagerness and the eagerness is not to be extinguished forcibly. Despair is not the essence of man. Our energy is not meant to be eaten up in negative sentiments. It is meant for positive results.

When everything else falls off, what stands? To my mind, it is only character and competence. Character makes one strong to face adversity nonchalantly. Competence makes one free from the worries of tomorrow. A man develops competence, and confidence accompanies him.

Am I raving?

There are literary, mythological, historical and contemporary examples of the dictum that character and competence are what one should go after and not bother about the rest. Mythology presents Rama. Literature provides several heroes. History has thrown up Gandhi who can be taken as a contemporary as well. The great scientists of our times are live examples. Stephen Hawking is an extreme example.

 

 

Science will not invalidate religion

No matter what progress science makes, religion will survive. But it should be made to survive along with reason, not by inducing people to ignore reason.

Very often religious experience is pooh-poohed on the basis of some scientific explanation offered to disprove its extra-material veracity. We need not quarrel back to disprove the explanation.

On TV what we see is a series of stationary pictures, which nonetheless appear to be in action for us. We know it is a visual deception, but we keep aside this knowledge and willingly submit ourselves to the vicarious feelings that the pictures arouse in us.

Even if religious experience does not mean any eternity, if in its duration we find bliss, there is no need to question its perpetration.

It looks to me unlikely that the origin of life was unicellular devoid of a supreme mind. It may be true, but it is irrelevant to our existence and happiness. It is as well that it was not true.

Unless we believe in a nexus between virtue and reward, a just social order is difficult to build up. Without religion of some kind, a belief in virtues is next to impossible. But all religion is not mere ethics.

I no longer appear to believe personally that I would have any identity after death. But I do believe with my whole being that there is a perfect being – a changeless existence – which is real, is fully conscious of its immense reality and is supremely satisfied in that consciousness. It is devoid of any other attributes. It is free of virtue and vice, good and bad, and beautiful and ugly.

Where is the link between that Being and me? That is the search of one’s life.

There is a sad misinterpretation of Vedanta. Many say that things happen according to a mysterious cosmic ordaining which it is futile to fight against, that what happens to us results not so much from our efforts as from the whims of this unknown power. I wish such a faith was given up. It puts ideological blocks on the path to progress and prosperity.

To my mind, the whole of Vedanta tries to emphasise that effort and reward are closely inter-related. The very postulation of the theory of rebirth is an attempt to inculcate the faith that one has to reap as one sows.

But one is bewildered as to which efforts lead to which results. In such moments of bewilderment, we are asked to do as the wisest among us bid or according to the socially accepted Dharma. There is no use quarreling without clarity.

All trials do not fructify, but it is not reason enough not to try.

 

June 04, 2011

Religious plurality

Religious plurality is a fact and a necessity. Striving towards unity under one banner in religion is as impossible as in any other field. Religion is basically religious experience. Rationally, there may be difficulty if God is not One but many. Religious plurality does not connote polytheism. It simply refers to variety in religious experience. To put it in the oft-repeated metaphor, it is like reaching a common destination by different roads and means.

If this much can be agreed upon, it will lay a strong foundation on which active amity can be established among living faiths. It is not really necessary that understanding should lead to the synthesis of a new faith. The various courses may remain unalloyed and unamalgamated. Sikhism is perhaps a synthesis of Vedanta and islam, but has failed to cement the differences between the two religions.

The claim of any religion to exclusivity and universality is shallow and vain. It is not necessary to examine different religions to prove this point. God could not have been so parochial and partisan that he made His presence only to some; nor need He be so inept and impotent that He is incapable of more than one coming on earth.

Christianity is a good religion, but it cannot be the religion. It is built on a simple and very edifying premise ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’. Love is the method to reach God. Nothing can be more religious than this message. No wonder this religion has caught on. Other religions can absorb this if they have not built it into their culture already.

But it is impossible to admit that Jesus was the first and last messenger of God. Such a belief is inessential to Christianity itself. It is also not necessary to believe in the miracles attributed to Jesus or to his resurrection. Such expedients might have been necessary for lay minds, but in today’s world where awareness is increasing, anything built on the need for its unquestioning acceptance can hardly stand.

 

Equality of faiths

If you go through the history of persecution of scientists by the church, inquisition, protestant-catholic feuds and killings, crusades, the treatment of blacks in USA (Ku Klux Khan and otherwise), etc., there is nothing much going for Christianity.

Islam was described by Will Durant as militarist religion. It was established through war and spread through military conquests, when the invaders ruthlessly killed the natives and destroyed their art and culture, and forcibly converted people. Will Durant: "The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."

As to revelation and divine origin of these religions (or any other for that matter), go through the following:

“Having devoted much of his life to the careful study of ancient history, Humphreys harbors no doubt: Jesus, the non-existent son of a non-existent father, will soon be consigned to a place among his ancestors Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses in the realm of mythology, not history.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTmZlckcwMY

“The traditional narrative of Islam’s origins centers on the career of the prophet Muhammad (d. 632 CE) in Arabia and the rapid spread of his movement throughout the Near East immediately after his death. Over the past half-century, however, scholars have come to realize that this picture is the product of the Islamic community of the eighth, ninth, and later centuries and that its goal of providing a satisfying narrative may not accurately reflect how Islam actually began and grew into the major world religion we know today.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koVaxbWBlr4

I did not watch the videos. It is immaterial whether a godly person existed in flesh and blood once. The fact remains that figures like Jesus, Rama have had profound impact on humanity and are real in the minds of believers. It is true that all religions have been put together by several people over time, but to the believers the myths of their origin are sacred.

My aim is not to discredit the Abrahamic faiths , but to stress that it is wrong of one faith to ridicule another on unverifiable beliefs and that they are not in any way superior, and to denounce the raucous cries of the agents for conversion as empty propaganda.

It is not just that one religion for all mankind is not possible, but that it is undesirable. Life is dependent on variety of all types, and polarity and opposites. It is satanic to make short shrift of god’s design which has provided for such variety.

The two religions that have the greatest number in their fold must accept equality of all faiths and atheism. Hinduism, for its part, must keep to its sarva-dharma-samatva.

 

All faiths are equal. We must build global consensus around this theme if inter-religious strife has to end.

All faiths are sacred or stupid depending on whether one looks at it from the faith one invests or the scientific rationale for it.

The purpose of religion is, or ought to be, finding peace and meaning. We should not sow hatred and reap violence.

I see the hallmark of Hinduism to be truth and dharma, of Christianity to be love and service, and of Islam to be charity and piety. Everyone can have his own take.

 

 

All religions are about acceptance of soul and god, both of which lack empirical evidence. They arose in days when the working of the world was understood grossly inadequately. All scriptures err blatantly when they poke their nose into matters of the world. There certainly was a time when religion did not exist, a much longer time than with religion. God might have been there always but not religion. There is absolutely no impartial yardstick to decide which religion is right or better. One cannot argue that his assumptions are the best yardstick. As all rely on faith, whose validity cannot be questioned or validated, there is hardly anything to choose between religions. But where it impinges on this life we must discard religious tenets, be it jihad or caste. I find a reading of The New Testament equally blissful as reading Ramayana. Upanishads is a different matter. Upanishads nearly deny a personal god and immortality of individual soul. That ceases to be religion as understood in common parlance, which is about personal god, rituals and worship.

 

Religious cooperation

In eugenics there is the problem of adverse selection when cross breeding is attempted – the new plant or animal or whatever may select the bad features from the diverse sources. We have somehow adopted this in religious dialogue. We trade the adverse points of other religions in what has become a chain reaction. I do not plead innocence, but the need is for some sane soul to rupture the chain and bring amity and mutual acceptance. We have many existential problems which can be solved only by joining together rather than fighting about another existence of which we do not have the faintest clue.

 

 

Holy or Great men

Each one of us have our god in us. We have to identify that god and nurture him. A universal god of all good qualities is idealization.

No one is god. If anything, all of us are near animals.

We must look keenly how one behaves unguarded.

Like we wear different dress for different occasions (i.e. those who can afford), we alter our behavior to suit an occasion, to fit into the context. The one who does not is called a boor and may even be thrown out of that company. A few genuine people have been there who tried to avoid the put-on. They became great not by any divine will but by their will and effort. They are great for that. They are as mortal and fade away from public memory.

 

It is the person rather than the message that seems to be the lesson.

The commoners, I being one, go for the concrete in preference to the abstract. It is Sankara, Ramakrishna, Ramana who are revered not what they taught or exemplified that is emulated. It is the person-to-person appeal, soul-to-soul awakening that is the essence of spiritualism. It is the vibrancy that sustains, not the weight of the dogma. No dogma can, therefore, replace another as superior. It is Jesus, Prophet, Krishna who will guide us, not their message. The Personal overtakes the Absolute!

 

 

Apl 9, 2006

The account of birth of great souls is to be read, not because it is a historic event, but because it is set in an auspicious way. Reading it strengthens the mind. its reality is in the experience. It may be imagination, but calling it by a name doen not make it valueless. What is wrong with imagination?

 

Buddha, Sankara and Einstein were Brahma Jnanis. All of them realised that the Absolute was elusive. Buddha was forthright in not acknowledging the Absolute as it was beyond grasp and inference. Sankara took the Buddhist viewpoint and harnessed Vedanta to assert that this world is elusive and the Absolute is the abiding truth of the world, not its outward manifestation. Einstein demolished all scientific principles that took the absolute in space and time for granted. 

 

 

July 18, 2016

Action sledge and saints

Action sledge: sledge where microbes are added.

The microbes do something philanthropic. But, they do it in self-interest, not with a view to help humanity.

The saints say we should do good without our ego going into it. In a way, we have to reduce ourselves to microbes. But, that is a narrow way of looking at it. We are to be centred in consciousness but devoid of ego. Microbes, as I see it, have neither consciousness nor ego.

The state of a saint is considered desirable. But not by all, I would say. The ‘soul’ is undifferentiated in its pristine, blissful state, but in the world of action, there are differences. Gradation marks life, call it by any name you wish. To the end of the world this will not change. There will be knowledge seekers, pleasure seekers, emancipation seekers, and idlers. The outward appearances will be in various stages of ‘evolution.’

‘Quiet does it’ may be appropriate in the state of enlightenment, but the world is full of din and clamour, claims and deprecations.

 

July 13, 2014

Humility

Gold Meir: “Do not be humble. You are not that great.”

This is an actual conversation reported by S, a disbeliever.

S: I am honest and do my duty. I care for others and do not indulge in evil. Why do I need God?

M: Belief in God gives you humility.

The bottom line is anyone who has real humility has faith, even if he is an atheist. An atheist is basically saying what Spinoza said succinctly, ‘I only hate Gods fashioned in the images of men to be servants of their desires.’ Even a true Brahma Gnani will be humble. The example that presents itself to the mind is Paramacharya Of Kanchi.

 

 

Criticism of religion

Mar 15, 2000

Matter and spirit go together. Great souls and scientists alike appear to have found no evidence of independence of matter and spirit. Much as religion may protest, pure spirit is in the nature of speculation. Much as materialists may wince, the existence of matter apart from a cognitive subject is unprovable.

Life after death is a craving and has no plausible basis. Heaven and hell and rebirth are theories that have no basis in known human experience. 

 

 

7/8/2024

Religion is a human arrangement like any other human arrangement. Deprecating it is not rational. Supernatural provenance for it, absolute sanctity or earmarking hell for non-believers have to be trashed unquestionably by discerning people.

The house in which we live is a product of human idea, design and effort. Music is a melodic arrangement from human minds. Government, law, games, rules, morality are all humanly constructed. Whatever we cherish as human value has its source in collective and collaborative human effort, which marks Homo sapiens from other species, as Harari would point out.

Rationalism is not defined by denouncing religion, but by “coming to true knowledge of the world by methods other than through sensory experience.” (Sean Carrol) Religion is a civilizing and sentimentally satisfying experience that has stood mankind in good stead for as long as we can look back.

 

 

 

 

2004

Scientific spirit requires that a theory explain all known observations or facts. A theory that explains most but not all is probabilistic. Religion propounds theories that defy this requirement. It makes unjustifiable extrapolations in furtherance of its theory.

‘Good will prosper and the wicked will suffer’ is a religious tenet. It is highly debatable as to all the key terms which are underlined. Based on this, religion extrapolates that the enjoyment or suffering is carried over to another birth or heaven or hell. This looks to my mind to be highly arbitrary and devoid of any evidence. It is also not required to believe in after-life reward or suffering. A society based on minimum morals can be founded even without the sanctions of a religion. But religious experience/ spirituality needs to be explained. It cannot be said that it is a myth.

 

 

 

March 20, 2017

Defects do not disqualify religion

If religion is wrong because it is creation of man, those opposed to religion do adopt other creations of man without any qualms.

If religion is false because it promises unverifiable benefits, those opposed to religion do indulge in other pursuits of similar overtures.

If religion is bad because it is enmeshed in corruption, those opposed to religion have not abandoned other human institutions because of corruption.

If followers of religion are to be ridiculed for belief in something intangible, those opposed to religion are more guilty because they are after pursuits less edifying to the mind or healthy to the body.

Rationalists do not act on reason, but pretend to do so.

Bertrand Russell was an agnostic. He waxes eloquent about love, tradition and attachment to one’s place of birth. All these are not rational. You can of course justify them. That is, a rationalist finds reason for what he does. You can extend that sort of reason to faith also.

 

27/12/2002

Questions

Our questions (Q) arise from our assumtions (A). Let us question the assumptions first.

Q: Why did god create the world?

A: God created the world.

(Did he?)

Q: Why is everyone not happy?

A: Everyone must be happy.

(Why?)

Q: Why do good people suffer?

A: ‘So and so’ is good and ‘so and so’ suffers.

(How do we call ‘so and so’ good? What is the definition of suffering? Does ‘so and so’ suffer?)

 

Contradictions in religious belief

We have an ironic situation in religion. Religion came about arguably to justify morality, but has included blind faith as pardoning immorality. We say that god is omnipotent, but consider him weak to protect himself, and resort to abuses and killing to save his honour.

 

April 21, 2015 ·

Downside of religion

Why has religion become discredited?

It is not because science has made it questionable, not because its merit is dubious, not because of the duplicity of the priests. It is because it is fixated on a static world view. The world we know of is in constant change.

All scriptures are outdated and must be rewritten in the light of current knowledge, expunging social practices appropriate to a particular country and climate.

This hypocrisy is not just as old as Shakespeare, but as old as religion.

“Do not, as some ungracious pastors do,

Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven

Whiles, like a puffed and reckless libertine,

Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads

And recks not his own rede.”

(From Hamlet)

 

 

5/1/2009:

Religion attempts to bring social order and harmony, but its dogmas achieve the opposite.                                                            

Faith has to be defined. If faith believes in destruction of those that differ from you, that faith is obviously destructive. All religions have had a share in spreading such a faith. Some might have emerged out of that phase, some may still pursue it. Allowing for diversity is the lesson that the world teaches us. If we try to bring uniformity, which nature has eschewed, wanton destruction results. Secularism at the state level is a human need. But, secularism should not be what the vote bank politics has meant in India. Secularism must be allowing full play of faith without offending each other's faith and conducting the affairs of the state on reason and equity, stepping aside the tenets of any faith in so far as it is not rooted in reason and equity.

The world appears topsy-turvy because our minds are topsy-turvy. The rules and expectations we framed were given a fake divine authorship. God never spoke except in the language of nature. He never promised us a long life or fulfilment of our recurrent desires. The wise ones go by intelligible experience without astronomical expectations. God to them is in what they see and understand.

 

August 24, 2016

Human vanity

The world exists. Life teems in the world. Human life is a part of it. It is not the apex, the purpose, the culmination or anything special.

Each piece and each life plays a role. There is no sanctity of anything except by human mind.

Billions of cells constitute our body and they die and are renewed periodically. Imagine each one of them having a human consciousness and longing for and believing in individual eternity. We will laugh at the idea. That is precisely what we are doing as human beings. There are billions of human beings in the body of the universe. They die and life continues in another form. The hope for individual immortality is as untenable for a human being as for any form of life or any constituent of it. All religions exploit this outlandish human vanity. Unless we get people to believe that there is no special place for anyone here or in another place, we will have problems like crusades, jihads, racial cleansing, etc.

 

21/12/17

Suffering

We must avoid that part of religion that justifies and glorifies suffering. In puranic stories, the wicked are killed not for them to suffer, but to free those suffering because of them. They are killed after being afforded ample opportunity to mend, and in the end they are redeemed, not sent to hell.

We must not get into the mood, "Let them suffer, they deserve it."

 

Misery

I am not happy with the assumption that life is full of misery, which has guided religion and Buddhism and Jainism. I feel that suffering is in the scheme of things and not necessarily a direct result of our deeds. When we learn to take suffering coolly as we seem to take enjoyment, half our problems will vanish. The other half will keep life interesting!

 

Heaven

“X’s beautiful stories of the other world, which he narrates with the confidence of one who has personally assisted at the origination of the other world, carry no conviction.”

Dr. S Radhakrishnan.

(That applies to the accounts of heaven in all religions.)

The idea of heaven is not just improbable, but very unjust and unedifying.

First, enjoyment and suffering go in pairs as all opposites. The opposites constitute a tension, a necessary impetus for life as we know and live.

Second, all enjoyment and suffering are corporeal. Without the body (and mind), such experience is not possible. That the body will one day be restored is a far-fetched promise.

Third, the reward for some good deeds in a brief existence as an all-time free enjoyment looks like a Ponzi scheme.

Fourth and the most important is the wrong lesson it gives of enjoyment with no effort. Life has meaning only through struggle and effort. It is unethical to look down upon strenuous effort. Those who work hard are to be admired, not pitied. Such work brings fitness and happiness in itself. At any age, the older the more so, we have to exert. Exertion is the essence of existence, not bland enjoyment. It is life as we know for certain that is rewarding, not some vague and unverifiable after-life.

The only heaven we will ever know is in disciplined work.

 

23/3/18

Paradise

It is not just that there is no evidence of paradise, but that it is not possible. A world without opposites has no chance to exist. Pain and suffering are integral to existence, not as a curse, but as a condition. All we can do is develop an understanding and detachment while trying individually and collectively to mitigate suffering. A place of only happiness (heaven) or only suffering (hell) is imaginary.

Daydreaming is, however, not a crime or sin.

 

 

Eternity has been a human craving and most religions, if not all, thrive by assuring eternity. Eternal bliss is, of course, the promised reward for pure belief. 

Eternity and individual identity appear to be mutually contradictory. Eternity is possible only by self-effacement, but then the macro concept of identity is a stunning blow to the pampered ego. The attitude develops when one may question: Do I care if I merge into a whole, without the attributes that made my life worth living? But change of identity does not negate the possibility of eternity of the underlying force. Our being disinterested in such a possibility does not alter its significance.

Religious experience need not be considered irrelevant in the absence of eternity of the individual. Life is an experience however short it may be. Whatever enriches the experience should be welcome.

 

 

 

 

Stray points

·       The birth of religion was in ignorance and avarice, a fanciful explanation for suffering and death, which in point of fact counterbalance enjoyment and birth, for life to be charming and continuing in the whole.

·       Truly religion has much falsehood and false claims. And truly, we are yet to know the truth.

·       Truth is not partial. It is universal. It is equally there in the opposites. Scriptures also contain the truth, but they also contain doctrines based on shaky premises and unverifiable promises.

·       August 21, 2016

A new beginning to Arithmetics:

Buddhism 0 (शून्यता)

Advaita 1 (ब्रह्म)

Sankhya 2 (पुरुष, प्रकृति)

Dvaita 3 (जगत्, जीव, ब्रह्म)

(Christianity 3 (Father, Son and Holy Spirit)

 

·       In a lecture when someone asks a doubt and the lecturer has no clue, he will say, ‘I will come to it shortly.’ He will not. The promise of another world is like that.

 

·       Atheist: God does not exist.

Advaitin: The world does not exist.

Buddhist: Nothing exists.

 

·       Dec 25, 2004

Tsunami

Neither nature nor God can be called kind. There is no explanation for the havoc. One sufferer goes about visiting shrines (Velankanni) in gratitude for getting a son only to lose him to the waves. Nature is neutral across religions.

 

·       26/5/2001

          Unacceptable:

-Jesus is the son of God

-Belief in Jesus is the only way to God

-Eternal redemption or condemnation

-Miracles, particularly as proof of God

-Resurrection of Jesus

-God is pro-poor

-God tests the virtuous

-Rationalism as the basis for life

·       Nature worship

3/9/18

We must rediscover the spirit of veneration of natural forces, the mountains and rivers, flora and fauna. We must consider it a sin to harm them unprovoked or to pollute them. They are palpably relevant to our life more than an unseen god in an unknown land.

·       It is inconsistent to glorify vision of an angel or god, and ridicule delirium. Both are an away-from-normal perception and in so far as they are not replicable for a good number, they are only anecdotal.

·       Worry, fear, god enter into our psyche when we have nothing better to do, or when we are desperately in need of an accomplice.

 

Superstition is not the monopoly of religion. Other fields like politics, films, sports, business have loads of superstition and they will crumble if superstition is removed. Advertisements exploit it for their success.

 

 

GOD

Terms for god

The various words used for God are potent with meaning. Let us look at some of them:

(a)    Bhagavan: Six attributes qualify Bhagavan. They are 1. Aiswaryam, i.e. sovereignty or power 2. Fame 3. Sampat i.e. wealth 4. Viryam i.e. potency 5. Gnanam i.e. knowledge or wisdom and 6. Vairagyam or Detachment.

(b)    Iswara: Lord. Brahmam becomes Iswara in apparent association with Maya sakti.

(c)    Brahmam: this comes from the root ‘brh’, which means ‘to grow’. It is big and growing. (The universe is also growing all the time according to Big Bang theory. It is a parallel).

(d)    Kadavul (Tamil): one who is beyond the senses.

 

I am religious in the sense that I consider whatever I get as a gift of god. I am thankful to that god of mine.

Each person must have one’s own god like having one’s own spouse. It may be troublesome but is conventionally preferred.

 

27/10/2010

A biased referee

Suppose there is a match referee. He awards a handicap to one of the match participants on the basis that the participant praises the referee and promises to be loyal to him for life. How will we like it? Is our faith in God not akin to this?

 

Thursday, September 01, 2016

The God of truth appears as the object of our veneration. We see the real God in such objects as transferred epithet or synecdoche, so to say.

 

December 9, 2016 ·

The sun is miles away, but we are able to form a real image of the sun using a lens. Lens is also used to form a real image of persons and objects and developed as a photograph.

All gods that we have created (single or multiple) are such ‘real’ images, whether we make idols or worship as formless.

God that is the Truth is beyond human grasp, but fascinates the curious and makes the philosophical speculate.

In some Maths (algebra) problems we assume the answer as ‘x’ and try to find the value of ‘x’. In trying to understand some basic questions like how world and life came about, we assume ‘god’ (x) to be the source. That is not the answer yet. We have to find out. We do not get the answer by faith and prayer, but by intelligent effort and valid experience.

 

Nov 13, 2005

God is in us

God is not in the stone or even another person like Ramana. He is in us.

It is the God in us we see in the stone, in Ramana. All do not see because all have not come up to that stage.

When Paul Brunton sees visions in Ramana’s presence, he is seeing a manifestation of his own being. There were so many around.

All of them did not see it.

 

‘That is a stone, no god,’ says one, but the other says, ‘It is god, not stone.’

Both are right. They see what is in their mind. Neither has a right to dictate what should be in the other’s mind.

As for people opposed to idol worship, but following another faith, just introspect whether you use any symbol in your faith. That is the stone of your faith.

Is god in the temple? If god is everywhere, he is in the temple too. If he is hiding in an unknown place, he is not in any temple. Hand over the case to the sleuths.

 

 

May 30

Truth and god

Truth and god have to be understood in the normal state, not in some heightened state of consciousness or experience. It cannot be universalized from some specific, personal experience that is heavily faith-dependent. Such a secretive and selective god is irrelevant to our life. There is no good reason why god made his message known to only a few directly.

The world as we find is an expression of god, a statement of his will. We cannot say ‘God’s will be done’ and complain of the present.

 

No one has revealed the ultimate truth. Scriptures do not reveal the truth, but call upon us to find it out. It is personal and cannot be shared.

 

 

7/10/2000

Evolution of god

We are first told that we are God’s creation. In adolescence we gather that we are our parents’ creation. When we start understanding better, we can reason that we are our own creation. In other words, we graduate from the belief that we are an expression of God’s will to that we are are an expression of our parents’ will and thence to the belief that we are an expression of our own will. This process of discovery is explained as our identity with God and the strife of our life is caused by ignorance and error and the reunification with God is achieved by knowledge and avoidance of error.

 

25/4/1978

We are children before god

I was playing with my child. The child was trying to catch hold of a toy. I was moving the toy every time the child got near to it. for the child the force at work in moving the toy must be little evident. We are like children in the cosmic play of things. The mysterious force that makes this ceaseless activity possible is as little evident to us as the mover of the toy is to the child.

 

February 01, 2016

A single god is a matter of elegance. The Universal Truth, the only reality, is unconcerned with the welfare or woe, good or evil, and other such dualities that arise in feverish human minds. It is ever reluctant to remove the suffering of mankind collectively, or to be the lord of a world consisting wholly of human beings that sing its glory and exist in continuous joy. But, if such a thought occurs in any human mind, other minds are free to accept or reject it, but never to question it or attempt to correct it forcibly.

Quote:

“We distinguish between God as the Infinite Existence, and the manifestation of this Supreme Existence as a revealed God, evolving and guiding a universe. Only to this limited manifestation should the term ' a personal God’ be applied. God in Himself is beyond the bounds of personality, is in all and through all” and indeed is all; and of the Infinite, the Absolute, the All, we can only say 'He is’.” (An outline of Theosophy by C. W. LEADBEATER)

 

23/11/2016

God for this world

We need god for here and now, for transacting business in this world. We do not need god for the next world since there is none.

Sankara and Buddha say it. Whether there is nothing or only god, our independent identity is negated. That makes our life here unique and as a believer, I need god’s guidance. It comes. It is subtle. It is palpable. But in the arrogance of self-completeness through the process of faulty reasoning and expectation of certitude, we dismiss the experience that often prompts us to see beyond.

Morality becomes an issue if there is no punishment for wickedness and grace for goodness. Feeble minds need such crutches. Mature minds only can appreciate total reality. To a seer, morality is not an issue. His mind does not lean to immorality and he need no reward for his position and action.

 

Sunday, September 07, 2014

God is, or is not?

David Attenborough on why he does not say he does not believe in God (from The Hindu):

The interviewer then asks Attenborough why he is reluctant to say he does not believe in God. This is where he gives a thought-provoking answer…”I cannot help thinking when I have for example taken off the top of the termite hill and I have seen termites in there; all busying about building walls, looking after their queen, caring for the pupae, clearing their nest, all busy about their own chores. They are all blind and they do not have the faintest idea that I am there watching what they are doing because they do not have the sense organs that allow them, to know they are being watched. I do sometimes feel that maybe I am lacking some sense organ, maybe I do not know that there is anybody else watching me from over there. And it is a very confident thing to say, to be absolutely sure to say that I do not have a sense organ to appreciate something out there in the world. That would be my position. You could say that is rather feeble, that is not being very brave…maybe you have got a case.”

David's position is one of a person of suspended judgment, who refuses to say explicitly there is no God. The example he gives is not a simple, 'I don't know.' It reveals that his is not an idle conclusion, but one born of keen observation and ratiocination. Its beauty is poetic and to my mind, spiritual.

'The one who thinks he knows does not know, the one who thinks that he does not know does not know. Only he knows who thinks that he neither knows nor does not know.' To paraphrase this is to make it meaningless. My own take is that no one understands the total reality. I assume by belief backed a wee bit by my experience that there is a total reality. But, we see a glimpse and then extrapolate fancifully. The evidence is the same. To Sherlock Holmes and any other observer, the bits and pieces are the same, but one constructs an image closer to reality and proceeds to unravel the mystery. Many go the wrong way and hit a cul de sac. Many build grandiose visions that are like hallucinations. All we know is that we are ignorant, and arrogance based on certainty one way or the other is a grave error. The rationalist does not have any surer basis than the superstitious (religious-minded). Neither calling the other misinformed or doomed is in order.

 

(Muralishankar Venkatesan Chitappa I feel "God" should be one's own perception, belief or whatever you may want to call it. Why interpret other's idea. Even after interpretation our perceptions and acceptance holds good.)

 

I believe God is real. I also believe at least I do not know God. The explanation of most do not appeal to me. Now and then, you get someone to say what you might have felt or what you perceive as common. I may be mistaken. In the case of David, he comes to express human limitation in understanding the universe. It is limited to our senses. We know that things exist beyond what our bare senses can grasp. There is no knowing what all lies beyond our perception. David's example is vivid, he speaks truthfully and he admits he may be as blind as the termites. There is, in my appreciation of it, a certain spiritual essence in it. Many statements in Vedanta are like this. They give you a feeling of having come to the truth, but it is like will o' the wisp. It vanishes faster than the god particle. I find this tantalising, fascinating and filling out the insubstantial dreams that my mind conjures up. It is not any eagerness to interpret another, but a pompousness to show what lurks in my uncertain mind. Now and then, I seem to get a log of wood that would save my drowning mind, tossed between the extremes. I like to float on it. The land is afar, but the log keeps the hope also floating.

 

20/9/2011

God as person

God as absolute is ultimate and undivided. Individual souls have no place in such a state. We are not really concerned with that state as we do not quite bother about a situation where we do not figure. A personal God is a personal preference. It is better to believe in a personal God as in Islam, where God never takes a human form. Conversely, if we believe in god-like persons to have lived in human form, I would rather that we consider them as such, god-like, but not God, worthy and capable of emulation not worship and adoration. The moment we see Rama as god, the purpose of Ramayana is lost. Rama was a human being who lived a life of ideals which we are supposed to follow. I see various persons as such role models. To deify them and to venerate them, while living a life of desire, error, vanity and ignorance, is fufiment of an ego need like any other mundane pursuit.

 

18/12/2012

World an expression of god

I have not had any direct experience of God. Nor have I placed myself in a position to have one- virtuous life and unremitting craving for it.

This world is an expression of God. This is a presumption. It does not make sense to me that the world is in operation by mere mechanical forces. I prefer ‘expression’ to ‘creation’. An expression is not real in that it has a limited life during the utterance. It is not unreal since it is expressed, not imagined. An expression is a facet of one’s personality, but is not entirely identical with it. The various reflections of humanity on God are derived from the expression, not the total personality of God, which is inscrutable, at least to ordinary minds.

 

God is shapeless but takes the shape of the vessel he is occupying like a liquid. God is still, still flowing. God is neither still nor flowing.

 

 

25/1/2012

Grace

Grace is the result of intelligent effort.

The vision of a grand paradise is real and satisfying in the same way a toy is to a child. We are like children before god. There is nothing to feel apologetic about it. If anyone tries to reach adulthood in spirituality genuinely and credibly, then we cannot fault it.

 

God Realisation

6/1/2006

K: Should I pursue the path to God realisation, which is the worthy goal? Shall I devote time to meditation?

I: You have responsibilities. You have to carry out those responsibilities. Meditation is not a goal. It is only a means. Everyone cannot go after God realisation by meditation. We should keep doing the jobs that our situation demands. We need to deal with the world which is real. Going after truth in all walks is the best way to God realisation.

 

Dec 2017

Sensory experience of god

No one can see god because god is not susceptible to the senses.

Did Ramakrishna see god? Did he show god to Narendra?

I recall that many people approached Ramana with a number of nagging questions for which they did not get satisfactory answers elsewhere. When they came face to face with Ramana, they did not feel the need to ask any of those questions.

Our mind is in different states of development and what is essential in one state is not so in another state. Understanding comes from yearning and personal effort, not by catechism.

Narendra blossomed into a messiah after coming under the influence of Ramakrishna. Seeing god is not the goal of life.

 

Proof of god

Both those that try to prove god and those that try to disprove are fooling around. God is not a theorem. How do we find out about someone who is unknown and is traceless? Those who disprove are greater hoodwinkers. You can never prove the non-existence of a thing.

Either you believe or you don’t.

 

Proof for God not possible

God is not a derived concept or a proposition that can be proved. If it were so, God would be an object. True religion has to instill a faith that God is the subject. It is not something that can be grasped by our limited intellect in its entirety and immensity, let alone being proved. Reason and language are the two barriers to our understanding God. Reason fails as It is that which makes reason possible and not that which reason can elucidate. Language is deficient because it is a man-made medium, full of imperfection and ambiguity. Language is developed through identification of objects against ideas, names after things, and so on. God is not a thing or an object and it is not in action as we understand action. Thus the gamut of language, which covers things and action, and their characteristics, is woefully inadequate when it comes to describe that which is infinite and eternal, or beyond space and time. Language also depends on parallels to develop ideas. God is unique and non pareil. How can language be useful to understand God? Maybe, language can clear certain misconceptions about God, but cannot give a definition of God. Nothing can exhaust God.

Nature the only evidence of god.

God knows only one language.

God made only one revelation.

God has only one form.

God made only one incarnation.

God is in one’s mind emotionally and is in all Being.

 

God and Infinity: my rambling thoughts

God is beyond our grasp, except in terms of the images (all ideas about god are images conceived by human minds) of religions. Infinity is also beyond human understanding. That is the parallel. Otherwise, how do we correlate two unknown things?

It does not however help in understanding. By implying that something is ununderstandable, we do not further our understanding.

God is called ameya (immeasurable). If something is finite, we can measure it. Infinity is immeasurable. That may explain the affinity between god and infinity. In Vishnusahasranamam, one name is asankhyeya (uncountable) again implying infinity.

Pavan K Varma says in his book on Sankara that both measurement and maya are derived from the same root i.e. one has to get rid of maya and the idea of measurement to appreciate Brahman.

Can we look at it in a different way?

A slight digression. In Kumarasambhavam, Kalidasa describes the Himalayas as the measuring rod for the earth. We cannot measure something huge with tiny tools.

But, if there is only one, not many, how do we count it or measure it? With what do we compare it? Brahman is not a logical deduction from categories invented by human minds. We must lay aside our concepts and contraptions and try to understand it by ourselves (our selves). Mind is the tool to understand, but it has to be prepared. The prepared mind moves aside to let the Brahman shine forth in us. That is perhaps the message in the story of Nandanar when the Nandi (the bull, which is the vehicle of Siva) is asked to move aside to let Nandanar see Siva in the sanctum sanctorum.

Brahman is devoid of division, category, measurement, opposites. It is both finite and infinite, and neither! (If you do not understand this, you are in my company.)

We must seek truth without being attached to any idea, infinity or any other.

 

18 Sep 2018

All visions are realisation of something assumed. We cannot validate another's vision esp. of people whom we have not even seen. What is false and what is true? How do we call something about which we have no experience as true? One may choose to believe, that is another matter. Even the very idea of god as external to the world is a matter of belief. If it were not so, we would not have the dizzying variety of concepts of god.

My questioning it is also an opinion. But, there are illustrious cases like Buddha who obtained no such experience though he tried strenuously. Rajaji was a Srivaishnavite and says truthfully that he had no vision. Gandhi also admitted that he did not have any direct experience. I feel that there is enough evidence not to be swayed by visions.

I have high regard for all three (Ramana, Ramakrishna and Aurobindo). I believe in their greatness. Vision is their personal experience, not a common experience. We cannot say anything about an experience that is very isolated and rare. It is a mental state achieved under certain conditions from a starting point.

Take the instance of a person seeing a ghost. How do you take it? Most of us would dub it as hallucination because he sees it and others do not.

We are mentally conditioned to reverse judgment when it comes to seeing god.

I heard a talk on Kanchi Swamikal. Dr. Rangachary questions him about Atma. Though Swamikal talks of Jivatma, Parmatma, etc. the doctor's experience does not corroborate it. Swamikal replies that he relies on scripture. The story goes on, but the point is the honesty of reply by Swamikal. I consider him great for honesty and simplicity, not for the miracles attributed to him.

Our scriptures are clear that god is anirdesya and avyakta. He is not within the reach of our senses. So any vision is contrary to scripture.

I understand that any fictitious thing becomes surreal by repeated upasana or abhyasa.

 

 

Anyone who denies god denies Nature.

Nature is vibrant and communicates powerfully.

 

Aug, 2004

Understanding god

I agree that we know nothing about god, but I do not agree that we cannot make anything good out of god.

We cannot understand god by the tools of man viz. language and logic. We have to understand god by his expression viz. ourselves and the world.

One should keep one’s head clear, mind still and heart pure to receive divine communication. Head is what facilitates all understanding (awareness). Mind is a collection of events, real and imaginary. Heart is a symbol for our feelings. Only positive feelings help in connecting with God.

Silence has to be practised. Silence is absence of thoughts and tough to attain.

TV waves are present in the room. We see no picture if TV receiver is not there. God’s presence is there everywhere, we do not see God because we are not tuned. None of us is overeager. We have to come to taste this world. We are not finished as yet. God is kind and lets us play as long as we like.

An argument is advanced that believing in God is a safe bet. If there is no God, you lose nothing. If there is, you have taken care of that. It does not appeal to me. in the actual world, many prefer to side with a scoundrel because if he reigns, he will not harm us at least ninety percent of the time. To support a good man is a greater risk as he may win only ten percent of the time. How many of us will buy this argument?

Belief in God is not a tactical need.

 

TV waves are present in the room. We see no picture if TV receiver is not there. God’s presence is there everywhere, we do not see God because we are not tuned. None of us is overeager. We have come to taste this world. We are not finished as yet. God is kind and lets us play as long as we like.

 

An argument is advanced that believing in God is a safe bet. If there is no God, you lose nothing. If there is, you have taken care of that. It does not appeal to me. in the actual world, many prefer to side with a scoundrel because if he reigns, he will not harm us at least ninety percent of the time. To support a good man is a greater risk as he may win only ten percent of the time. How many of us will buy this argument?

Belief in God is not a tactical need.

 

Belief in god is its own reward

God protects the virtuous and overpowers the wicked. That is mythology.

The powerful wicked prosper and quote scripture to their advantage. The meek believers are crushed. That is history.

In Bhagavatam itself Narada says,

“इह सन्तो विषीदन्ति प्रहृष्यन्ति असाधवः I’ (Good people suffer and the wicked enjoy.)

The real god is neutral. Those who are interested may discover him and there will be no further reward.

 

 

 

14/10/18

Meeting god

Suppose god appeared before us and said, ‘Sorry, I am a fraud and I cheated you.’ What would be our reaction?

Suppose god appeared before us and said, “I am pleased with you. What boon do you want?' What would be our reaction?

Both are hypothetical, but it is more likely that we take the first as preposterous and the second as possible. The second is the stuff of mythology which binds our minds.

It says nothing about god, but a lot about us.

We must be careful about mythology.

 

According to Hinduism (Upanishads), God is in what is (sat, immanent in a way); acc. to most other religions, God is other than what is (supernatural, transcendental).

 

April 21, 2017

Qualities of god

Virtue cannot exist non-physically, nor can it exist without vice. It is vice that gives virtue its merit just as death gives meaning to life.

Religions that think of a god without form, but with good qualities ignore that qualities require a form. Qualities are abstractions from form.

A formless god has to be nirguna. Beauty (any quality for that matter) is integral to and inseparable from the thing of beauty. Nirguna god is devoid of such attributes. Nirguna god is not something separate, not a destination. It is ever present in all existence, and it is the mind, which is a conglomeration and association of ideas, that covers it with layers of objects and images of its desires. When we peel off the layers, the nirguna god can be felt. This is theory. It has to be seen by looking at great people with a dispassionate mind.

 

December 03, 2013

God and Zero

God is a set [1,0].

Zero is a reality, not a non-entity.

‘God exists’, ‘God does not exist’. There is no in-between. It is discrete, digital. The position is a resonance hybrid. Half the time it is ‘1’, other half ‘0’, but it is so, for any conceivable or minutest division of time.

It also symbolises ‘God and no other’ of Advaitha and neutrality or sunyatha of Buddhism.

When a person is unmindful of everything else (everything else is ‘0’), God realisation ‘1’ results.

When he forgets or negates God ‘0’, this world appears to him to be the only reality ‘1’.

Reality does not change, perceptions differ.

 

 

 

Where is god?

We come to this predicament whenever an inexplicable tragedy, natural or wanton, strikes us.

We must introspect. We choose to believe knowing that things have gone wrong repeatedly for which no cause can be deduced. If our belief is formed in the full knowledge that there is no assurance that something untoward will not happen, we cannot fault faith or god. Just as exercise is a good bet for good health, but cannot ensure it foolproof, faith and prayer are a source of gaining inner strength and cannot ensure against mishaps. God is not obliged to fulfil the man-made scripture or human scheme of morals, punishment and compensation. Many have died because of stampede in temples. The scale in a temple breaks by the weight of a VIP and immobilises him. Why? It is not a divine scale, but a human scale that has been maintained poorly. That is symbolic. Judges (scale is a metaphor for judge) are human and may go wrong. Man-made deities cannot be expected to be fair on a human scale.

We must reject religion while dealing with atrocities and proceed to deal with it firmly. Mollycoddling and treating the perpetrators with kid gloves is neither good religion nor well-meaning humanism. If anyone takes offence at severe treatment of organisations that fan out violent individuals on unsuspecting victims, they are equally culpable. When a powerful nation does that, the world is cowardly in kowtowing to it. Its own record of violence has been dismal.

We will fail ourselves so long as we do not deal with it with an iron hand. God will also fail us if we fail ourselves. Faith must make us bold to oppose and mitigate evil, not to rest with prayer.

 

God communicates to all

If Vedas, or for that matter any other scripture, hold all truth and nothing else does, it means that god’s capacity to communicate is restricted. All our belief that limits the scope of god is self-contradictory.

 

Imperfection is in human perception

The world may be perfect in its wholeness, but appears as imperfect in the sense of order and scale of justice we have laid out from our limited wisdom. Even if we believe that god, who is perfect, created the world, why should he create an imperfect world? Its apparent imperfection must be in our narrow perception.

 

God is shapeless but takes the shape of the vessel he is occupying like a liquid. God is still, still flowing. God is neither still nor flowing.

 

 

Views on god

God has been conceived in various ways. The earliest perhaps is of a creator. He has also been assigned the role of destroyer in India, but that role is reserved for the devil in other faiths.

God has been seen as in-dwelling in all creation, animate or inanimate.

An extended thought is to describe the world as the body of god (summarized in a dhyana sloka in Vishnusahasranamam beginning with bhooh paadou yasya).

Perhaps someone thought that it (thinking of everything as god) makes god a plebeian, and said that god is the best in everything. (See the tenth chapter of Gita and all descriptions of god as the repository of all virtues). Nietzsche believed in superman and strength as godly.

Gods became many as one god was too few for so many human beings. Humanity loves variety and it was logically extended to creation of a pantheon.

But, then it lost the crispness of a single command and elegance of theory which should bring everything under a single principle (even science is hankering after a unified theory). So one god and monotheism rule supreme. The western view that is Greek-centric considers monotheism the pinnacle of divinity and anything that defies it is substandard. It has so nicely brainwashed all, including atheists, that ‘oruvane deivam’ (God is one) has become their motto also. It is the height of rationalism to be certain about what you do not know.

God only knows which is true.

 

 

There will be no religion if it is proven that there is no god or that there is god.”

Ursula K. Le Guin

To believe that there is no god is irrational; to believe, a little less so.

There is no proof whatever to say that there is no god; there is scanty proof for existence of god.

Swami Paramarthananda said. “Theists have scripture as pramana; atheists have no pramana’. Scripture is testimonial, collective evidence. There can be no evidence for what is not there.

God is not a servant wanting to carry out our wish or order. Nor is he a master who decides how we should live our life and what fate should befall us.   Such a god is a myth.

God is in one’s mind emotionally and is in all Being.

 

 

Protecting god

It is said that god protects the believers. I am not sure of that, but I see that there are believers who protect their gods zealously. If anyone offends their gods, they curse, abuse or kill the offenders. I wonder whether the gods that need protection from the mortals can indeed protect anyone.

 

Prayer for fruits

In the eighties, RBI was micro-managing credit through CAS. (I am sure that now they might have found other tools for the purpose.) It was in the air that an authorization had a price tag. An RBI official told my friend, ‘I do not demand anything. I only ask them to give a job to some relative.’

While praying to God some people say that we should ask not for any earthly favour but permanent heavenly bliss.

I belong to the petty bribe type as I have no hope of any identity after this known life. I distrust the religion that is for the next world. I need religion for my experience of this world, the only one that my consciousness can handle. I cannot believe that we are on some entrance examination for another world under CCTV surveillance.

 

7/10/18

One is one’s own Guru

Go to yourself for happiness and salvation.

A Jagadguru said, "The whole world is my guru." He uttered a profound truth. He was self-effacing and godly. (A person can be godly, not god).

The world is the only god and the only guru. It grants us all the boons and teaches us all the lessons.

 

August 17, 2016

Belief in God

Belief in God tames the mind, gives meaning to life, belief in the present and hope for the future, a longing to link with the whole and bond with others, a sense of gratitude for what we have rather than a desire for what we lack, a feeling of contentment how fortunate we are over so many who have to struggle every minute to exist in the next minute, and the blessing to enjoy nature and life for what it is.

That is not belief in God which shuts the mind and tries to bind others to a unity of experience under a dead custom or teaching of a bygone age. That which calls upon you to surrender your experience to something that is forced on you by birth or some compulsion or unverifiable promises is Satanic. My belief must accord with my experience and it does not matter what name I am known by or what name I chant or do not chant.

Look at this passage from the book ‘Lord Murugan – Karthikeya Katha’ by Sri R.Viswanathan, Retd. DMD of SBI.

“உருவாய் அருவாய் உளதாய் இலதாய்

மருவாய் மலராய் மணியாய் ஒளியாய்க்

கருவாய் உயிராய்க் கதியாய் விதியாய்க்

குருவாய் வருவாய் அருள்வாய் குகனே!

(Kandar Anubhuthi last verse)

The meaning is: ‘Oh Guha, please come as Guru and bless us: as one with form and formless, as tangible and intangible (as existent and non-existent), as fragrance and flower, as a lustrous precious stone and its lustre, as the embryo and its life and as fate and rules of the universe.’

If one were to understand God in the above manner, it would be apparent that everything that we see, hear, smell, eat, touch and feel would be God. Realised saints understood this universal phenomenon and no sense onject disturbed them. Buddhism teaches the same thing: one should strive to practise equanimity in the face of any external stimuli, whether pleasant or unpleasant. In Hindu epics, one great devotee of Vishnu acclaimed that God was in a giant pillar as also in a speck of dust. The saint here goes one step further and claims that all the objects themselves are God. By realising this we should treat everybody else with due respect and regard. This is a sure path to attaining eternal bliss.”

 

I think god is innocent. We should not accuse him of dabbling in our affairs. He does not interfere indirectly (watching us and meting out just desserts), directly (by appearing in person), sending a relative or sending a messenger.

 

3/9/2000

I go to God because God does not talk back whether he answers you or not.

 

 

25/5/92

Lack of faith in God leads us to troubles. Whenever the mind is fixed on God, when we feel that we are doing God’s will, we feel secure. We get what we want reasonably, above all, that feeling of peace and happiness, which is priceless, which money rarely buys.

 

Apl 4, 2004

Is God the unevolved or the evolved? We talk of God as the Primordial and talk of creation as corrupted. Is it fair to God? do we judge God by our standards? Shall we acccept what we find or shall we change it because it does not fell good? Is enjoyment or suffering the test of God’s purpose? Religion asks to take suffering as God’s test. Science tells, lures us, to overcome suffering by changing the mindset or taking external aid. The conflict is multifold and is not easy of resolution unless the mind is steered out of the rut.

 

Jun 2004

 

A Bhaktha identifies God with what he does not understand, Jnani by what he understands or rather by the simple experience of understanding. A fool does neither.

 

Let us not go to God as escapism or for wish fulfilment.

 

 

Oct 26, 2006

God as ‘generator, operator and destroyer’ is a perception. The visible world (loka) is not an illusion, but an appearance. God is the reality and the world his shadow. Big bang and other deductions based on man’s observations do not falsify God; they only refute the other theories like creation.

 

Mar 23, 2006

When we approach a tall building like a temple, it becomes invisible when you go near it. as its view is hidden by smaller structures.

God is near us but invisible because of other worldly things hiding his presence. When we go away from such distractions, God will be realised.

 

Nov 23, 2006

We need God for here and now, for transacting business in this world. We do not need God for the next world since there is none.

God’s guidance comes. It is palpable, though subtle. 

 

Nov 8, 2006

To make sense, we require a frame of reference – a standpoint. God is s frame of reference. This makes God appear hypothetical. It is a starting point. The reality of God will dawn of its own when we are ready to receive its impact.

Oct 28, 2006

A person who has broken his leg uses a crutch. When he gets well, he throws the crutch away. No one in his senses wishes for another accident so that he can use the crutch again. Am I using God like that?

 

Jan 1, 2006 

God is in the Real and appears as unreal also. Nothing can be outside God, not even ‘nothing’. But, it is the Real that can affirm our faith. Hence we need to spring off the unreal and reach out the Real. असतो मा सद्गमय ।

God is in light and in the dark to,. but we can see God only through light. Hence we need to come out of the dark and enlighten ourselves. तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमय ।

God is in life and in death. But it is through life that we can appreciate God. Hence we need to seek life that is everlasting. मृत्योर्मा अमृतं गमय ।

 

If God is suguna, he should be durguna also. You cannot have a coin that has only one side. Theists will feel revulsion at this blasphemous suggestion.  

If God is nirguna, he must be non-existent. Sunyatha of Buddhism.

This is classic dualism like particle-wave conundrum in physics, intelligence-emotion duality in human life and so on. A unified view, to my mind, is attainable but not describable.

 

 

 

 

 

HINDUISM

Sanatana Dharma

This is not defined anywhere.

Sanatana is ancient or timeless, primordial, etc.

Dharma is untranslatable. It means etymologically that which supports. What supports? Fundamental nature and laws. Scientific laws are dharma as far as matter and energy are concerned. We are born with certain characteristics and proclivities which are inalterable. They decide our course of life in certain measure. The society and environment impose some restrictions or limitations. Dharma would cover all such things which are basic, part of nature and facilitate life as we experience.

Dharma is not understood completely by us. Our understanding evolves individually in one’s life span and collectively over time.

The term ‘Sanatana Dharma’ was ascribed to the native creed of India substituting for the exogenous term ‘Hinduism’. There was no name for the creed and when the invaders came, they gave it a name which with changes settled to Hinduism with which we are now familiar. Dharma is the fulcrum of the creed and ‘Sanatana’ was added to make it look specific rather than generic and also with an intention to denote its antiquity.

The native creed always admitted of variety and multiplicity culminating in Vedantic unity at a realised level. The creed was not called Vaidika Matam (based on Veda). There were other creeds that did not accept Vedas. There have been several other creeds which were not systematised with a philosophic mooring.

Vedas, to be sure, are intertwined deeply with varna and asrama dharma, even Vedanta does not fully steer clear of it. What the politicians latch on to is this fixation with varna which, whatever the origin and explanation, has become contentious. When someone wants to crush Sanatana Dharma, one has this perspective. Such opponents have not understood the valid and more weighty aspects of it and the opposition is rooted in ignorance and hatred, and a racial prejudice well planted by the colonisers.

Society has a right to correct the wrongs, but in so doing it cannot create fresh wrongs. It cannot create a fresh inequality or impose a faith or lack of it on all.

Sanatana Dharma will prevail universally. Opposiition to it is like opposition to heat of the sun. Changes in social norms and laws will take place as it happened always.

Let us understand the dharma and lead a dharmic life which unites people, not something that stirs up a hornet’s nest and foments social dissonance and distracts us from proper economic governance.

 

2/10/2011

Sanatana Dharma

Hinduism is referred to as Sanatana Dharma by some. Let us call it SD in short.

SD takes care of several levels of believers and seekers. ‘Level’ need not be distinguished as ‘higher’, ‘lower’. At the physical level, we have personal Gods who, when , beseeched, give us material comforts. It is for fact that in our hierarchy of needs, physical comforts are at the foundational level. I saw an advaitin swami use several cushions for his seating comfort. Rare are those who are totally unmindful of bodily stresses and strains. Thus, our need for physical well-being is paramount. Several hymns written in praise of various deities contain phalasrutis- the benefits that accrue to the reciter. Sukham – material happiness is invariably mentioned.

The very idea of a personal God is a physical phenomenon. We are comfortable only with gross things. We are used to senses and their play. What appeals to the senses is what matters to most of us. Spirituality may beckon us to travel beyond, but religion cannot be content with just abstract reality. We do not grasp subtle things except through experience with the gross world. A personal God with connection to the physical world is a religious need for almost all of us. The concept of avatar, repeated manifestations of God in the workaday world, fills this acute need. God came not just as a philosopher or saint. He came in various forms at various times in accord with the need of the time. The absolute is not characterized in any category of gender or number. But, God is manifest in all forms of the manifested world. Just as a map is taken for the territory it represents for facilitating understanding, a personal god in a specific form helps in understanding divinity and dharma. The personal God destroys evil and guards the virtuous. SD has instilled belief in such personal God. The variety of gods may baffle one not native to this belief, but has sufficiently guided differences in human perception to a satisfying level of living.

 

Thursday, February 06, 2014

Sanatana Dharma

Sanatana means ancient (anadi- it is coeval with time and universe). Dharma is vast. It is the guide to one's conduct. There is no religion as Hinduism. Our scriptures, epics, puranas talk of dharma everywhere. There is sarira dharma also. Dharma is there for other living beings also, which they follow instinctively, e.g. stinging is the dharma of a scorpion. Rama's dharma impelled him to obey his father and go on exile, but while in the forest he assured protection to the sages though he was not a king. Sita questions him and he answers. He had a vow to grant refuge to anyone who sought it. He took Vibhishana in pursuance of this vow. Not to do so would be adharma. It is not something very simple , but it follows satyam and ritham, truth and natural order. If we live in tune with nature, dharma will become easy to understand.

Though it seems improper to us, Yudhishtira had a vow of not refusing to play dice if asked and his dharma obliged him to play when invited by Duryodhana, to the extreme of self-imposed misery, so to say. It is said raja dharma in those days required it, but I do not know if it was so. In both Mahabharata and Nalopakhyanam (covered in MB itself), the evils of dice playing are elaborately mentioned.

When conflict of dharma arose, people referred to experts. Gandhari was an expert and they used to consult her, we are told.

Dharma is subtle and cannot be set down like ten commandments.

In Prasnottararatnamalika, Sankara says untruth, if uttered for upholding a dharma, is not a sin. Such is the nicety involved.

Arthur Osborne argues that the methods employed by Pandavas to kill some of the heavyweights were justified as otherwise it would have been travesty of justice. Not that we can perpetrate a sin to suit our convenience, but when the choice is between a gross injustice and a deviation, the deviation becomes necessary. Consequences follow however of the wrongs done. This is a heavy topic and the purpose of my referring to it here is to show how intricacies arise in the actual world.

 

 

 

June 6, 2011

What is Hinduism

1. Hinduism is a religion, to use a word according to convention, that has evolved and been evolving from an indeterminate past. It is the oldest religion known.

2. Intuition, rather than deduction or revelation, is its basis. (Vedas are claimed to be revelation).

3. God, by definition, is not within the grasp of senses. Those who demand proof for God and those who venture to offer proof act in ignorance of this fundamental. Hinduism does not set out to prove God; it seeks to elucidate and show the way to understand God.

4. If god is beyond sense perception, is it not self-defeating to understand or talk of God? Was not Buddha wise in avoiding the issue? Hinduism disagrees. Man is capable of going beyond the senses, though not fully i.e. so long as his consciousness is rooted in the senses. Many seers have done this. To do so, they have led a life of self-denial (in the narrow sense of self, identified as that seeking sense gratification), penance and meditation. Moral rectitude and virtue are the launching pad for the take off. We cannot live a life of pleasure-seeking and yet grasp God. God can help in our workaday life, but we will not be able to understand God so long as our activity is mundane. If God is transcendental, what is his place in the immanent? God cannot exclude anything; nothing can be outside God. Therefore, God is immanent as well as transcendental. God is the creator and the created, to go by popular paradigm.

5. ‘One became many.’ ‘It is one, but the learned talk of it in varied terms.’ To draw a parallel from science, the Big Bang talks of singularity and an expanding universe. It is a theory, based on observations and inference. A later theory may disprove it. It looks as though so much came out of nothing or so little. Hinduism does not approve of a void (cf. Buddhism). The seer simply asks a rhetorical question, ‘How can existence come from non-existence?’ It implies that this world has not come from ‘nothing’, nor from matter. No proof is offered. The disciple does not ask for one. Understanding does not require proof. Proof does not ensure understanding.

6. Oneness of the Absolute is very much of the essence of Hinduism, but variety and inequality are facts of existence. Hinduism provides for it at the living level. To live this life, a short journey in an inconspicuous corner in the immensity of time and vastness of space, we need guidance and reassurance. All religions, and Hinduism, fill this need. The need for many faiths, many Gods, if you so will, is catered to in Hinduism. But all faiths lead to the same goal. ‘No matter whom you worship, it reaches Kesava just as the water falling from the skies reaches the ocean.’

7. The soul is a reality as we are. The soul is what experiences. The ‘I’ cannot be this body, which renews itself repeatedly – a continuously changing thing; it cannot be the mind which is fickle; it cannot be intelligence which is developing all the while. Soul is that changeless thing that is ‘I’. Soul is neither born, nor does it die. It is interesting. If soul is not born, obviously, it is not created. Creation refers to the physical world. Here again, the samskrit word is ‘Sruj’ which means to ‘project’. The soul is unaffected by the joy and sorrow and the various other states a person undergoes. It is a non-participating, disinterested witness. These are the attributes of the soul. Volumes have been written about it. But, the picture of a fruit is not the fruit and you do not taste a fruit looking at the picture. We may read copiously about the soul without realising what it means. ‘The soul is not realised by discourse, intellect, or extensive learning.’ The ultimate wisdom is silence. Words cannot tell. Those who saw never described it. So long as we are talking, we are not in the full state of realisation. The apparent incoherence of even great souls is due to the imperfection of language in describing it as it is. ‘It is one, without a second, non-pareil’; how can we then say about it or understand it in words? Words fill a mundane need. We keep talking about the experience of realisation because we are yet to experience it. The teaching of Dakshinamurthi, a young man, to the four old disciples under the banyan tree is silence and the disciples nod their heads having understood. (Look at the paradox, young man teaching old ones, and the teaching is silence and the acknowledgement is also silence; the teaching is complete: the proof of the pudding is in the eating, the disciples have got it.) Each such story packs pregnant sense if only we care to understand.

8. Hinduism does not talk of eternal punishment. The soul is unaffected by the experience of the body. What goes to hell? The fear of hell as a safeguard against vice and evil is a primer; we cannot adopt it as theology for the enlightened. It is not fear of hell, but love of God, that promotes the purpose of the soul.

9. What is Hinduism of today and how do we correlate it with the scriptures? People who call themselves Hindus may be ‘secular’, atheistic, or worship ‘lesser’ deities. They may believe in animal sacrifice or may be vegetarian. Shades of morality also may differ. In fact, morality is different from society to society. We worship ‘Mariamman’ which is the virus that causes pox/measles. We worship Kali who is ferocious. We worship trees, snakes, and so on. It is not as though it was once so and now extinct. It is not as though such worship is confined to the uneducated or in certain pockets.

10. God is a reality to a Hindu who is beside in what we do and in what we are. He is not for hereafter as for here, not for later as for now. We blame God as freely as we praise him. He is not man or woman alone, he is child as well as the stone. You have to sift the vernacular idioms to see how varied and deep-rooted the tenets of Hinduism are.

11. God is not bound by space-time, the co-ordinates of the observed world (Loka is world, it means literally what is seen). He is ever free. It is the supreme idea of freedom that is the hallmark of Hinduism. Moksha is release or freedom. Salvation is nothing but freedom. It is not the heaven that a seeker is after, where one can rejoice in the benevolent reign of God. In the most daring of thoughts, an individual soul is equated with the Supreme Soul, the difference being in appearance that is transient. It is of course a contested point and need not be gone into in detail here.

12. We have to face it squarely that Hinduism has created, nurtured and protected caste-based society. We may offer a thousand explanations. It is scripturally encouraged, several pontiffs still profess by that and it is perpetuated even today. We have to accept it as a reality. We have to deal with it as appropriate socially, legally and authentically. But to wish it away will be insincere. There are pernicious practices in other religions too, but it is blasphemous even to mention it. We have to lead the way, as we claim India has done in matters concerning spirituality. As Hinduism is not an ‘arrived’ religion, there is always room for change. But, we have to contend with differences in existence in some form or other right through to the doomsday if there be one. The equality, for which a strong case has been made, has been elusive. We are born with differences, even genetically, and we have to cope with them; caste as the basis for it is a crude and unjust aberration.

13. Hinduism has its own mess of confusing social issues with religion. Spirituality cuts across all social issues.

14. Morality is a sine qua non for being religious, but morality is not the basis or substance of Hinduism. We talk of Dharma and Dharma differs from one to another depending on circumstance (the moral code applicable to all comes under Samanya Dharma). The result of deviating is not eternal condemnation, but suffering.

15. Idol worship is part and parcel of Hinduism. It is a symbol and all religions have some symbol or other. Even the place of worship is a symbol.

16. There is scope and freedom for an individual to seek authentic, first-hand experience of God. Unfortunately, this freedom was confined to the Brahmins. But the point to note is that one can find for oneself the truth. It need not be attained only through testimony or scripture. The path to finding the truth directly is arduous and one in a million only may succeed, warns the scripture.

17. Everyone may not be interested the same goal in life. But each has to be enabled to achieve the chosen or ordained goal. This is assured. Prayer has the power to enable one to achieve what one aspires.

 

Basic tenets of Hinduism

There are some who try to crystallise a few basic tenets of Hinduism.

1.    Belief in Vedas : This may be repudiated. Buddha is reckoned as one of the incarnations of Vishnu and he did not accept Vedas. Vedas were kept out of the reach of an ordinary person, esp. non-Brahmins. If I am not mistaken, Sankara says that scriptures only serve a purpose and after liberation, scriptures are of no value. Of course, his is only one sect of opinion.  Vedas (including Vedanta) uphold varnasrama dharma, something which is definitely anachronistic today. Most of the vaidika karma are extinct now. Hinduism had its origin in Vedas, but it is now not fully rooted in Vedas.

2.    The most important aspect is Dharma. The path is different for different people. ‘One should do one’s own dharma and not others’. The two epics are about Dharma. रामो विग्रहवान धर्मः. Yudhishtira is known as धर्मपुत्र.

3.    Idol worship. This is an essential characteristic of Hinduism. Without it, Hinduism may be non-existent. It is a significant step in relating with god and is serving the purpose. In the state of renunciation, it becomes redundant, not until then.

4.    Belief in rebirth and karma. Buddhism and Jainism that branched off from Hinduism retained belief in rebirth.

5.    Bhakti and moksha.

6.    Belief in a cycle of manifestation (creation), gradation and variety (life as we know it) and withdrawal (collapsing into One).

7.    A Hindu is born, not converted. Hinduism transcends morality and worship of a deity. It is a process, a journey for discovery of that which motivates and survives. It is not a hankering after an after-life; it is the realisation of the truth and the state of oneness.

8.    A Hindu is polytheistic and pantheistic. He sees God in a tree, in an idol, in another person and so on. It is not that God is in those objects, but his perception as a mortal concentrates his mind on such objects as personification of God. A poet-saint sang in Tamil, ‘To one who has no form or name, we have given a thousand names and forms.’

9.    Belief in repeated ‘avatars’ or incarnations of God. It is not a one-time occurrence as in other faiths. God will take an avatar as many times as needed. We venerate several great souls as ‘avatars’.

10. A Hindu claims nearness to God, intimacy and intense relationship on a day-to-day basis. Doing Pooja at home is a way of cultivating that bond.

11. Various people are after various things. Everyone is not after one and the same thing. Prima facie it may appear that everyone is after money, which can be used to buy most things, but it is not so. The essence of this tenet comes through in various places e.g. in the concluding part of Vishnusahasranamam, the fruit of reciting it is given as ‘The Brahmin will attain the wisdom of vedanta, Kshatriya will achieve victory, Vaisya will get wealth and Sudra will get happiness.’ ‘Happiness’ or sense gratification is not (or not prescribed as) the goal of everyone.

12. Caste system. Even today, belief in caste system is part and parcel of Hinduism. It is there in the Vedas and most of the pontiffs still stick to it. It is a vast and contentious subject. We have to accept that it is there. Social aberrations have been there in other religions as well. There are many instances in Hinduism where people born of the so-called lower castes have attained spiritual awakening and have been canonised. Even several incarnations of Gods (notably Rama and Krishna) were in the so-called lower castes. It would be pointless to understand Hinduism by the social prejudices and practices alone.

Mankind is essentially and ineradicably stratified. Egalitrianism is an ideal of an idle kind. A vibrant society is rooted in divisions. Harmony is possible despite divisions, but elimination of inequality is impossible. Communism is thus pursuit of a mirage. Religions which promise uniformity and equality are also false. A world to come at the end of time, nobody seriously believes in. Everyone believes in this life only. How can we live it sensibly? That is the issue.

13. Fate: One vulnerability of Hinduism is the faith in preordained scheme of things. The words used for fate are karma, vidhi and daivatham. They are significant and if understood properly can serve to allay the pejorative connotation of the expression. It is not as though we are not responsible for our actions. The principle of karma and rebirth in fact drive the nail on the head that we reap as we sow. It is a sinister caricature to represent that fate hangs in the air and will carry out its will regardless of our effort, that our effort does not influence the outcome. That in course of time people have got inured to such a belief may be a fact, but that is not what fate implied in the first instance. Vidhi is a synonym for the creator as well and his creation is only the logical culmination of our past deeds. Daivatham refers to divine will, which again is regulatory, not a cause for the outcome. Let us look at what literature and mythology have to say. In two places, Valmiki uses the expression ‘yadrucchaya’, which means by chance. One is when Manthara sees from the terrace the festooning in Ayodhya to celebrate the imminent coronation of Rama and plays spoilsport. The second is when Surpanakha comes across Rama in the Dandaka forest and tries to seduce him. In Ramayana no reason is given for the two dramatic turnings that caused Rama great misery. Rama attributes it to daivatham when Lakshmana is incensed and wants to fight it out. The parents are normally supposed to do good to children. But when they themselves turn against children, it is daivataham. Rama fights against several demons fiercely and wins. He does not attribute it to daivatham. Fate is not a mindless working of an impersonal force. It is an apparently inexplicable outcome against which it is futile to fight. It is a fait accompli. It could have been avoided, but was not. It cannot be undone now. Death is a case in point. Once it has happened, what can we do? Fate is not a call for inaction, but a resigned stance to accept what has resulted willy-nilly.

To quote Stephen Hawking: “One cannot base one’s conduct on the idea that everything is determined, because one does not know what is determined. Instead, one has to adopt the effective theory that one has free will and that one is responsible for one’s actions. .. Is everything determined? The answer is yes, it is. But it might as well not be, because we can never know what is determined.”

14. Karma: We touched upon Karma. Karma is action and the carry-over effect of action committed in some past. It is disheartening that the chain of action and its impact will continue in an endless chain. The antidote is that we have to take our mind off the result of our action, not simply as beyond us, but in wilful renunciation of the fruits. Action is of our nature and we cannot remain idle. But we can act in anticipation of no fruit and no attachment to it. Several stories are told to emphasise that it is the mental attitude rather than the action per se that determines the perpetuation or otherwise of the chain. It is achievement of such desire-less action that enables emancipation.

 

What Hinduism means to me

1.    Variety is the basis of life. Uniformity is nowhere in evidence.

2.    Each piece and each life plays a role. There is no sanctity of anything except by human mind.

3.    We are part of nature. Natural forces help us. It is in admiring and cooperating with nature that life is consistent.

4.    Life is about living and experience.

5.    We pass through stages in life. Playing as a boy, learning as an adolescent, living with a partner and engaging in social activities and begetting children as a youth, withdrawing into contemplation and merging with nature are the stages.

6.    Life is based on satyam and is regulated by dharma. Dharma of nature does not respect religious doctrines of any religion. We have no clear clue as to what they are just as we are not yet in complete knowledge of physical laws.

7.    There used to be continuous shows in Blue Diamond in Madras. One can get in and get out at various times. The world is a continuous show. We get in and get out at various times, but seemingly not at our will.

8.    Faith is a matter of choice. It may help, but it does not alter the facts of world and life. To believe in miracles and superlative rewards are a remnant of ignorant times. Appreciation of our small part in it and acknowledging that of others in it are signs of knowledge.

9.    Prayer helps. The help is in steadying the mind and in overcoming doubt and indecision. Not beyond that.

 

June, 2015

Why I am a Hindu

The simple and straightforward answer to the question in caption is, 'I was born as a Hindu and hence I am one.' But, predictably, my purpose is not to be so anticlimactically brief. But, it is part of the substantial answer.

Religion is essentially religious experience. It starts and ends as a sterile faith if it is not reinforced as personal experience. The experience is not one of a miracle, which is just an occurrence that has eluded our grasp. It is a feeling for and of the soul, a oneness that is felt at the substratum of existence, something that keeps life ticking and living a blessing in the wake of the toil and trial it entails.

Religion has to be simple and convergent, rather than recondite and fragmented. It has to take into account the inevitability of variety of experience and find a thread that unites that variety into a congruent whole, rather than insist on submission to a uniformity that strains the limits of belief and imagination.

Acceptance of plurality and diversity is the core of Hinduism. Hinduism shows the way to worship God and seek the Truth. It enjoins obedience and experimentation. It calls for belief and verification. Truth cannot be a narrow term; it cannot be racially, geographically or historically confined. Truth is one but takes several forms. Thus in a living world diversity is the ruling principle. A call for uniformity is inconsistent with this diversity. Only an abiding faith in the possibility of several routes to the One Truth can bring real peace and will accord with the known phenomena.

Hinduism is a term used conveniently to a set of beliefs and practices that have come in vogue in India from time immemorial. Hinduism did not start with an individual. It is an evolved and evolving religion. It has been an open religion assimilating the advancement of thought and experience.  It is a heterogeneous mixture of various beliefs and faiths. From atheism to pantheism (everything is God), it has a baffling gamut. Some people prefer to call it 'Sanatana Dharma'. 'Sanatana' means ancient or primordial. 'Dharma' defies accurate translation.

Hinduism has more to do with immanence than transcendence, natural than supernatural, self rather than other than the self. It believes in action and consequence and the helplessness of human beings in the proximate relationship between deed and its fallout. It believes in upasana, meditation on a chosen deity. The variety of beliefs, deities, imagery, and so on provide for the diversity that is witnessed. Differences define phenomenal world and the transcendence of such peripheral differences defines the spiritual experience. It has set in detail the path of jnana for spiritual realisation.

To a Hindu, god is here and now. He is the power behind what we are and what we do. Everything we do is a dedication to god. God is not outside somewhere, but in all. Nothing can exhaust God. The entire culture has evolved on this understanding.

Hinduism is not a faith to be imposed and there has hardly been any attempt to swell its numbers. The vitality of Hinduism is demonstrated in the fact that it keeps on producing spiritual superminds.

Even if there is greater merit in any other faith, which to my mind is a myth, there is no need to go for external adjustments and change of paradigm and symbols. If we imbibe the faith that appeals to us soulfully, it matters little which name and form we choose or which place of worship we frequent. Much of strife and conflict among religions arise over symbols and customs, social practices and fads. Surely, there is a lot of dialectics over the essence and relationship of soul, God and the world, but it is esoteric and interests just a handful.

I sincerely believe that Hinduism has in it the vitality to spread knowledge-based faith consistent with science and the need for variety for a purposeful temporal existence.

 

Sep 10, 2005

I would claim only this much for Hinduism. it defines the axioms to further think about God and opens up enormous possibilities but with the cynicism that once you have hit the Reality, It would have engulfed and overwhelmed you. You would no longer be there.

 

According to Hinduism (Upanishads), God is in what is (sat, immanent in a way); acc. to most other religions, God is other than what is (supernatural, transcendental).

 

 

Understanding Hinduism

11/5/09

Possibly Hinduism does not have the final answers. The Upanishads seem to suggest so. Even in Gita, the Lord asks Arjuna to come to a conclusion on his own. This is the dominant message. The certainty of a dogma is conspicuously and commendably missing. Science teaches just the same spirit. But, we cannot be thinking at each step. We will be miserable. Nature, habit and tradition guide us in our lives. We have evolved into some state. We do not try to retrace its history in our actual life. It will be foolhardy, foolish and futile. We need practical advice to lead this life and any advice given verbally is repulsive. It has to come in custom and usage. That has what has happened in Hinduism. Religion is not an isolated affair divorced from our mundane pursuits. Everything is a yajna at the altar of God. We are an expression of God and we implement His will. Our job is to act dharmically. Look at the idiom and lifestyle of the common people. You will see how much it is all ingrained. We do err and we do confess, but the effect of what we have done is a foregone event. Prayer will mitigate, not obliterate, the outcome. If a nuclear bomb has been dropped and it goes off, its fallout is unstoppable. Later reparation only limits the damage and assists in rehabilitation. Our saints have suffered for what they believed to be the harvest of past deeds. Being a saint does not stop the suffering. Weak minds expect miracles and that divine grace will deliver us from our actions and their consequences. The actions arose at the physical level and the consequences are likewise at the physical level. We can, as demonstrated repeatedly by the seers and saints, rise to the spiritual level when the physical state becomes detached as it were. What happens at the physical level is inconsequential then.

To return to the point of discussion, Hinduism guides us to live normal life with its baggage with understanding and submission. We do not question the rationale, but follow the course as it unfolds. Thinking minds may agitate but they can seek guidance and such guidance comes when sought sincerely. We can explore for ourselves the frontiers of spiritual experience. There are guides for it as well. They are gurus. A guru is a realised soul, not a scholar or a philosopher, not a priest or a conductor.

We live life every minute whether we are conscious of it or not. We are unique in some way while sharing many traits. Each one of us live in a world of our own though physically we share the same earth. Our dharma differs based on our birth (not necessarily caste) and nature. Our age and the relationships we weave as we age play a critical part in deciding what our dharma is. It is not as simple as ten commandments. How nice it would have been if there were only ten commandments, each capable of being followed and if they are in fact followed! Hinduism has not acquiesced in such simplicity. The complexity of Hinduism has perhaps made other faiths look better, but appearances do not count as much as reality. Real life is indeed complex.

Other faiths appear to believe in equality of all human beings. Hinduism grades people, not to deprive any of happiness, but to suggest the right way to happiness. One way of division is based on the traits. The traits are formed at conception and acquired during growth. Science says as much. Broadly, the traits are sathwa (equanimity), rajas (activity) and thamas (inertia). It is not that anyone is completely one type. The predominant traits decide what type he is. Another way of looking at people is in terms of deva (godly), manushya (human) and rakshasa (diabolical). Caste distinctions are based on the pursuits that each takes up in accordance with his attitude and ability. Such classifications are not rigid, but help in understanding one’s position and how he has to shape his life. What foods will aid what behaviour has also been prescribed. It helps in leading life in some orderly way. These have been honed over centuries and inculcated as a practised system. We do not start doing a thing on our first learning it. We do as we see, not as we are told. The environment determines our behaviour to a great extent. Hence, culture is important. Hindu culture was developed over a long period and has survived to this day. We can make improvements to it, but cannot alter its basic structure. Just as the constitution has certain basic features Hinduism has a basic character which has to be preserved.

Church and mosque are as good as, but not any better than, temples. Cross and crescent are not any holier than idols and pictures of Gods. God is one and inscrutable. No one has known him and described him in a way intelligible to the ordinary run of men. He can take the form we like and he must at least have that power. The various stories in Hinduism just say so. He manifests in a form that is friendly to the worshipper. If it is the cross it is good. If it is the crescent it is good as well, but he cannot be limited and confined to any one thing. If God can be in inanimate representations why can’t he be in a tree, in a reptile or a human being? God who is everywhere is in all these as well. There is no need to ridicule such forms of worship. There is no waste or miscarriage in creation. All that exists is by God’s will. A true devotee transcends differences and is lost in God to the extent that he sees only God and no other. If not, he is a fanatic.

Hinduism has believed in telling its messages by tales. Parables have served the same purpose.

Vedanta applies the method of science to spirituality. Science proceeds from some known facts, which are self-evident, i.e. they cannot be proved, and builds understanding and knowledge from there. Likewise, in spirituality, soul is the self-evident reality. It cannot be proved. Vedanta then explains its nature and relationships. It is not a cogent, logical treatise. It is a collection of the findings of the seers. The seers are not dialecticians. They are thatvadarsis, those that see reality as it is. It is not clear to us because we are yet to get that perception. Being single-minded, we can one day attain to it.

Sage of Kanchi

“One big difference between Hinduism and other faiths is that it does not proclaim that it alone shows the path to liberation. Our Vedic religion alone has not practiced conversion and the reason for it is that our forefathers were well aware that all religions are nothing but different paths to realise the one and only Paramatman. The Vedas proclaim: "The wise speak of the One Truth by different names.”Sri Krsna says in the Gita: "In whatever way or form a man worships me, I increase his faith and make him firm and steady in that worship.”

“All religions have one common ideal, worship of the Lord, and all of them proclaim that there is but one God. This one God accepts your devotion irrespective of the manner of your worship, whether it is according to this or that religion. So there is no need to abandon the religion of your birth and embrace another.”

“That the beliefs and customs of the various religions are different cannot be a cause for complaint. Nor is there any need to make all of them similar. The important thing is for the followers of the various faiths to live in harmony with one another. The goal must be unity, not uniformity.”

 

Mar 3

The truth about Hinduism is that Hinduism is about discovery of truth. It is more about realisation of truth than faith.

 

 

Satyam (truth) and dharmam (morality)

Satyam (truth) and dharmam (morality) are the foundation of Hinduism. Satyam is subtle and difficult to fathom. Dharmam is actually more than morality. It is something we must be guided by without bothering about why and what for. That is the only basis on which a happy society can flourish.

 

 

 

Vedas

I want to write on Vedas as an outsider.

I profess to be yajus-sakhadhyayi when I say Pravaram, a false claim as I never even attempted to learn it.

Veda is not meant to be read. One has to master it with accent (chandas) by listening (sruti). It is not about meaning in the way other subjects are approached.

The western minds find no more than superstition in Veda (the early part) and dismiss it as nature worship and a primitive form of religion.

I feel that Veda is vibrant in that it is finding the seeds of god in the surroundings that support life. What is god if he is not the enabler of life? What  is life if it is not about the sun, the air, the water, the earth, the rain, the fire, the plants and trees and the micro-organisms, and so many other natural forces – known and unknown – and yet something that is not a mere mixture of these, but animated by something as yet undiscovered?

It is in fact the belief of an unseeable world and a hidden god that is more primitive. It is the uniqueness of his appearance historically and geographically that looks contrived and fictional.

The language of Veda is prior to Samskrtam. Knowledge of Samskrtam alone will not help to decipher it. As I said earlier, its meaning has to be contemplated and understood in conformity with nature and experience. It has mythology, but the mythology is based on certain basic facts.

The opening mantra or rik of Yajurveda is a prayer as most of what follows.

इ॒षेत्वो॒र्जेत्वा॑वा॒यव॑स्स्थोपा॒यव॑स्स्थ दे॒वोव॑स्सवि॒ता-प्रार्प॑यतु॒ श्रेष्ठ॑तमाय॒ कर्म॑ण॒

Translation by A B Keithe!

 Ye are winds, ye are approachers

 Let the god Savitr impel you to the most excellent offering.”

Karma is translated as offering based on the prescribed Vedic karma, but it applies to one’s work in general. The thought that we should indulge in the best of action is laudable and it is by such thoughts we graduate into a fine human being. Civilization is not a finished product. It becomes decadent if the current culture is corrupted. Each person has to civilize himself as he grows into an adult. It happens by effort bolstered by the society he is part of. Veda is the guide for that transformation.

Veda concerns itself with our brief existence in the cosmic scheme of things which is mind-boggling and unintelligible. Veda does not pretend to have got that secret, but is convinced and convincing that the key to the secret is through dharma and truth. It therefore proceeds to delineate the path paved with solid stones carved from dharma and truth.

Vedic prayers invoke good life, wealth and protection against enemies. Lofty thoughts of selfless prayer, wishing well even adversaries, desireless action, etc. are not necessarily historic culmination, but basically an advanced stage of an individual’s development. The children born now have the same innate qualities as before man advanced in his collective thinking to a noble world that is ever in shaping. Each child needs grooming to understand ethics and transcendence.

Taking care of one’s own welfare is the ideal of modern world and the state is engaged in enabling it. Organized society has not grown out of individual welfare into some cosmic good that is abstract.

The relevance of Vedic welfare idea is neither misplaced nor antiquated. Prayer for grace is the essence of religion.

 

July 5, 2016 ·

Veda – 3

Veda concerns itself with our brief existence in the cosmic scheme of things which is mind-boggling and unintelligible. Veda does not pretend to have got that secret, but is convinced and convincing that the key to the secret is through dharma and truth. It therefore proceeds to delineate the path paved with solid stones carved from dharma and truth.

Vedic prayers invoke good life, wealth and protection against enemies. Lofty thoughts of selfless prayer, wishing well even adversaries, desireless action, etc. are not necessarily historic culmination, but basically an advanced stage of an individual’s development. The children born now have the same innate qualities as before man advanced in his collective thinking to a noble world that is ever in shaping. Each child needs grooming to understand ethics and transcendence.

Taking care of one’s own welfare is the ideal of modern world and the state is engaged in enabling it. Organized society has not grown out of individual welfare into some cosmic good that is abstract.

The relevance of Vedic welfare idea is neither misplaced nor antiquated. Prayer for grace is the essence of religion.

 

Veda – 4

Vedic deities

Adityas

The sons of Aditi (and Kasyapa) are Adityas. There are twelve of them:

1.    Varuna (force behind water)

2.    Mitra (force behind moon and oceans)

3.    Aryama (powers the wind with Amsuman)

4.    Bhaga (protector of bodies of all living beings)

 

5.    Amsuman (powers the wind with Aryama)

6.    Dhata (creator)

7.    Indra (destroyer of enemies of gods)

8.    Parjanya (rain giver)

9.    Tvashtha (protects trees and herbs)

10. Vishnu (destroyer of enemies of gods)

11. Pusha (protector of crops)

12. Vivasvan (force behind fire)

 

Veda – 5

Vedic deities

33 devas

Rudras   11

Vasus     8

Adityas   12

Aswins    2

Rudras: In Matsya Purana, they are named Nirriti, Shambhu, Aparajita Mrigavyadha, Kapardi, Dahana, Khara, Ahirabradhya, Kapali, Pingala and Senani. In Vishnu Purana, they are called Manyu, Manu, Mahmasa, Mahan, Siva, Rtudhvaja, Ugraretas, Bhava, Kama, Vamadeva and Dhrtavrata. In Mahabharata, they are named Mrgavadha, Sarpa, Nirriti, Ajaikapad, Ahi Budhnya, Pinakin, Dahana, Ishvara, Kapalin, Sthanu and Bhaga.

Vasus

   Brihadaranyaka                        Mahabharata

 

Name         Meaning                  Name           Meaning

1. Prithvi               earth              Dharā           support

2. Agni                  fire                      Anala        living

3. Vāyu                 wind                Anila            wind

 

4. Antariksha               space                 Aha              pervading

5. Āditya               sun           Surya    sun

6. Dyaus              sky                      Prabhāsa         shining dawn

7. Chandramas  moon"              Soma       moon

8. Nakstrani     stars        Dhruva    Polestar        

 

Veda-8

I heard from a person that his son has read Rig Veda completely. I was amused. Veda is not meant to be read. Also, what he has read was English translation.

Kanchi Acharya has said on Vedas: “We may not appreciate the worth of Vedas and a future generation may. It is our duty to preserve them and pass them on.”

I read books by Roberto Calasso and his insight (from a Western mind) is amazing. I came to know many things. Still, I suspect irrationally that he may not have got the real spirit behind them.

The Acharya has said in another context, that Avvaiyar’s aphorism ‘ஓதாமல் ஒருநாளும் இருக்க வேண்டாம்’ refers to chanting of sacred texts. The chanters of Thevaram in temples are called Odhuvars. We have ‘வேதம் ஓதிய வேதியற்கோர் மழை.’ The point is that Vedas are meant to be chanted with the right chandas (accent). Meaning comes later and will be hard to decipher because Vedic Samskrtham is different and the significance of the rituals that the hymns address is not fully documented.

There is an effect, aural as well as spiritual, in reciting the mantras (called riks). It is seeking harmony with the forces of nature that are essential for life. These forces are more palpable than the inscrutable almighty whom we can never grasp with our senses.

Pitiably, even the purohits do not know the right meaning and sometimes they recite it wrongly also.

I felt attracted to Vedic chanting even as a small boy and the fascination grew stronger over time. It gives me peace listening to it when it is chanted. To expect another reward seems unwarranted.

The quest of the west was secular. They had firm impressions of India as an uncivilized society based on crude beliefs. Their research into Vedas was as to the date and circumstances. They concluded, in a mind that was predisposed, that Vedas are expression of a primitive society to threats of nature that loomed imposingly. Their belief in biblical monotheism, something which is fictional and not supported by experience, overwhelmed any scientific approach to decipher the meaning and interpret the message of Vedas fairly.

The essence of life as we live has been constant throughout. The explosion of knowledge and expansion of its frontiers has not changed anything of the basic features of life. The Vedic pantheon is about such natural forces that enable life. They were conceived not by crude minds, but by well-developed ones.

 

Vedic religion

Vedic religion is virtually out of vogue. What we have now is a puranic religion, with temples and worship based on characters in puranas. Some rituals from Vedic religion linger as followed on special occasions like marriages perfunctorily. Normally, it is the videographer who gets prominence even on such occasions, and the mumbo jumbo of the purohit, even if pronounced correctly, is lost in the din such events are accompanied by. One is keen to see the whole thing away the soonest like an anti-terror squad would like to defuse a bomb.

It will be a miracle if Vedic religion would revive even if it can be established that it is a good one.

Interestingly, the knowledge of Veda (knowledge) by westerners (mlecchas) seems to be better than that of the natives, but it is like the picture of a fruit, not the fruit. Vedic religion is about Vedic karma. That is extinct.

 

 

May 17, 2016

Vedas and Science:

It is the belief of many that Vedas have revealed science. Nothing can be farther from truth.

I am of the belief that Vedas are valuable and my regret is that I have not learnt the Vedas along with studying science. I am making this personal reference to stress that I am not an antagonist of Vedas.

The fact that I have not learnt the Vedas makes my statement about Vedas and science inauthentic. I have no defence. But, my statement is based on inaccuracies in the Vedas about facts as we know from science today, and also the lack of any evidence that Vedas have known modern science.

[Modern science was invented between 1572 (spotting of a new star by Tycho Brahe) and 1704 (Newton’s discovery that white light is composite).

From The Invention of Science: A New History of the Sientific Revolution by David Wootton.]

The moon, for example is held to be self-luminous, and is counted among stars. Often it is placed above the sun. While for Vedic purpose this inaccuracy is inconsequential, it betrays lack of knowledge of science. There are many such.

It has been believed that human semen is the source of life. (Interestingly, the life starts in रेतस् and ends in प्रेतस्). A woman has been considered only a carrier. There are many stories where a progeny is obtained from the semen without a woman (Drona, for example). We now know that the ovum from the female is as crucial. The whole civilization has been built perhaps on this basic misunderstanding. Women have been held to be inferior and a lineage is linked only to the male side (gotra). I wonder whether the course of civilisation would have been different if this misconception were not there. (pun unintended).

The parallels between atomic physics and Vedanta, or even the fact that ancient Indians knew metallurgy, surgery, etc. or that zero is an Indian contribution (incredibly great indeed) should not make us assume that an organised branch of science existed in Vedic times esp. in the sense of modern science defined above.

 

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Purushartha

What is the purpose of human life? Is there any? This has set people thinking and no consensus seems to have resulted. The Indians have arrived at a conclusion in the remote past, and its influence is interspersed in the lives of most Indians wittingly or unwittingly.

The purpose has been called Purushartha (पुरुषार्थ). It is Purushartha that distinguishes a man from an animal. It is a Samskritam word. Words in Samskritam have been derived from roots that accord with nature and its working. Purushartha means ‘purpose of person’. Purusha is person. Artha is meaning or purpose. (It has other meanings as well, like wealth, which is one of the Purusharthas). Purusha is one who is in Puru. Puru is a place, body. (Pura means town like in, say, Saharanpur). The idea of a driving force behind a person has been assumed and the body considered a mere place.

[Aside: Indisputably, Purusha is a male. The Indian society, like almost any in the world, has evolved with a male bias. Points like ‘Indians worship female deities also’ are part of rationalization. Poems like ‘one should have done great penance for being born as a woman மாதராகப் பிறந்திடவே மாதவம் செய்திட வேண்டுமம்மா’ are an afterthought. True, ladies have had a respectable place in society, but after men.]

God is also Purusha; as a matter of distinction, he is Paramapurusha or Purushotthama. The whole world is the place (body) where he is. This is the point of Srivaishnava siddhanta.

The underlying concepts of a power that resides in a body and of God as the superpower (not USA) is central to the idea of Purushartha just as morals seem to be the driving force of Semitic faith. It is wrong to conclude as Westerners have, that the faith of Indians is amoral. We shall see how, as we understand Purushartha.

Purushartha is divided fourfold. They are dharma, artha, kama and moksha. Actually, the first three are more worldly (called preyas प्रेयस) and the fourth is spiritual (called sreya श्रेयस), but moksha is the ultimate purushartha, significantly not the only one or the first. Equally significantly, kama is one of the purusharthas, it has not been taboo ab initio.

Dharma is the way one has to lead one’s life. Dharma, being made a purushartha, emphasizes that one has to live according to a code and not as one likes. It presupposes ethics and encompasses a wider gamut than certain normative dos and don’ts. It is derived from the basic principles of satyam (existence, truth) and ritam (order, rhythm) that are observed in nature. It is a purposive attempt to align human life with nature, with what is. What should be cannot be at dissonance with what is. That is the guiding principle. (I have posted separately what Bhishma advises on dharma).

Dharma is divided into samanya dharma (common to all, like say, speaking the truth) and visesha dharma (that is specific to individuals). Visesha dharma has a parallel in the words of Fray Luis de Leon: "the beauty of life is nothing but this, that each should act in conformity with his nature and his business." (quoted by Maugham).

Dharma has to lead to artha, wealth. It is said repeatedly in Mahabharata that wealth is important for leading life satisfactorily. There is a kural which stresses, ‘This world is lost to one without wealth பொருளில்லார்க்கு இவ்வுலகம் இல்லை’. The point to note is it has to be earned following dharma.

Kama is the third. Kama means erotic desire, but has also come to mean desire in general. Fulfilment of (just) desire is part of the scheme. Abandonment of desire is only for attaining moksha.

It is evident that life is not possible without the three purusharthas for any human being.

Moksha, the final Purushartha, involves practices like desireless action, devotion, discrimination, etc. The nature of one who has attained moksha has been subject matter of difference of opinion.

 

December 22, 2015

Dharma

The one word that occurs often in the religious literature is dharma. It defies translation.

Etymologically, it is what makes things hold or carry. The earth is called dharani in Samskritham and dharti in Hindi in the sense of carrying all things.

Dharmo rakshati rakshitah. Dharma protects one who protects. That is the message of a mother to a son who is unjustly exiled. ‘May that dharma protect you, for protecting which you accept the exile.’

Krishna works to establish dharma, but the action that is taken is embroiled in questions of ethics. It is a vast subject and its subtlety is not readily appreciated. But, there is no doubt about the intention, which is upholding dharma.

Dharma is not as simple as a few do’s and don’ts. It is varied depending on the circumstances. Scriptures and the wise elders are to be consulted in case of doubt.

Dharma has fine subcategories.

Sarira dharmam is one part of it. Meeting the basic needs of the body with due restraint is a dharma. In one imagery, body is the temple of soul and has to be cared for. Sarira dharmam includes sex, also referred to as gramya dharma.

Gramya (rustic) is as opposed to nagarika (sophisticated). It is not as though sex is the favourite of only the rustic, but as civilization develops means of enjoyment are enlarged. One reason given for procreation in India was that there was no other recreation for most people.

Funny as it may sound at least to the foreigners, stinging is posited as dharma of a scorpion in a story. Ravana claims that paradaragamanam is dharma of Rakshasa. Abducting and marrying a girl is approved of for a Rakshasa, it appears.

We have to think hard. It is not that it is ‘ethical’. Ethics is more a social contract, not necessarily a facet of nature. Also, the dharmic system is based on one’s nature, action for survival and inevitability of consequences for one’s action, good or bad. What are they? It is not transparent. That is the import of the oft-quoted karmanyevadhikaraste. Why has Krishna not laid down the correlation? That will be giving away the secret and ending the purpose or interest of life. In atheistic terms, no one knows. (Or euphemistically, god only knows).

We are restless with the world often at its apparent evil nature where immorality seems to go scot free. It has more to do with our active mind, its preconceived ideas and applying the rules of morality ruthlessly to others.

Living in organized society is a human idea and the rules of morality have arisen from the effort of those who have secured a position to retain it. It is good to believe that bad deeds will reap bad fruits some time or other. It is as well to presume that there is an unseen hand in meting out the just desserts. The practical world is at loggerheads with the idealized world. There is not a shred of evidence that nature is obliged to man as a preferred customer. So, the dissatisfaction at the topsy-turvy nature of virtue, vice and consequence will remain a perennial issue.

Dharma is not arbitrary. It is abstracted from close observation and study of the world. It is like scientific theory. There may have been mistakes and they need to be corrected in any progressive society.

 

Jan 18, 2006

Dharma.

That is what defines India. 

One should not mind any length of suffering to uphold Dharma; the great epics have this grand theme. 

The hallmark of married life is preserving the dharma. Its observance to the last detail is necessary. A wife has to assist her husband in this pursuit. Sita and Draupadi exemplified this. Gandhari was an arbiter in matters concerning Sukshma dharma. Ladies considered it their privilege to be a pillar of support for performance of acts dictated by dharma. 

Any amount of wealth created on a heap of burnt dharma cannot bring peace.

 

'Dharma defines Hinduism."

"I hope not."

You have fixation about varnasrama dharma. Dharma is larger than varnasrama dharma. Dharma is not just a 'Hindu' code. It is that which we must abstract from experience and need. That is the essence of Hinduism and that is the reason people call it sanatana dharma, but I would prefer simply dharma as sanatana may connote that the ancient code is binding for all time.

Throught scripture, Gita, epics and puranas, this common thread runs, dharma. There cannot be Hinduism (there is no such single religion as Hinduism as perceived by the historians) without dharma. The various faiths that go by the name of Hinduism have only dharma in common. They differ in deities, philosophy, rituals, insignia, and almost everything.

 

 

10 Jul 2018 14:06

Somerset Maugham ended The Summing Up with : "The beauty of life is nothing but this, that each should act in conformity with his nature and his business.." He was quoting a French author.

You may say that if there can be a one line definition of dharma, this has a strong claim for it.

svabhava and svakarma.

There is dharma even for lesser beings. For them, it is svabhava and what is needed for self-preservation.

We have dharma for sarira also, to take care of it. That will be svabhava dharma.

We have dharma according to our station in life and our profession.

For a sadhu, 'giving it back' is not correct. For a kshatriya, killing in war or for protecting the subjects is in his dharma. Svadharma is determined thus and one should do his svadharma even if imperfectly rather than doing another's dharma perfectly - so says Gita. We have a story to illustrate this as to how an ass brayed when thieves came because the dog did not bark, and the house owner beat the ass for waking him up.

Dharma defines Hinduism. It is elaborated in various places including the epics. It is a confusing gamut and that is why we need the help of fair-minded and learned persons to guide us.

All this is in text books. We are governed by the rules of rat race, outsmarting others, social media participation, pulling one another's legs, etc. Incidentally there was an FB post that we excel in kabadi because we are experts in pulling the legs of others!

(I have exercised my right of liberty here. Elders - age is not the criterion - may decide whether i have kept within my dharma!)

Kant also bases his critique on conscience, I read in Will Durant. But, conscience is also a developed trait and is not the same across societies and ages. There is a constant feedback mechanism, and fine tuning, and looping relationship between society's impositions and an individual's conscience. For a hardened criminal, the conscience justifies his crime. For many, I have seen that conscience does not come in the way of what they think is good for them and their kin. Developing a healthy conscience is necessary and it requires agreed values.

 

11.7.18

"Too often "dharma" seems bent on locking you up in your station & profession."

Yes, varnasrama dharma does that. Nothing prevents a change. Dharma is not constant. It was the dharma for a social order that was conceived then.

 

 

 

08 Jul 2018

I do not think that Hinduism is only for dharma and not individual liberty (freedom). I think that the word liberty, brought to prominence in French Revolution (the English, pl excuse), is about freedom, not in the sense of ‘take liberty’. Also, liberty is not to be confused with lawlessness. The western ideology, to which we want to ascribe it, does not mean by liberty unbridled freedom.

When Tilak roared ‘freedom is our birth right’, it was not on a borrowed political slogan, but from inner conviction that has got to our gene. Ambedkar, another great product of Indian culture, has also batted for freedom, not in the mere political sense, but in the deep cultural sense.

Liberty is the culmination of civilization and philosophy, and whether it is western or Indian, it is something that is desirable.

Dharma is for ensuring liberty for all, not for denying it.

The poorer have no baggage and are that much closer to liberty. Liberty is not for wrong-doing and covering up with financial muscle. That is a wrong take of liberty.

It is necessary to guard individual liberty.

 

11.7.18

"Too often "dharma" seems bent on locking you up in your station & profession."

Yes, varnasrama dharma does that. Nothing prevents a change. Dharma is not constant. It was the dharma for a social order that was conceived then.

In my understanding, dharma is that which makes things be, supports (dhaaryate iti dharmah), a law of being and action, something that is not laid down, but inferred, in much the same way as physical laws are deduced from observation. Scriptural prescriptions belong to regulation of human affairs and have no finality and may not truly reflect natural dharma. Much of the heartburn why those who follow the dharma (scripture) suffer arises from this mix-up. I am well aware that our scriptures try to align with the natural dharma, but still, may I be forgiven for this blasphemy, they are product of human minds and are fallible. Karma is the mode of life and there is no life without karma and karma here is action of living, and not Vedic karma which is volitional. Karmanyevadhikaraste and na kinchidapi kurvaanah do not refer to the same karma. Karma follows dharma in the sense of natural dharma, where it is involuntary, and is expected to follow scriptural dharma where it is man-made. Natural dharma is infallible and inviolable, whereas man-made dharma is not that rigorous. Natural dharma asserts itself, but natural dharma favours life. Otherwise we will not be there and there will be no rasikas.org. There will be no CM and no social injustice.

The entire karma theory (action, consequence, carryover - vasanas- and rebirth) is theory, logical but not proven. No theory of any kind explains why it all started. A discourser simply said that it is not a permissible question.

 

 

 

Varnasrama Dharma

If there is one defining feature of Hinduism, it is Varnasrama Dharma. Without it, Vedic religion flounders. It is woven in it so much so that even in Upanishads, reference to it is copious.

In fact, idol worship which seems to distinguish Hinduism practically today, was unknown in Vedic times. The idols were fashioned after the gods and heroes in Ithihasas and Puranas.

While, India is a secular democracy today and caste differences are unconstitutional and illegal, there is no change of heart at the ground level. Even today, belief in caste system is part and parcel of Hinduism. Most of the pontiffs still stick to it.

Social aberrations have been there in other religions as well, but caste system is unique to Hinduism.

There are many instances in Hinduism where people born of the so-called lower castes have attained spiritual awakening and have been canonised. Even several incarnations of Gods (notably Rama and Krishna) were in non-Brahminical castes. In several places and instances, caste is shown to be decided by conduct, not birth. But, the practical reality is that caste is decided by birth.

Caste system is posed as a strength of Hinduism by some. I read an opinion that but for caste system, Hinduism would have been swept over. The innate affiliation to one’s caste binds people to Hinduism. It may be a specious argument. It is like food particles stuck in dental cavities strengthen the teeth.

Hinduism is at post-doctoral stage whereas the other faiths are at primary or secondary stage, but only a handful are interested in the post-doctoral stage. Hinduism has not become elitist in its scope, however. The variety of beliefs, deities, imagery, and so on provide for the diversity that is witnessed. Differences define phenomenal world and the transcendence of such peripheral differences defines the spiritual experience. The two co-exist and therefore both have to be catered to. That is what Hinduism has accomplished.

 

Caste System

It is useless to pretend that the social schism that plagues us is a miscarriage in implementation. Arguments like caste divisions are only division of labour and that all are equal are not borne out by scripture. ‘Sudras’ are looked down upon in scripture and literature. It is no justification why Brahmins of present generation must bear the cross for what might have been wrong in the past, but social movements do not follow a logical course. It is for Brahmins now to accept current reality and join in the efforts to dismantle the iniquitous caste system.

More than that, the caste differences are cherished outside the miserable minority of Brahmins, which is wreaking havoc. There seems to be no effort to erase that. Everyone flaunts his caste and wants special treatment based on caste and this vicious circle is not going to get us out of this malaise. Simply blaming it on Brahmins may satisfy some ego and some political purpose, but it masks the lack of serious effort to fight the evil.

The raucously anti-Brahmin movement has failed in eradication of caste differences, if indeed that was the real purpose. One may say that Brahmins have been sidelined as a result, but that is poor consolation. In other states even without that movement, other caste people have landed in govt. and other competitive jobs.

Forcing Brahmins to give up on their culture has not done any good to others. What harm is there to others if Brahmins wear sacred thread or sport a tuft? Why should it be a target of attack? How can that be any more rational than perpetuating those insignia? How does it help the attackers except sadistically? What has been done to let Dalits move to the mainstream in villages? In how many villages can Dalits own a house in the main village?

Hatred of any type undermines a society. Let us not practise that majoritarianism which we decry elsewhere. Let us unite and root out the evil.

A Hindu is privileged. He can see god through Christ and Christians, The Prophet and the Mohammedans. An Advaitic perspective will enable us to understand the nature of variety and the futility of being attached or opposed to any aspect of the variety.

Religion which believes in hatred must be Satanic religion. The soul of religion is unconditional and universal love. We should not abandon the universality of Hinduism and drive into the rut of exclusivity.

 

Caste system

I want to turn the table and say that all others must worship Sudras. That is not what I am saying but what the scriptural message appears to be and what the elders say.Manu said that Sudras emanated from the feet of god. Bhakthi movement has popularized the idea that we should worship the feet of god. It is simple algebra from here.

Valluvar has said:“உழுதுண்டு வாழ்வாரே வாழ்வார்மற் றெல்லாம் தொழுதுண்டு பின்செல் பவர்.Those that live by tilling are the ones who live well. The rest go behind them.”

Bharathi has said:

"Uzhavukkum Thozhilukkum Vandanai Seivom

Veenil Undu Kalippavarai Ninthanai Seivom.

Let us respect tilling and labour. Let us deplore those that eat without any exertion.”

Tilling and for some time initially blue collar jobs were the occupation of Sudras. Until migration to cities the forward castes were living on the efforts of Sudras mostly.

 

 

 

Karma theory is right in the sense that action has consequence, intended or not. The consequence impacts not only the doer, but even others not in any way connected with it. It is explained that the impact on others is because of some karma in the past, and this looks phoney. It is an assumption to make it appear that there are no unjust desserts.

Karma theory is an improvement over the windfall of eternal blessing or summary curse of eternal suffering for some small acts in a brief existence. But, it fails on the question of origin of the cycle and any clinching evidence in its favour.

It is good to be made responsible for our action, but it is as well that we appreciate the haphazardness of the results and uncontrollability of future. One would do well to take in one’s stride unpleasant outcome as one does take smoothly the pleasant one. One need not depend on unverifiable premises or promises just because they look enticing.

The body has a proclivity to pain, and mind to fear and anguish. The idea of sin only exacerbates the outcome. To believe in goodness, avoiding harm to others as far as possible, without expecting a payoff, in an effort to make the humanly organized social living viable, is the right attitude.

 

 

(22/9/2011)

Moksha

Liberation, Moksha, is, to my mind, attaining autonomy; a point of self-control and self-sufficiency; a state when we remain unmoved by events around us in a selfish way, ‘what does it mean to me.’ It is not the end of a journey, not a goal to be reached. It is realizing our basic nature and living this life in accordance with that nature.

We are affected and constrained by one or the other of the following, separately or together:

- others’ opinions

- the past

- worries of the future

- the external conditions.

Liberation is freedom from such affectation and release from those constraints. I do not see it as a response to the ills of mundane life, as an escape from the toils and burden of our life and its responsibilities, or as a religious injunction, to disregard which is sinful. It is an eminently desirable stance to face life and its challenges nonchalantly, in a holistic manner, creatively, synergistically, efficiently, effectively, in a manner that no one involved in the process is a loser.

Am I ploughing a lonely furrow?  No. Sankara’s answer to the question, ‘What is the seed for the tree of liberation’, I feel, gives me the direction: ‘Liberation is attained by acquiring true knowledge and living it.’ Having knowledge, as an intellectual accomplishment, cannot lead to liberation. Only by spanning it out into action, true liberation can emerge. Seed in a box will not grow into a tree. It has to be interred in the earth, watered before it can sprout and grow. Likewise, knowledge has to lead to action. But the action is not one where desire drives it. Action based on desire is from lack of knowledge.

 

Efficacy of mantras

I saw a pseudo-scientific explanation for the efficacy of mantras. My reactive mind found this response:

Vedas are called ‘sabdam/sruthi’ – relating to sound. In the Indic theory of creation, everything emanated from sound. It is tempting to compare it with Big Bang, but that is a fancy expression for the singularity from which it all started. St. John’s Gospel begins with, ‘In the beginning was the Word.’ We know that sound is a form of energy and can destroy buildings (cf. Tripura Samhara), not only our eardrums.

Reciting Vedas, Vishnusahasranamam, Mahishasuramardini stotram, etc. aloud is an exercise in producing harmonious sound. Vedas were preserved by keeping intact the recitation with right pronunciation and accent which has been beneficial. Christians derive spiritual power listening to psalms, carols, etc. and Muslims by listening to Koran, which is recited in Sindhubhairavi raga as mentioned by Mrs. Charulatha Mani. Music puts new spirit in us.

At the end of it all, it is faith that works transcending mundane reason. Our minds are conditioned variously and the chanting with faith relaxes making the mind open and accept reality. One will do well not to make faith a fresh binding condition and source of conflict like which faith is superior to which or trying to balance one with another.

What we do not understand appears as a miracle Sometimes it is misrepresented or exaggerated. It is not to deny special powers developed by some individuals. It works locally and for some, not all. Divine grace is equally available to all.

Om Tat Sat.

 

The quest of the west was secular. They had firm impressions of India as an uncivilized society based on crude beliefs. Their research into Vedas was as to the date and circumstances. They concluded, in a mind that was predisposed, that Vedas are expression of a primitive society to threats of nature that loomed imposingly. Their belief in biblical monotheism, something which is fictional and not supported by experience, overwhelmed any scientific approach to decipher the meaning and interpret the message of Vedas fairly.

The essence of life as we live has been constant throughout. The explosion of knowledge and expansion of its frontiers has not changed anything of the basic features of life. The Vedic pantheon is about such natural forces that enable life. They were conceived not by crude minds, but by well-developed ones. 

 

 

February 05, 2014

Animism

Everything in the world, animate or inanimate, has a moving force. When, therefore, we worship the sun, a tree or an idol, what we worship is that unseen force. That is the meaning of ‘அவனின்றி அணுவும் அசையாது.’ (Even an atom cannot move without ‘him’.) That force is universal. People ask why you worship a stone, a fiery ball of gases undergoing nuclear reactions, etc. They miss the point and spirit.

Now at the other end, we have people claiming that what they worship is superior to other forms. One can see how such people also miss the truth. Whether we worship a tree, a deity like Mariamman or Brahman or formlessness, it hardly matters. The worshipper and his act of worship only matter.

 

10/1/2016

If defects disqualify a religion, Hinduism will vie for honours. To believe that Hinduism is the best religion based on some selective quotes from scripture and literature is pure bigotry.

Hinduism differs from other religions chiefly in that while other religions believe the world fixed at the time of their founders, there is no such fixation in Hinduism as there was no founder for it. Hinduism believes in a fluid world and in refining our belief and life. To fix it arbitrarily will be to stunt its development.

Hinduism believes in variety. That variety affords scope for the truth of other religions. That is not so with other religions. Let us preserve that variety.

Where certain followers of any religion pose a threat to society and peaceful living, we have to condemn it and do all we can to stop that canker from destroying liberty and freedom of belief and honest pursuit of one’s potential. False tolerance is hypocrisy.

.

 

20/6/2001

Ramayana may not be history, but a story. It is described as Katha. It was Tulsidas who talks of Ramcharith. But it is an inestimable treasure-house of values; a reading of it is sacred and sanctifying.

Rama and Ravana may be allegorical. It is an antithesis – one who pleases all as against one who makes everyone cry, one who is ennobling as against one who is for self-aggrandisement and sensuality. The ten faces of Ravana stand for mutiplicity of desires and the want of their gratification.

Hinduism and atheism

Hinduism is a later coinage to denote a medley of faiths that evolved in India, which some fancy to call akhanda Bharath. It is cliché to say that it is not a religion in the same sense as, say, the Abrahamic faiths. Some other faiths that germinated out of Hinduism, like Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, have for long been treats as Hinduism – vide Buddha being considered an incarnation of Vishnu.

Religion comes from religare which means ‘consider carefully’. Matham (मतं) means similarly ‘thought’ or ‘opinion’. God, another life, worship, rituals were built over a time.

When Sankara lived, there were 72 or so sects (religions) and he codified them into six and has been given the appellation shan-matha-sthapaka. That is to say, the six sects are each a matha. Actually, the faith of people is much more diverse than in the non-Indic faiths.

Atheism has been as old as theism. In fact theism is a human derivation from experience.

Doubt, questioning and discussion threadbare are replete in the Vedic tradition. Nasdiya Sutra candidly doubts whether even God knows.

“Whence all creation had its origin,
the creator, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
the creator, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows — or maybe even he does not know.”

The charvaka sustem ascribed to Brhaspathi is a well argued system of atheism.

Mahavira and Buddha did not believe in the supernatural and had a large following, though theism has overtaken.

Tamih devotional poetry is full of philosophical musings that confess humbly our limited grasp and lack of understanding the whole.

Quotes from Will Durant

“Nothing is true except from one point of view.” Mahavira. “An uncreated creator or a causeless cause is just as hard to understand as an uncaused or uncreated world. It is more logical to believe that the universe has existed from all eternity, and that its infinite changes and revolutions are due to the inherent powers of nature than to intervention of a deity.”

“Shwasamvedyopanishad, which simplifies theology into four propositions: (1) that there is no reincarnation, no god, no heaven, no hell, and no world; (2) that all traditional religious literature is the work of conceited fools; (3) that Nature the originator and Time the destroyer are the rulers of all things, and take no account of virtue or vice in awarding happiness or misery to men; and (4) that people, deluded by flowery speech, cling to gods, temples and priests, when in reality there is no difference between Vishnu and a dog.”

“The Brahmans themselves were often sceptics, but too completely so to attack the religion of the people. And though the poets of India are as a rule assiduously pious, some of them, like Kabir and Vemana, speak in defense of a very emancipated theism. Vemana, a South Indian poet of the seventeenth century, writes scornfully of ascetic hermits, pilgrimages, and caste.

The solitariness of a dog! the meditations of a crane! the chanting of an ass! the bathing of a frog! . . . How are you the better for smearing your body with ashes? Your thoughts should be set on God alone; for the rest, an ass can wallow in dirt as well as you. . . . The books called Vedas are like courtesans, deluding men, and wholly unfathomable; but the hidden knowledge of God is like an honorable wife. . . . Will the application of white ashes do away with the smell of a wine-pot?—will a cord cast over your neck make you twice-born? . . . Why should we constantly revile the Pariah? Are not his flesh and blood the same as our own? And of what caste is He who pervades the Pariah? . . . He who says, “I know nothing” is the shrewdest of all.

It is worthy of note that pronouncements of this kind could be made with impunity in a society mentally ruled by a priestly caste. Except for foreign repressions (and perhaps because of alien rulers indifferent to native theologies) India has enjoyed a freedom of thought far greater than that of the medieval Europe to which its civilization corresponds; and the Brahmans have exercised their authority with discrimination and lenience. They relied upon the conservatism of the poor to preserve the orthodox religion, and they were not disappointed. When heresies or strange gods became dangerously popular they tolerated them, and then absorbed them into the capacious caverns of Hindu belief; one god more or less could not make much difference in India. Hence there has been comparatively little sectarian animosity within the Hindu community, though much between Hindus and Moslems; and no blood has been shed for religion in India except by its invaders. Intolerance came with Islam and Christianity; the Moslems proposed to buy Paradise with the blood of “infidels,” and the Portuguese, when they captured Goa, introduced the Inquisition into India.”

 

Atheism is nothing new in Indian tradition and its recent expression is not as pointed. It is more political and its sting is on the tenets of other religions wrongly read into Hinduism. Its single focus is on the caste system, a certain malaise, which is a social canker, and Hinduism is not all about caste system.

What we need is free enquiry and following what one is comfortable with, with neither the theists nor atheists riding a high horse.

As for me, I believe in Advaita which believes in the verity of soul without variety (ONE SOUL), with no permanence for any individual identity

 

 

 

Issues in Hinduism

If Hinduism says that belief in a particular god only will save us or only a particular path will redeem us, I am not a Hindu.

Both the caste system and theory of rebirth suffer from a defect, deeply entrenched, that our birth is decided by our vasanas of previous birth, and that our status is determined by birth because the status has been earned. Iniquity has set in by this doctrine and is found to be ineradicable.

There are certain issues with Hinduism and they cannot be easily tackled.

Caste system

We may put up a lot of defence like it was not the original intention, jati and varna are different, varna is by conduct, not birth, etc. But the ground reality does not gel well with it. It will take a long time to disappear.

Scriptural diversity

There is no central authority for Hinduism, either personal or documentary. That is not an issue per se, but if we try to impose a Hindu code, it will be an issue. Hindus will not unite under a single banner. Let the diversity prevail and let there be no effort to iron it out.

Anti-Hindu Hindus

There is a vociferous and influential section that is hell-bent on highlighting the deficiencies of Hinduism unmindful of the harm it causes. It will not die down.

Too many self-proclaimed saviours of Hinduism

From time to time we see many godmen appear, some genuine and many spurious. The spurious ones sully Hinduism more than the authentic ones affirm its roots and validity.

False claims

People make several false claims. That lowers the true worth of the religion in the eyes of the discerning more than it may bolster the pride of Hindus.

Cut off from the mooring

The influence of invaders in the last millennium has succeeded in creating the illusion that to be Hindu assertively is a stigma. The one-god myth has washed away the basis and beauty of diversity and colourful interaction. The belief of the land has been caricatured as crude, primitive and superstitious. The social practices give it a coat of truth. The crux of the belief, which is based on synthesis and abstraction from experience as opposed to revelation, dogma and a physical heaven, has been buried under a heavy dose of symbolism or swept away in ‘rationalistic’ denial. A resuscitation is feebly under way, but the vocal forces are trying to imitate the other faiths. That road is deceptive and will be ruinous.

The vitality of Hinduism, Vedas, is in the sanctity of nature. We are not just a tiny constituent of nature, but a full expression of it. (‘I have no hostility to nature, but a child’s love to it.’ Ralph Waldo Emerson). We are of one another. We need to get this message alive.

What we need is a return to tapas (experimentation with truth) and sraddha, faith that is born of an inner feeling, not outer calling.

We must walk that path if Hinduism has to stay relevant.

 

Sati

The practice of wives being burnt in the funeral pyre of their husbands is referred to as ‘Sati’. That is rather odd.

Sati was a daughter of Daksha, a Prajapati, progenitor. Sati married Siva. Daskha slighted Siva and Sati went to attend a sacrifice conducted by Daksha uninvited against Siva’s advice. She immolates herself at the sacrificial fire. Sati’s immolation was not because she was widowed.

The practice of Sati is not scripturally sanctioned. Nor is it seen in epics and puranas. Dasartha’s wives lived on after his death. Krishna’s wives lived on and Arjuna escorted them to other places. At the end of MB war, Kuru kingdom teemed with widows who lived on.

 

24/12/2016

The serpent on which Vishnu rests is called Ananta or Sesha (Anantasayanam, Seshasayee). Ananta is infinite and SeSha is residue. Infinity is the attribute of Brahman. Sesha is that which remains when the manifested world is reabsorbed, from which future creation starts.

The whole idea is an allegory of the abstractions made from the observed world. Various gods of Hinduism are allegorical. They are not different and divergent, but only the result of perception from various angles. Brahman is the total reality, unfathomable to physical, mental or intellectual scrutiny.

*

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood

And looked down one as far as I could

To where it bent in the undergrowth;

 

Then took the other, as just as fair,

And having perhaps the better claim,

Because it was grassy and wanted wear;

Though as for that the passing there

Had worn them really about the same,

 

And both that morning equally lay

In leaves no step had trodden black.

Oh, I kept the first for another day!

Yet knowing how way leads on to way,

I doubted if I should ever come back.

 

I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

 

In what is considered to be Robert Frost's most iconic poem ever, Frost writes about a time when he encountered a fork in the path, during a stroll through a yellowing wood. He chose the path which he thought was the least worn, even though we later find out that both paths were probably very similar. Whilst taking his first few steps on the chosen path, he initially decides to come back and take the other route on a different occasion, but has a sneaking suspicion that he'll probably never return. At the end of the poem, Frost imagines that in the future he'll retell this story, giving a great deal of significance to his choice.

This poem deals with the role that choice and free will play in our lives. At first glance, it can be taken to mean that the choices we make often have a very significant impact on our lives, as can be implied from the last two lines: “I took the one less traveled by, / And that has made all the difference.”

However, on a closer reading, these choices might actually seem less significant than many first imagine. In fact, we are told that both roads had been traveled "really about the same," and it may just be an illusory memory that they were actually very different in the first place. This, of course, is an allegory of our own lives as social beings. While we might think that there are billions of different choices open to us at any given point in time, most people tend to follow a rather predictable path, rendering many of their choices meaningless in the long-run.

 

 

*

Brahmins

Brahmanatvam

21/10/2011

Brahmana

A doctor has in-depth study of medicine. He gives medicines to patients, who do not have the need for such in-depth study. The medicine may not work at times. A Brahmana has to have in-depth study of Vedas, sastras and also research into truth. All peope do not have to do it. A Brahman will guide others in proper worship and prayer, which may not show immediate results often.

 

January 14, 2015

Values from Brahmanism

We need to deflect Hinduism from Brahmin-centric viewpoint. This has been done effectively by the invaders and the local political meddlers. If Brahmins are caricatured, so be it. It can't hurt them. Ignoring it is the fit repartee. Let us take the values which might have helped Brahmin ascendancy in the social hierarchy to a wider population. It is not true that it happened by sheer machination. Education, enquiry and intellectual integrity must have been at the base of the distinction. We need to abstract such values and make non-political and intensive efforts to let them percolate in the society non-discriminatively. That is what could make our society stand on its own. As of now, we do not count.

 

Batting for Brahmininsm.

Brahminism is not what the caste Brahmins may follow, like insulating themselves, having a superior air, or looking down on others. We should not understand Brahminism by its corrupted version any more than we should define democracy as bribing voters by money or freebies, rigging the booths, buying MLAs, etc.

Brahminism is not defined by Brahmins, but a Brahmin is identified by Brahminism. Brahminism stands for values, one of the best ideals mankind has evolved in the march of civilization. The values include learning and teaching, control of senses and mind, ardour (tapas), performance of Vedic rituals for the good of all, constant striving for truth (Brahmagnana). It is no easy calling and it is difficult to find one who answers to it. If one is found, he must be capable of being honoured. In my view, Sri M.K.Gandhi and Dr. Abdul Kalam came close to the ideal.

While the whole ideal may be impossible to practise, one must try as much as possible, irrespective of caste by birth.

Romain Rolland:

"But amid all the beliefs of Europe, and of Asia, that of the Indian Brahmins seems to me infinitely the most alluring. And the reason why I love the Brahmin more than the other schools of Asiatic thought is because it seems to me to contain them all. Greater than all European philosophies, it is even capable of adjusting itself to the vast hypotheses of modern science."

 

Antagonism to Brahmanas is age old

Brahmins faced antagonism from time immemorial. Epics and puranas describe the tales of antagonism. The prayer गोब्राह्मणेभ्यः शिवमस्तु नित्यं shows that they were vulnerable and needed prayer to protect them.

History also shows how the invaders attacked Brahmins as they believed, as the racist politicians believe, that if Brahmins are annihilated, Hinduism will collapse. Wise Brahmins have joined the brigade of political anti-Brahminism. Vedic Brahmanism is dead and there is nothing of substance to attack. But it is a comedy show to keep the flock together.

Hinduism survives on two planks – its inherent strength of diversity and the tradition of questioning, and the support from the so-called non-Brahmins.

 

Hinduism and Brahminism

We need to deflect Hinduism from Brahmin-centric viewpoint. This has been done effectively by the invaders and the local political meddlers. If Brahmins are caricatured, so be it. It can't hurt them. Ignoring it is the fit repartee. Let us take the values which might have helped Brahmin ascendancy in the social hierarchy to a wider population. It is not true that it happened by sheer machination. Education, enquiry and intellectual integrity must have been at the base of the distinction. We need to abstract such values and make non-political and intensive efforts to let them percolate in the society non-discriminatively. That is what could make our society stand on its own. As of now, we do not count.

 

24 Dec 2016 

Brahminism has been the whipping boy for long. Brahminism has been hijacked to mean hypocrisy, exclusivity, conceit, etc. But, that cannot be its import any more than corruption can be the meaning of democracy.

Brahminism stands for integrity, purity, discipline, ardour (tapas), search for truth (Brahmam). CM needs these attributes.

There are several in the music field who have many of these attributes, both so-called Brahmins and others. There is nothing to feel ashamed here or guilty.

As to whom to teach, it has to be taught to one with flair and curiosity.

In several discussions and articles, I have seen that a guru tests the student before agreeing to teach him irrespective of what his background is. Even in other fields, even for nursery, some sort of test is given. Gita makes it clear that vidya has to be imparted to the one with interest. Where it is primary or secondary education or literacy and numeracy drive, it is somewhat different, but in art it cannot be universal.

Anything to the contrary is political or done for ‘vimbu’.

 

Brahmins - 1

Brahmins have been at the receiving end or so would many Brahmins believe. I read a plea that Brahmins are not to blame for what has gone wrong in society. It says:

1. There has not been a single Brahmin god and no Brahmin king.

(Not wholly true, but largely yes).

2. Vedic literature was mostly written by non-Brahmins! Manu, the law giver, was a non-Brahmin. Valmiki, Vyasa wrote in Samskritam and they were not Brahmins. In fact, a host of other eminent authorities were not Brahmnis. They comprise Vashishtha, Krishna, Rama, Agasthya, Vishwamitra, Shrunga, Buddha, Mahavira, Tulsidas, Thiruvalluvar, Kabir, Vivekananda, Gandhi, and Narayana guru.
3. Brahmin meant a profession (Varna) then, not a caste.
4. Brahmins were neither rich nor powerful at any point of time in history.
5. Dr.B.R. Ambedkar has stated that “untouchability” began in Indian sub-continent after 400 AD, when beef-eaters were shunned as “untouchables.” Caste system and evil practices like Sati were introduced after around AD 500, thanks to insecurity created among Indians by invaders. Slavery was unheard of in India till then.
6. Historical evidences show that poor hapless Brahmins were beheaded by Arabian invaders, crucified in Goa by the Portuguese Inquisition, vilified by British missionaries, and morally crucified today by their own brothers and sisters. Aurangzeb massacred 150,000 Brahmins and their families in Benares, Ganga ghat, Haridwar, etc... He wouldn't eat his everyday breakfast without seeing a bunch of "janeoos" (holy thread) soaked in the blood of Brahmins after killing them. The brutal and fanatic barbarians from Portugese mercilessly persecuted and killed hosts of Konkani Brahmins who refused to get converted, in Konkan-Goa. Francis Xavier, who led the massacre, was later canonized as Saint. (See http://udaypai.in/?p=797 for details). Sarawat Brahmins were living peacefully in Kashmir and Gandhara desa-regions-(part of today’s Afghan-Pakistan included) area. You can't see them there now. The foreign invaders killed thousands of Saraswats. Pundits, the original inhabitants of Kashmir were tortured and driven out of their dwellings in Kashmir. Dr. Ambedkar quoting Muslim historians says the first act of religious zeal by Mohammad bin Qasim, the first Arab invader, was circumcision of Brahmins. “But, after they objected, he put all above the age of seventeen to death.” In early 19th century, Tipu Sultan's army descended in Melkote on a Deepavali day and massacred 800 citizens, mostly of a sect known as Mandyam Iyengars. He was a fanatic killer.

(It was not only Brahmins, but others also who were killed).

7. Brahmins, who historically dedicated their lives for the sake of dharma and the welfare of the society, are still persecuted in modern India for their falsely alleged sins of the past! The anti-Brahmin theory was planned and successfully planted by hostile religious invaders, colonialist and missionaries of conversion and by politicians to keep the public blind and at the same time rob Indians off everything. This baseless theory was propagated by leftists, priests and religious leaders from hostile aggressive religions, separatists and casteists, die-hard fans of invaders, the British etc.
8. Some Brahmins certainly would have manipulated caste system - just as they do in political parties or religious groups. Insecure Brahmin communities may have later developed into closely held groups or castes for survival. There were also few exceptions among Brahmins as a community - like Peshwa Chitpawan Brahmins, Namboodiri chieftains of Kerala, Bhumihar chieftains of Bihar, few short lived minor kingdoms like Anangpal, Jaipal and Bhamini - who were either rich or powerful. There were Brahmins who exploited others using there status in the society making use of situations, just like corrupt Bureaucrats.  They are few, not even one percent of the Brahmin. Should we generalize the whole community for the mistakes done by a small section among them?"

 

9. During feudal times, the land-owning class (Zamindars) oppressed dalits. Even today, OBCs also oppressed the dalits. But Brahmins became the scapegoat.
10. Brahmins have been torch bearers of spiritual knowledge, upheld the spiritual and cultural legacy, kept the sanctified rituals alive and gave a distinct identity to sanatan dharma. Brahmin-bashing is reverse discrimination, another form of discrimination nonetheless! It’s very unfair to marginalize such an important community from Indian political relevance and discourse. Caste was always just a political tool of rulers.
11. For many past centuries, mostly Christians and Muslims were ruling India. Do we have to blame Brahmins for everything that went wrong in India?
12. Modern Brahmins having abandoned their traditional way of life and being cut off from their traditions, suffer from an unjustified guilt complex and have swallowed this suppression propaganda uncritically.

(Also read http://udaypai.in/?p=12 and http://udaypai.in/?p=912)

I do not know most of the facts reeled out above. It is as I received, but I abridged it as it was still longer.

 

Brahmins - 2

Jeyamohan - 1

Are Brahmins being repressed?

Views of Jeyamohan

(B. Jeyamohan is a Tamil and Malayalam writer and literary critic from Nagercoil in Kanyakumari District in the south Indian state of Tamil Nadu)

Different Brahmins have written on this. It can be summarized in four headings:

1. Tamil Brahmins (Tambrams) are being hounded out from position of power gradually.

2. They are insulted in the social media.

3. They are not allowed to nurse their distinctive culture.

4. As a result, they migrate gradually out of Tamil Nadu (TN).

I keenly looked for the voice of Dalits (abusing Brahmins). I could notice none. I have never heard; not once; not even in private talks. On the other hand Stalin Rajaangam said once, ‘We have experienced what caste hatred is. Therefore, we can never attack any group with such hatred.’ I remember that noble gesture now.

 

Part 1 (on the four points above)

1. Brahmins and power

It is rather true that Brahmins are hounded out of power. But, it is something that happens in tune with time. It is inevitable. It is evolutionary and is in accord with what should be.

In the erstwhile land-lord caste set-up, the three upper castes shared power viz. priestly Brahmins, landlord Mudaliars and Velalars, and businessmen Chettiars. After independence, this power diminished. The step-wise social transformation we witnessed in the last half century has been the decline of these castes. Today, the farm land has mostly gone out of the control of Mudaliars and Velalars. Thanks to ceiling on farm land holding, their land rights have been forfeited. Business which was predominantly with Chettiars now vests with middle castes. A similar decline has befallen Brahmins. It is not just confined to TN. It has happened throughout India and is happening. In the southern states of Kerala, TN and Karnataka, its pace has been faster.

In the forward castes, the ownership of land by Brahmins was somewhat different. It was not ownership right. It was the right to a part of the tax. It was conferred during Chozha rule. Later during Nayakar rule, it was confirmed.

When British rule replaced monarchy, the revenue stopped for them. They acquired English education, took up jobs in the British government and coped with that setback. As they had for long a tradition of education hereditarily, there was a mindset and environment befitting that.

The jobs Brahmins had during British rule began to taper even prior to independence. Even in 1920s, other castes that got educated claimed and got those jobs. The seed for Brahmin hatred germinated through this competition. The seed was sown by Nairs who competed with Brahmins. Mainly, it started in Travancore. Ramakrishna Pillai, a patriot, was a pioneer of this idea.

Form him the idea travelled to North Kerala which was part of the Madras Province and to Chennai from there. Malayalis like T M Nair opened the front of Brahmin hatred in politics initially. The non-Brahmin movement gathered strength taking in the Telugu people. It grew into a Dravidian movement.

Besides, the hereditary posts of Karnams held by Brahmins were abolished by Congress governments throughout India. Rajaji was the one who stopped the stipend they were getting as village teachers. He did this to introduce modern education.

Later the land reformation introduced pan-India nullified the land rights of Brahmins. Only Rajaji argued for introducing it in TN. It became law in 1962 during Kamaraj rule. Reservations for government jobs took shape in Congress rule both before and after independence. It happened nationwide.

Therefore it is a paranoia that only Brahmins have been usurped of power and that Dravidian parties have repressed them. All castes that were in forefront without the strength of numbers lost the power in a democratic set-up. That is a natural democratic development.

When education spread after independence, that trend quickened. Only the castes with numerical strength could hold on to power. Nairs and Syrian Christians of Kerala are a case in point.

But, even among those who have fallen from power, it must be mentioned that Brahmins are a step higher. As they had migrated to cities like Chennai already, cooperated with the government and obtained a foothold in industry, there were large industries for them. There was opportunity for jobs in private sector. For instance, there are firms like TVS for them. Mudaliars and Velalars have nothing parallel.

As Brahmins have acquired the aptitude for education and advancement, it has been possible for them to dominate certain fields e.g. auditing.

To be sure, job opportunities and power in government for them are on the wane. They are compensating it by success in fields like computing. I consider this transformation as totally in line with democracy. Educated Brahmins with a hang on history must accept it. The other castes too should.

 

Brahmins – 2

Jeyamohan - 2

Part 1 (contd.)

2. Social slight of Brahmins

Are Tambrams abused in the social milieu? Yes. I have worked in a government office for 20 years. I had contact with higher officials in several fields and experience in office. Since I came after a stint in Kerala, I had developed the habit of observing things standing aloof as it were. So my take is this.

In TN offices, only Brahmins and Dalits are subject to abuse on caste lines. When I was fresh from Kerala, I was sitting in the room of a higher official. We had some closeness because of interest in literature. One Brahmin subordinate officer entered with a sheaf of leave letters with his markings on each.

The officer shouted contemptuously at him, ‘Are you not the sanctioning authority? Why do you hassle me by referring them to me? Why should I see all this?’ As the subordinate stood silent, he ordered, ‘Take them away.’ He replied in a low tone, ‘It will be in order if you see them, sir.’ The officer mellowed a bit at this and remarked to him, ‘Do not take any decision. Fear.’ He said to me, ‘See how the mind of Pappaan works.’ When I went out later, the subordinate introduced himself to me. He had read ‘Rubber’. He told me, ‘Sir, I am the sanctioning authority. But, if I decide, everyone will abuse me as a pappan. Now, I had to suffer it from one and that too in the room. That is better.’ He smiled.

The shock I underwent then continued till I took voluntary retirement. A Brahmin public servant has to face directly at least once a week abuses based on caste. Banter, ridicule and barbs in the garb of friendliness will keep rolling out.

The middle caste has a generalisation about Brahmins. That was installed as a policy by EVR. That is - Brahmins are cunning, talk ill of others among themselves, have a superior air and selfish. I heard this being repeated ad nauseum in the past 20 years. But, in a good number of cases, they would have rendered yeoman service. They would have nurtured friendship. When in tight corner, the other castes would mostly knock at the door of Brahmins. For all that, Brahmins will have to face the derogatory remark, ‘You have shown your Paappaara mindset.’

In 1991, when Arunmozhi left her house in Thanjavur and came in search of me in Dharmapuri, the one who took her to his house was my friend Ramesh. She wore the silk sari of his sister during our wedding. We had our first night in his house. It might have ended in some scuffle inviting police. But Ramesh and family did not bother.

But all the Vanniyas there did bother. All the Naidus did. I could not have gone to any other house. We have talked of it then itself in the labour union meetings. Everyone said, ‘The ladies in their homes have an understanding, sir. They will be bold also. Our ladies will cower in fear.’ That was true. In TN all progressiveness is in the streets and pyols only (facebook?). Inside the house the ladies are orthodox out and out, from generation to generation.

In offices, Dalits will be in good strength. They had numerical advantage. They also had legal backing. Therefore direct abuse is not possible. Where it could happen was, someone will inadvertently blurt out some caste name or bigoted statement, and a Dalit present would be humiliated.

In the room full of middle caste people, once it is confirmed that no Dalit is present, uninhibited caste remarks will arise. The mindset of middle castes about Dalits is that Dalit is dishonest, unclean, of bad conduct and Dalit girls are promiscuous. In my experience of middle castes spanning three generations, there is no change whatsoever in this mindset.

But, frequently there will be a boast that it is the land where Periyar was born. Friends, only in Erode there is still the system of separate tumblers (for Dalits). Those from Kerala, where Periyar was not born, but Nambudiris were born, will shudder if they hear this. Should not at least a few with conscience discuss these undercurrents openly henceforth?

I have observed that the way the Dalits working in offices are humiliated is by their colleagues boycotting the weddings in their families. Once arrangements had been made for 300 people, but just 30 of us from labour union turned up. It is still abalze in memory how the face of the host shrivelled.

But Brahmins will be abused on their face. Officers will feel the brunt more. The way they cope with is pathetic. They will mostly treat it as a joke and move on. Or, they will put on superior air and go off silently.

Showing off as orthodox with stripes (on forehead) and beads (around neck) and keeping aloof is one defence mechanism. When they eat in a corner of the table, someone will ridicule, ‘Oh Iyer, is it last month’s rancid food?’ One can avert it by bending down while eating.

Or, another extreme like becoming a communist leader by joining a union, eating beef dish, etc. The early communist Brahmins did it with conviction. When it extends to guiding Periyar himself on Dravidian fanaticism, it will look hypocritical. We could come across in all offices Brahmin Periyarists, like Gnani of today that we come across in the net.

Till the nineties, leftist labour unions were not based on caste consideration. Therefore progressive Brahmins were able to work there. But for their unparalleled toil, there would have been no labour movement in TN. In most of the efforts to build a union from scratch, Brahmins would have been in the forefront.

But in the nineties the leftist unions also came under the sway of caste by and by. A situation arose whereby only those from the dominant castes at a given centre could become leaders. Brahmins were shoved aside. They moved away tearfully hearing, ‘You need not show your pappara tricks here, understand?’

What was surprising was some of their going back to their roots. A friend of mine in Dharmapuri, Balasubramanian, built a temple in his house and moved about with stripes on forehead and flower in ears.

The same state of affairs prevailed in all public institutions. In educational institutions, everyone might have sensed it. When I studied in college, all of us practised humiliating Brahmins as an art. I would drop fish in their food. I will shout in any bus, ‘O rancid sambar.’

I feel ashamed for it today. But, then it was taught to us as the right thing. Therefore, I am able to understand the boys spewing Brahmin hatred in the net. They are creatures of such an environment. They are devoid of reading that kindles own thinking, mind-broadening quality education, or knowledge of the world. They deserve pity that way.

The humiliation faced by Brahmins is not confined to offices and educational institutions. It is in social intercourse also. They are retreating from all places except Chennai. When I saw my friend and young writer, Chandrasekhar, sold at a loss his house that he built in 1990 and moved to Chennai, the question cropped up in my mind. Why does it happen?

I have seen it later in many other fields. Brahmins cannot live in small places. That is the truth. Their ladies continue to be abused. I have seen those that talk in hushed tone mockingly of women to Brahmins themselves. In TN streets, a woman known to be Brahmin can walk bearing insults only. Such a state does not obtain anywhere else in India.

When I was talking about it fifteen years ago to a Brahmin friend in Tuticorin, he mentioned the travails of his wife going to office. I argued with him that it was his imagination. I took a bet with him and went at a distance behind her when she was going to office. I could not believe it. In the two kilometer stretch walk, three persons called her ‘laddu’ and whistled. If they had done it to a lady of any other caste, their earlobes would have been torn.

Recently when my daughter joined plus two, a Brahmin friend requested me whether his daughter could be allowed to be always with my daughter. He said, ‘This one is a Nair girl. A Muslim girl and a Nadar girl go with her. The boys will not say anything to them. If my daughter goes alone, she is pilloried. If you put in a word, the girls will take her with them.’

I talked to Chaitanya. She said, ‘No appa, she is outright timid and a bore.’ I explained to her at length about Periyar’s tradition of brainwashing. I told her that Brahmins are one of the two groups made scapegoats in this society. I had told her earlier not to tolerate the conduct of this society to Dalits at any cost, and also not to linger at any place where they are abused. I advised her to follow the same advice in the instant case also. I saw tears well up in her eyes.

 

 

Brahmins – 2 (contd.)

Jeyamohan – 3

Part 1 (contd.)

3. Do Brahmins emigrate?

Yes, true. To my knowledge itself, the Brahmin strength in Nagerkoil has gone down very much. There isn’t sizeable settlement today. Today the agraharam near my house has been deserted and is in disrepair. The younger generation does not stay there. The position in my wife’s place, Thanjavur, is similar.

Why do they migrate continuously? In TN, except in Chennai (Tiruchy to some extent), they are unprotected. If their land is grabbed or they are attacked, they cannot go to the police. For, it is the virtual truth that without political influence, no one can get police help. Politics is fully caste-based. There is no one in TN politics to help Brahmins. Outside Chennai, no Brahmin is even a Panchayat member.

I recall that my brother and friend of one Brahmin had to go from Kulasekaram to Koilpatti to help him when he was in a tight spot requiring police intervention. When a well-known Brahmin (all of you know him) had to part with his land at a low price under coercion, he was despondent and talked to me. When someone duped him of his entire capital, he cried over my shoulders.

Today social life in TN is caste-based. Justice is on caste lines. Brahmins stand rudderless as their numbers do not add up. A group that considers abusing them to be the best social service surrounds them. They are fleeing from it.

 

Brahmins – 2 (contd.)

Jeyamohan – 4

Part 1 (contd.)

4. Brahmins’ cultural identity

The last point is about retention of cultural identity by Brahmins. The critics flaunt it as haughtiness and fly off the handle.

Today, we can witness Kounder, Devar, Nadar et al try to preserve the distinctive features of their tradition. Unprecedentedly, the traditional deity worship and rituals have been revived.

Reason is globalization and the fear that it will render them rootless. That is a universal fear. It is a thing in the offing. If the dream of becoming a world citizen with no local identity is a token of the current state of modernism, the longing to be part of an identifiable and subtle culture may be said to be an indication of revisionism.

But, to argue that Brahmins cannot do it is anarchy. If Brahmins consider that they have a distinct culture of their own, what is wrong if they try to preserve it? It is not wrong so long as it does not affect others.

In fact, the rituals of middle castes like terminal rites, family deity worship, annual ceremonies etc. are offensive to other castes. They must be changed. But in the holy land where Periyar was born, no middle caste lover of humanity is going to talk about it. I only visualize Dalits simmering.

But, if Brahmins celebrate Varalakshmi Puja, it may be disrespected. If Ramanavami is observed inside the house, it may be made fun of. That is the state of mind prevalent now.

It was in 1997, I think. I had gone to Thiruvaiyaru for Thyagaraja Utsava. Mostly Brahmins participated in it then. Only Thyagaraja’s songs would be sung there. He has composed only in Telugu. Those form Ma. Ka. I. Ka. entered there and shouted, ‘Sing in Tamizh or run.’ They ruined the event that day. At most 30 were there. Police would escort them out and they would re-enter in another way. 5000 people patiently waited. Some shed tears.

On the same day Kannada Vokkaliga conference took place in Kovai. I think Deve Gowda and Saroja Devi participated in it. Not a single Ma. Ka. I. Ka man went there. I asked a friend of mine in that movement. He said, ‘Friend, we do not have that many people.’

This is low politics of digging wet ground. It is not going to create any real social transformation. Nothing is so base as a caste aggrandising itself culturally, but showcasing Brahmin cultural symbols as domineering.

I am in total agreement with three of the points. A Brahmin feeling repressed, humiliated and hounded out is an unmistakable workaday truth.

 

 

Brahmins – 2 (contd.)

Jeyamohan - 5

Part 2

The Politico-cultural Background of the Anti-Brahmin Sentiment

Political background of Brahmin hatred

Why did Brahmin hatred crop up here? What was its cultural basis?

From the period of Sangam literature, what we see is only clash between Tamizh people and Vadugas (Kannada and Telugu people, those living between Krishna and Godavari, Vesara nadu inhabitants). From Vesara Nadu, migration into TN has been going on and TN people had been opposing it and losing. In fact, for 20 centuries only Vadugas ruled TN. The period Tamizh kings ruled TN would not exceed 300 years.

The British seized power over TN only from Vadugas. After that, they appointed them as zamindars. There was competition and ill will between Vadugas who held land rights from the British and Brahmins who were in their service. In an article, EVR has lamented the British decision to enlist the services of Brahmins without moustache instead of Naidus who were robust and strict(?). This was the main conflict then.

In this, the Brahmins got the upper hand gradually. On the other hand, with the abolition of zamindari system, the Telugus’ dominance slipped. With the advent of independence struggle, the Brahmins got more power.

The movement of Vadugas in opposition to that was the Dravidian movement. Malabar Nairs fueled that bitterness. EVR took the word ‘Dravida’ to include Telugu people. For, prior to that the word ‘Tamizh’ was used very widely by the movement for Tamizh renaissance.

This language politics, which took shape in the backdrop of EVR forming Dravidian movement under the leadership of Varadarajulu Naidu, can be read in books like Kovai Ayyamuthu’s autobiography. Bharathidasan’s article reveals that even people like C N Annadurai spoke Telugu at home.

These people could successfully convert Vadugar vs Tamizhar conflict to Brahmins vs Tamizhar by politics of so many years. For the then emerging middle class politics, this duality was handy. This only is history.

Some time ago, Leena Manimekalai attacked severely the meeting arranged for Asokamitran in Chennai as a Brahmin crowd. I know Leena well. I have personal affection and regard for her. I was surprised at that article. I called a friend and asked, ‘Is Leena Telugu?’ He said, ‘No, sir. Dalit.’ I said, ‘That is the façade she has created. A Dalit will not show that much Brahmin hatred. Surely, she is Telugu.’ He called me back in half an hour and said, ‘How did you guess? She is Telugu.’ I said, ‘If you know the background of Brahmin hatred in TN, it is no big deal to guess it.’

The Dalits have slowly begun to appreciate this power politics. They are on the way to shape their own political space.

The cultural backdrop to Brahmin hatred

The opposition to Brahmins will ever be there in India. Its roots are in our social set-up. Brahmins were at the top of social hierarchy. They established its theoretical base. Therefore it is but natural for those at the bottom affected by casteism to oppose them.

Without rejecting Brahminical values we cannot cross the mindset of landlord days. It is imperative at the level of basic principles. Narayana Guru did it many times more perfectly than EVR. Nataraja Guru and Nithyachaitanya Yati were also Brahmin opponents in that vein.

But, opposition to Brahmins is one thing, hatred another. Opposition to Brahmins is smashing dialectically the values advanced by Brahmins in the mindset of erstwhile landlords; crossing the tenets shaped by them; rejecting their mindset. We can see it in the writings of Nithyachaitanya Yati emphatically. That tradition is my forerunner.

In what one sees in the writings of Pandit Ayoddhidasar is also opposition to Brahmins. It was important to him in two ways. It was because his caste was in direct antithesis to Brahmins. It was because Brahmins were the ones who institutionalised caste-based value system. Ambedkar’s Brahmin opposition also is of the same stuff.

Brahmin hatred is different. It is blindly abusing Brahmins, showing disrespect, humiliating. It does not require sense of history, reading or thinking. EVR showcased that only. Its chief aim was to cover up one’s own caste affinity. Having enjoyed the fruits of being in the middle rung of the caste system, putting Brahmins in the dock and escaping was its mere purpose.

In the philosophical level of Hinduism, there was an opposition to Brahmins. Brahmins sounded as followers of Vaidika. The non-Vaidika traditions functioned in opposition to it.

In today’s context, those who allege caste affinity on the part of Brahmins must first notify their own caste affinity. Any agitation against caste should be from the base of opposition to one’s own caste affinity.

In TN environment where voices against caste are manifold, we cannot hear a single voice from the middle castes that condemns one’s own caste. We can tear Rajaji and make a festoon. One cannot write a word criticising Muthuramalinga Thevar. That is the home truth about opposition to caste.

Desert people observe a ritual, it seems. Once a year, they will catch a goat, invoke all diseases prevalent in the village on it by some worship and leave it in the desert far from the village. It will wither and die for lack of water. The villagers will imagine that the diseases have disappeared from the village.

TN saturated in rabid caste feelings has found such a goat in Brahmins. By that, the middle castes and higher castes other than Brahmins escape from the guilt of keeping Dalits as slaves still.

 

Brahmins – 2 (contd.)

Jeyamohan - 6

Part 3

The loss occasioned by Brahmin hatred

Jayakanthan said once, ‘I have no faith in caste. I have faith in caste consciousness.’ Though he said it provocatively, it has an angle that deserves contemplation.

It is not possible to carry conviction on this to the mob that tires its tongue with ‘down with caste’, but shelters in the caste cocoon. But, there should be no problem to understand this for those who think impartially with at least a little of sociological perspective.

Caste system is one that has prolonged as a hereditary system for thousands of years here. It has created several lowly mindsets based on exclusivity and differences. Only by overpowering it and crossing it, we can become modern men in the current generation.

But alongside it has also created several useful traits. One example is inculcation of business and commerce mindset passed down through generations as a family trait. What a Chettiar or Nadar or Maraikkayar can do, a Devar or Velalar is not able to do. Acharis have technical expertise even today. Such competence is useful even in modern life.

Brahmins have some such expertise. If you are not a political novice speaking in street corners and have experience in managerial capacity in some field, you will understand what I say. You will use it too.

Those special traits of Brahmins put them in demand even now. I will mention three characteristics. One is the interest and mindset for learning and teaching; two. non-violence; three, basic குடிமை பயிற்சி (civic training?).

As Brahmins have been long in the job of education, they have enthusiasm to teach. Their family environment is favourable to it. Since they had learning and teaching as their profession, it is their natural aptitude.

For this reason, we can see that Brahmins are very good teachers. Till the last generation, teachers were from Brahmins in great number. Be they of any caste, we can see that in their hearts memories of great Brahmin teachers linger.

Recently, while talking about his Kamba Ramayanam education in a debate, Nanjilnadan remembered with moist eyes and folded hands his teacher Ra. A. Padmanabhan. I see that attitude again and again.

A bad Brahmin teacher is an exception. For, they have been shaped like that in their youth to have great flair for the profession. That gives them sense of fulfilment. Anyone with commercial or agricultural background may attain that only by his individual aptitude.

Brahmins have today distanced from educational field. The chief reason is that they cannot function in today’s educational institutions. They would be singled out and insulted among the staff there. Since the contempt for them in society is deeply imbedded among students, they cannot get respect as teachers in classes.

It is a self-imposed loss of a facility nurtured by society for long. I feel there is really a loss of their withdrawal in our education system.

For a long time, Brahmins have played the role of arbitrators in villages. I recall that Gandharva once remarked that they were the source of life of villages. Even today, in large organisations they qualify for negotiations and arbitration. Brahmins can take an important part in any set-up.

By nature, they are not businessmen. They are not aggressive. They will not take bold decisions. Therefore, their leading an organization will not ordinarily happen. But they are excellent coordinators and consultants.

One habit which is common among many castes esp. the dominant ones, is blurting out. (I have been fighting lifelong to root it out). We can see that it is almost absent among Brahmins. This is a special quality their non-violence confers on them. It is due to this that they are good arbitrators.

Many Brahmins think that they are the creators of Indian culture and responsible for its achievements. That is totally preposterous. Their contribution is negligible in Indian science. Their contribution in Indian art is comparatively small. They have only limited space in Indian technology. Their part is more only in philosophy. It is the result of their having been the foremost group of educationists.

Basically, Brahmin intellect is good in compiling. Therefore they have been excellent grammarians. For lack of aggressiveness, they have not been generally able to write masterpieces. That was achieved by the martial and lower level castes. Valmiki, Vyasa, Gunadyan, Bhasa, Kamba, Kalidasa, Ilango and Valluvar were others only.

Why I wish to add this is when I cite the contribution of Brahmins, it has become the trend that a big crowd emerges and shouts, ‘If so, are all others fools?’ Brahmins have not been the pivotal players in Indian knowledge, art and science. They have been the compilers, teachers, preservers of these. That part is important.

We ignore an important part of a section because of our Brahmin hatred. That they migrate out of India to foreign lands is a great loss to society. If all the acharis (craftsmen) migrate out of here to USA, we will see its impact in material sphere itself. This (losing Brahmins) is like that (losing craftsmen) only.

 

Brahmins – 2 (contd.)

Jeyamohan - 7

Part 4

Brahmins and Caste System

What is the reason cited for showing this hatred to Brahmins by others? It is ascribed to, ‘They are haughty about their caste, they enjoyed the fruits of caste system, they were the ones who established it, it is just desserts.’ (‘சாமிக்கு நேத்திக்கடன்’?. [ராமசாமியும் சாமியே]

Many have written on caste from Ambedkar to Kosambi. They have been translated profusely. Anyone with basic knowledge cannot approve of the utter distortion that Brahmins have created the caste system, propagated it among others, exploited them and fattened their own selves. If anyone says so, it is selfish depravity.

Caste system took shape from the ancient tribal societies that lived here. Castes were the aggregation of the tribal races. That is why each caste keeps splintering into sub-castes and groups. The system of landlords was built on the array of caste differences stacked one upon another. That exploitation created big empires.

Brahmins who were purohits to the landlords helped stabilize and propagate that system. They enjoyed the fruits thereof. They ought to shoulder responsibility for it.

But, are they only responsible for it? Are others who ruled here, who claimed land rights, who did commerce and amassed wealth, not responsible? May all of them escape by pinpointing Brahmins?

The caste system here was the creation of social and economic system of yesterday. Today it has lost its meaning in the social context. There is some value to only a few of its cultural aspects. It was yesterday’s reality. There is no compulsion to carry the past. The modern man must take its essentials and move on. Everyone must slough off its mindset.

We must have compunction today for the cruelties of that system. Everyone who benefited from it in one or the way must share in that remorse. It is a sense of guilt which must be carried by anyone who treated some as lower in caste than he. It is the way to redeem our mindset from that state.

When I wrote this a few days back, the mail I got accused me as a Brahmin. That means that the upper castes other than Brahmins and the middle castes are not willing to attain that feeling of guilt. They do not have the mind to own it up.

That is because they wish to retain that caste mindset. There is no gross depravity worse than Kounders, Naickers and Naidus perpetuating the two-tumbler system, claiming it is the land where Periyar was born and attacking Brahmins. We see just that.

One asked, ‘Have you seen a Brahmin handling human excreta?’ I said, ‘No. I have not seen it done by Chettiar, Mudaliar, Kounder, Nadar or Thevar either.’

It is spoken in several forums that Brahmins do not do physical labour. Half of the Brahmins I know work as cooks in hotels day and night with rashes and lesion in their body. Yes, the same Brahmins whom the king of poets, Bharathidasan, sang as ‘pappans with rashes!’ But, I have not seen a Velalar or Naidu doing work that makes them sweat and pant.

The hatred of Brahmins under the mask of opposition to caste is a make-believe adopted by the middle caste zealots. Everyone knows the truth in his conscience.

 

Brahmins – 2 (contd.)

Jeyamohan - 8

Part 5

Reaction by Brahmins

When my novel, ‘Vellai Yaanai’ was published depicting a Brahmin as a hero who hates Dalits, Brahmins were touched to the quick and reacted. They were not willing to realise the moral of that novel. Their caste affinity masked the fact that their mindset was against the Dalits in the last century.

But, that was natural. The Telugu friends were more angry finding that the Chennai Telugu people were shown as casteist. Some even snapped the friendship. Each caste here does the same thing.

The ones who were at least a little inclined to understand were only Brahmins. They have taken sincere steps to get out of caste feelings. The leftist organisations have them as the basic blocks, including Ma.Le. movements that hate Brahmins.

But, in the last 15 years, the mindset of Brahmins has changed. They are no longer in the mindset of taking responsibility for casteism and feeling ashamed. That is because the people of other castes who ought to have shared the responsibility flaunt their castes and beat their chests saying, ‘we are descendants of rulers,’ and are proceeding towards power. They blame the Brahmins for the entire caste ills and abuse them. They are driving the Brahmins away.

Today, Brahmins feel repressed. The guilt feeling behind it has receded and the intolerance and anger at repression have become manifest. They from caste associations as if to confront. I saw a vinyl board in Parvathipuram declaring someone as ‘lion of Brahmin association’.

The mean politics of hatred that takes place here has driven them to politics of confrontation. Slowly, it fills them with hatred.

 

IN SUM..

Brahmins worship education. Perhaps, the chief gift they make to TN is that. The attachment they show to education and arts makes them essential for society. Remember that only the culture and arts that were with them have survived for the last 50 years. Music or dance, they are patronising.

How many Saiva Vellalars know Saiva siddhantam today? Where are the expert Oduvars in Thirumurai? But the arts entrusted to Brahmins have survived. They are the forerunners who redeemed Tamizh literature that we adore today. They are the ones who researched and chronicled Tamizh history. There is not a single field where their intelligence has made no contribution.

I think that Brahmin hatred is deleterious to this society in every way. Today, our society need not accord them the prime position as before. For, if no one is lower, it is true that no one is higher. We need not worship them or felicitate them. Nor need we hate them, disrespect them and chase them out.

The idea of hierarchy and supremacy in society took shape over centuries gradually. It was based on caste. It is inevitable to oppose it in the face of growth of modern society. It is also natural to oppose Brahmins and Brahminical thoughts that helped to establish it. But, Narayana Guru’s movement shows that it can be done without ill feelings, at the level of knowledge and reason.

We talk of Tamizh civilisation and culture. We must realise that the baseness of the hatred we exhibit is one of the great blemishes on our culture. Modern man will never despise a whole group altogether. He will not hate anyone by one’s identity. It is base caste fanaticism and racial prejudice. We have been trained to think of it as progressiveness.

Brahmin hatred is the flip side of Dalit hatred. Dalit hatred lies dormant. Brahmin hatred is put in front outwardly with a façade of progressiveness. The one who hates Brahmin is certainly a Dalit hater. The one who gives up hatred of Dalit becomes incapable of hating anyone based on birth. He cannot hate Brahmins as well.

Chief among the base traits of Tamizh society today is caste hatred. Brahmins and Dalits are its sacrificial goats in two ways. The youth who appreciate civilisation are the ones that have broken off from that base feeling. Those that have confidence in their ability and knowledge should henceforth at least get rid of that meanness.

 

Brahmins -3

Why is there hate for Brahmins in Tamil Nadu?

Sagaran

This might be an unpopular topic to write on, and one that my fellow Dalits would disagree with, but one that I felt should be written. Brahmins and Dalits in South India (especially Tamil Nadu) must unite. Why is this important? I have tried to outline why a Brahmin Dalit unity is very very important in today’s context. That is not just the way forward, but how it should have been. I hope to not offend any readers whichever caste they might be from. We all would need to strive for a casteless society but certain facts must be stated. Also, I do talk about caste Hindus here just as an historical context but there could be caste Christians as well discriminating against us Dalits.

So, why do I feel Brahmins and Dalits need to unite?

Personal Experience

As a Tamil Dalit, my friends who were Brahmin Iyers were the only ones who did NOT question my caste. Everyone else, like the Thevars and Mudaliars criticized the Dalits without knowing which caste I belonged to. Later, they tried to casually talk behind our Brahmin friends’ backs, saying things like “Oh those brahmins propagated caste”. This is a typical pattern used by non-Brahmin caste Hindus and every Dalit should be cautious not to fall into this trap.

It is not hard to reverse this interpolation into history. Probably as some say (and I don’t care much for religious texts of any faith) the caste was based on occupation not birth. The keepers of the rituals were Brahmins but the powerful ones were the ruling, and business castes. It is very easy to imagine the timid Brahmins being threatened by these powerful ruling castes to change this narrative into one of birth. I use timid not in a negative way but only to mean that Brahmins are not proud of aggression, a trait that I see to this day.

Somehow, I am not convinced that the entire caste Hindu population were asked to take up casteism by the Brahmins who still are merely a 3% of the population. The Kshatriyas and Vaishyas are an intelligent bunch. Do you think they would blindly listen to a minority? For a poor priest, it does not matter if a Dalit gives him a rupee or a Devar gives him a rupee. Caste matters however for a powerful landowner who works in the land for cheap. An unending supply of cheap bonded labor is what they needed.

Take a look at caste based violence perpetrated against the Dalits. Vitriolic attacks on Dalits usually come from the non-brahmin castes. Devars, Vanniyars and Gounders have taken up the mantle to attack Dalits. The Brahmins on the other hand rarely (if at all) resort to violence. I have personally seen Brahmins married into Arundhathiyar families and coexisting peacefully. I have a friend married to a Brahmin woman and the family rallies around him like he is their own. Again, these are personal examples and cannot be applied to all situations.

History

There have been many Brahmins supportive of the Dalit cause once they have realized the folly of their ways. A few examples:

- Vaidyanatha Iyer led the Tamil Nadu Harijana Sabha and was instrumental in the temple entry movement (which again was hijacked by caste Hindus)

- Adi Sankara himself recognized the folly of caste when Shiva came to him in the form of a beggar

- Ramanujacharya, another brahmin was instrumental in trying to eradicate caste. Now, Dravidian leaders pen serials in praise of him.

- Bharathiar - reviled by nearly everyone had scant respect for people who practiced casteism.

I can also take a list of people from the North like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Ishwar Chandra Vidhyasagar but that would be unnecessary.

The British invasion happened and the Brahmins worked for the British along with the caste Hindus and that became their undoing. The British in a bid to divide bought caste into highlight and was lapped up by the caste Hindus.

When the above mentioned Brahmins started realising their folly and began expressing their solidarity with Dalits the Dravidian movement arrived. The non-brahmin upper caste came up with an idea to unite the masses for a common cause - Pick the population who are just 3% and heap the blame on them. Also, they themselves categorized their communities as BC, OBC etc. Their modus operandi - we might have been the ruling class but now we are BC, OBC. How this is palatable in today’s societies is beyond comprehension.

 

These Dravidian groups also had a Tamil national identity. Again, Dalits and Brahmins were left out of this. A Sakkiliyar would be categorized as Telugu and for no reason at all Brahmins were regarded as Sanskrit speakers in spite of them being extremely tied to Tamil as their mother tongue - (e.g. UV Swaminatha Iyer etc). You could never ask a Naicker where he was from, or a Mudaliar if he was a Kerala Mudali. If you are thinking the ties between a Tamil Naicker and their counterparts in Andhra are tenuous you are right. So are the ties between Brahmin/Dalits and their counterparts in the other states.

So my fellow Dalits be very very wary of this Brahmin baiting by non-Brahmin caste Hindus.

 

Brahmins – 4

Kalki (15-1-33)

Should the Brahmin community earn the goodwill of other communities and live amicably with them in future or prize infamy as its proud possession and suffer being abused by them and losing its voice? This question propped up in my mind looking at the current deeds of those considered to be the leaders of the Vaideeka Brahmins. It seems to me that these leaders opposing anti-untouchability movement are causing great harm to the nation, Hindu society and the Brahmin caste.

In these days replete with strife in life, a Brahmin must be prepared to do any dignified job. He can earn his livelihood only then. Can we, who have given up the scriptural injunctions in self-interest, expect the respect shown by others in days gone by? The way to earn public respect these days is different.

Whatever work a Brahmin does for his livelihood, he should adhere to truth, compassion, devotion, public good and good conduct, to get respect from others. Spurning it, and discarding the scriptural rules in self-interest, if he expects, ‘I am a Brahmin and belong to a higher caste and give me respect,’ he will earn only the slight and odium of other people.  

 

 

 

 

 

I want to use three terms in my write-up: Brahminism as that which has been despised and undesirable; Brahmaneekam as external compliance, almost dead, but which may be sanitary; and Brahmanatvam which is the Vedic (Upanishadic) injunction. I will denounce the first, bat for the second and explain the third which is only academic.

Brahminism

The ire of people is mainly on the ‘superioriy’ that Brahmins claimed, the practice of excluding others from contact and considering as objectionable the use of same facilities by others. It was well entrenched in villages till recently and in cities also they did not mix. In cities, it changed slowly and disappeared in villages with the migration of Brahmins.

There still remains the superior air unexpressed, but discernible. Brahmins pride themselves as intelligent, but that may not be quite true.

 

 

From a forward (source and authenticity of the info is not known; but it seems that Brahmins still dominate society? It applies however only to the creamy layer even if true):

A study team of Brahmins worked for 2 months on the status of Brahmins in all  States, prepared a brief note on the study.

Brahmin population, State wise:

1. Jammu & Kashmir - 2 lakhs and 4 lakhs left the State (displaced?).

2. Punjab           - 9 lakhs

3. Haryana         - 14 lakhs

4. Rajasthan        - 78 lakhs

5. Gujarat          - 60 lakhs

6. Maharashtra     - 45 lakhs

7. Goa             - 5 lakhs

8. Karnataka       - 45 lakhs

9. Kerala           -12 lakhs

10. Tamil Nadu      -30 lakhs

11. Andhra Pradesh  -24 lakhs

12. Chattisgarh      - 24 lakhs

13. Odisha          -37 lakhs

14. Jharkhand       - 12 lakhs

15. Bihar           - 98 lakhs

16. West Bengal    - 18 lakhs

17. Madhya Pradsh  - 42 lakhs

18. Uttar Pradesh    - 2 crores

19. Uttarkhand       - 20 lakhs

20. H.P.             - 45 lakhs

21.  Sikkim          - 1 lakh

22.  Assam         - 10 lakhs

23.  Mizoram       - 1.5 lakhs

24.  Arunahal Pradesh - 1 lakh

25.  Nagaland       - 2 lakhs

26.  Manipur        - 7 lakhs

27.   Meghalaya     - 9 lakhs

28.   Tripura        - 2 lakhs

 

Maximum Brahmin populated State is U.P.

Minimum Brahmin populated State is Sikkim.

Maximum Govt  employed Brahmins is in West Bengal.

Maximum per centage Brahmin population is Uttarkhand with 20% population.

Maximum literate Brahmins are in Kerala and Himachal Pradesh

Maximu number of well positioned Brahmins  are in Assam.

Maximum number of C.Ms. produced State is Rajasthan.

Maximum number of Educated Brahmins are n U.P.

 

In Lokh Sabha the Brahmins are 48%, In Rajyasabha 36%.

In India of the total Governors Brahmins are 50%

Brahmin Cabnet Secretaries 33%

Brahmins in Ministries secretariat is 54%

Additional secretaries 62%

Personal secretaries 70%

University Vice-chancellors 51%

Supreme Court judges 56%

High Court Judges 40%

Indian Ambassadors 41%

 

In Public Sector undertakings Brahmins:

Central Govt. Undertakings : 57%

State Govt undertakings : 82%

Bank employees  57%

Airlines  61%

IAS Officers  72%

IPS Officers  61%

TV artsts and Bollywood   83%

CBI/Customs employed   72%

 

Whatapp group is managed by 59% Brahmins

FB is managed by 50% Brahmins

80% of world’s top 500 Companies are managed by Brahmins.

 

 

Brahmaneekam:

There has been a subversion from ‘Brahmanas live for the entire community’s welfare’ to ‘all communities live for the welfare of Brahmanas’. The lavish gifts recommended for Brahmanas were meant for sacrifices and observance of dharma as they were to be freed from pecuniary pursuits.

Some fifty years ago, we had some traits that were traceable in Brahmanas (not vaideekas or Veda Brahmanas only). The traits that come to mind are:

some vaideeka karmas (Sandhyavandanam, Sraddham, Upakarma, Upanayanam, Vivaham, seemantham, etc.), puja, nivedanam before eating, acharam (suchi, ruchi : cleanliness and taste, dress code)

Sandhyavandanam

It is done in the morning and evening, and its observance in the middle of the day is called Madhyahnikam. (Sandhya stands for twilight and madhyahna is midday). The rule is it should be done morning: kaanaamal (not seeing sun, i.e. before sunrise), noon: konaamal (before the sun leaves its middle position) and evening: saayaamal (before sun sets).

These rituals are by way of purifying, confession, satisfying the deities, gayatri japa, prayer to mitra, aditya and varuna, dedication of everything to god and invoking auspiciousness.

 

 

Brahmans and Brahmanism
I propose to set my thoughts on the subject of Brahmanism. This is a sequel to Enge Brahmanan, (a novel by Cho) but one can read it regardless of whether one has read Enge Brahmanan or not.
Brahmanism is an ideal. Unfortunately it is not true that anyone could have become a Brahman, regardless of birth. The few instances quoted by Cho are exceptions. A Brahman by birth is not judged by the same acid tests, which were applied to Viswamitra. We have to satisfy ourselves thinking that Brahmans in the times of Viswamitra practised the austerities expected of them. There appears to be no way of knowing for sure. Down the ages Brahmans have assumed ascendancy not necessarily in economic terms but in social hierarchy. Even fifty years ago in the village, a non-Brahman will not cross the agraharam (a street exclusively peopled by Brahmans) with his footwear. A Harijan cannot cross the street at all. This changed in the last fifty years, but even today, Harijans live in a hamlet separated by a canal from the village proper. They are not allowed to settle in the village.
A generation ago, Brahmans did sandhyavandanam (worshipping in the twilight time and noon), tarpanam (offerings to the forefathers), sraddham (annual ceremony for the dead parents), rites for the deceased, upanayanam (initiation to brahmacharya with thread ceremony), vivaham (marriage), some homams (offerings in fire to the gods), upakarma (annual replacement of the thread), etc. with faith and fervour. Today it is doubtful how many do it at all. Even purohits well versed in these are becoming rarer. A few have taken to it commercially without having done adhyayanam (learning for no less than seven years under a guru). There is more secularism. ‘Why not do poor feeding rather than call Brahmans and feed them?’ is heard. The orthodox may call it degeneration, but the advance in material and knowledge terms has overwhelmed the faith in such observances. The few who still stick to them are referred to as ‘pathaam pasali’. ‘Pasali’ or ‘Fasli’ is calendar based on July to June year corresponding to harvest and land tax collection, and is the vestige of Persian rule.

Brahmanism (I do not mean dominance of Brahmans) is a social development that has been favoured for centuries. The last century saw its total decline. Should it die? Yes and no.
The outgrowths and corruptions have to die. The idealism should not die. Unfortunately, the noise made today is about learning for a living and getting a paid job. Brahmans have given up the spiritual quest. They have no more claim to being called Brahamans.
Cleanliness is one of the things a Brahaman is connected with. Taking bath before starting the day’s chores after washing the teeth and going to the toilet, has been a standard practice, but today this is not the case. Very few follow this. Offering the day’s preparations to the God of one’s choice before tasting it has been another habit that is given up. Throwing a morsel to the crows has been a tradition. Having a guest is a luxury, but the scriptures prescribe it. Echchil  (saliva) was taboo. As a student, in my uncle’s place, I was asked to wash my hand after touching the plate I used to eat from and the plate was kept separately. While this rigour cannot be expected now, the need for cleanliness itself has to be preserved.
Staying away from non-vegetarian food is considered a discipline to be followed by the Brahmans. One can argue on this, but it is a consideration for other sentient beings and is worth following.
Meditation on the nature of the soul and God and self-realisation are the goals a Brahman was supposed to pursue. A Brahman is not to be satisfied with sukha (comforts and pleasure, as distinct from ananda which is autonomy and bliss), attainment of wealth, or success. Brahman is the ultimate in Vedanta and the Brahmana is to realise Brahman. This is a tall order perhaps, but one may at least set his sight on it.

 

 

 

Sunday, September 21, 2014

Indian philosophy and numbers:

एकं, अद्वितीयं, असन्ख्येयः (Ekam, Advitiyam, Asankhyeya)

The foreign invaders felt superior because their religions believed in one God whereas the Hindus believed in a variety. Ravi Zacharias, who converted from Hinduism to Christianity, makes a derisory mention that Hindu gods number 330 million and are growing.

The fact appears to be that the Vedic seers intuited a total reality which is described in various ways. The variety is a result of the immensity of that reality which is unparalleled and beyond imagination and description. The idea is crystallised as, ‘ एकं सत् विप्राः बहुधा वदन्ति Ekam sat, viprah bahudha vadanti.’ This quotation, that is popular, is from Rig Veda that antedates all known scriptures. The oneness of the reality is not to be confused with count. It is not one instead of two or some other number, or in contrast to anything else. The simple rule of applied arithmetic tells us that we cannot count entities that are dissimilar. If we want to count reality, we must have more of the same kind. But, there is not any other like it. The idea of count does not arise when there is no other. By the same logic, there is no need for a name also. Names are needed to distinguish in a crowd.

The idea of the one as distinct with no parallel is reinforced by the description adviteeyam, without a second. The sectarian thinkers have debated the import of this word, but to my discussion what is relevant is that like ekam, it is an idea of a totality that has no other, and is not to be confused with numeration. Advitiyam clarifies ekam. It also conveys indivisibility; divisibility is a property of countable things.

In Vishnu Sahasranamam we come across the name ‘asankhyeya’. It is translated as innumerable, but I would prefer ‘uncountable’. Sruti is talking of one reality and of its one attribute and Sahasranamam is trying to explain in elaborate terms what Sruti says, explaining worldly experience. While the meaning that God took innumerable incarnations accords with Puranas and popular belief, it is to Sruti rather than Purana, the linkage should be firm. Thus asankhyeya means the same ekam and advitiy.

In a nutshell, the idea developed in India (all scriptures and ideas about God are human interpretations of our experience in a framework) goes beyond the concept of one as a number to the visualization of a totality that is unique and is not a concept. This grand vision is academic to most of us. Its reality is not our ordinary experience. In that vacuum, we have let in many Gods. It is not a weakness or a flaw or something to feel silly about. One God or many Gods, both are beyond our grasp. There is no merit in superiority or a more blessed state for any creed at least on the basis of the number of Gods.

 

 

Bigotry misplaced

There have been sects in Hinduism that have claimed exclusivity in terms of the particular deity which alone will lead to salvation. Bigotry of one type or another has prevailed. But the general purport and the common belief of Hinduism is one of diversity at the empirical level and unity at the spiritual level. The preponderance of available literature and scripture and the conduct of people born to this faith point to one reality or truth that has no form or name. The various forms and names are a matter of workaday world convenience.

 

God's grace

To Ajamila, a Brahmana, only the messengers of Vishnu came. To Prahlada, an Asura, Vishnu came himself, but in an assumed form. To Gajendra, an animal, he came himself in his own form.

God is nearer those who have no overactive mind or arrogance of intellect, lost in reason and knowledge of senses.

 

Fixation with 'one god' and a specific god is an aberration in the evolution of the native faith of India. Plurality and diversity are reflected in the scriptural and traditional legacy. What may be the fundamental unity is a Vedantic subject where deities do not figure and unquestioning faith is out of the question.

 

Negotiable Instrument

The introduction to negotiable instruments is what the position in law is about ownership. Under law of chattels (property) a transferee cannot get a better title than a transferor. If applied, this law would have made transactions in financial instruments risky and would have made commerce based on bills less popular. Law on negotiable instruments offered reasonable protection to one getting a bill in his favour. The idea of holder in due course gained currency. A holder in due course is one who comes into ownership after having paid consideration and in good faith i.e. without the knowledge of any defect in title that would be apparent to a man of ordinary prudence. Law has to be vague. It cannot be precise. Ordinary prudence has to be understood through ordinary prudence! Reasonable cannot be any more precise than it is!

Now, I am not interested in this uncalled for essay in the intricacies of negotiable instruments. I turn to theology.

Countless number of devotees have poured out their hearts in lyrical poetry their enchantment with deities. Reading them, one gets transported to a make-believe world where the deity confers fabulous rewards on sincere devotees. The ideas and imagery that the poems adumbrate are touching and stir in an ordinary man feelings of hope, bliss and meaning in life. That is a huge payoff.

We take from these devotees their instruments of devotion in good faith, but since they were not interested in intellectual property rights, we get them without payment of any consideration. We become holders in due course and are proud owners of unimpeachable title to faith. As ordinary beings, we do not have suspicion of their genuineness and are entitled to the title absolutely.

 

 

 

 

Nov 5, 2017

India and Hinduism

I have read that India was a nation and had a basic unity before the invaders. The notion that the British are responsible for the idea of India as a nation has been challenged. Let it be.

India as a nation or Hinduism as a religion has to be understood differently from other nations and religions.

India was one nation in belief mostly for a long while, the different beliefs appeared to share something common, but it was a collage of many states, 56 in literature, but much more in history. It may still be possible to think that we had several autonomous states, but one nation without the burden of common army, ruler, etc.

As to religion, the sects multiplied ironically with each reformer trying to unify it under some lofty banner and a single god.

The point that we should think as Indians and unite as Hindus remains a noble slogan, a destination that is as near as the horizon. The force of culture, differentiation being its basic trait, asserts itself over statement of intention. We think as a group within a group – region, language, caste, sub-sect, work, etc. forming the basis for grouping.

Let India roll on without  our trying to check its course. Let there be threat to Hinduism. It will produce more great men. Its spiritual saga will continue under variety and adversity. Try to steamroller it into some homogeneity that is artificial and based on a unity that nature has not intended, it will lose its vitality.

Let us remember what Kunti prays: “May there be misfortunes to us so that you will remain in our hearts, O Krishna.”

And also what Krishna says, “Whenever there is decline of virtue, I appear to protect virtue and the virtuous.”

 

 

 

December 24, 2016

Allegory in gods

The serpent on which Vishnu rests is called Ananta or Sesha (Anantasayanam, Seshasayee). Ananta is infinite and Seha is residue. Infinity is the attribute of Brahman. Sesha is that which remains when the manifested world is reabsorbed, from which future creation starts.

The whole idea is an allegory of the abstractions made from the observed world. Various gods of Hinduism are allegorical. They are not different and divergent, but only the result of perception from various angles. Brahman is the total reality, unfathomable to physical, mental or intellectual scrutiny.

Our job is with the world under our gaze and these gods are just as real as ourselves.

 

One god or many

The question whether Hinduism believes in one god or many is wrongly oriented.In Vishnusahasranamam, असन्ख्येयः is one of the names. It means uncountable. It is delightfully vague. It may mean innumerable or infinite, or abstract. We cannot count abstract things like beauty, goodness, etc. God is unknown. In Upanishads, god is described as ‘not the one whom senses can grasp, but the one who makes senses being able to grasp’ or ‘who knows the knower?’ God as an anthropomorphic person is the limited view of human imagination. God as a person has to be understood other than in a limiting human sense. What it is is speculative. There is one truth which scholars describe severally, but unity there is - ‘totality’ ‘whole’ or ‘entire’, not numerical. (Ekam is followed by adviteeyam, emphasizing non-existence of anything else making counting insensible).

Hinduism is about enquiry from the standpoint of faith required to accept god, and about realisation. ‘One god or many gods’ is irrelevant. To labour to prove that Hinduism also is monotheistic aping the proselytising faiths is to misinterpret Hinduism.

 

June 20, 2018

Polytheism ·

Hindus have been polytheistic and pantheistic. Vedas are about worship of many gods. If you look at the gods, they are forces of nature that constitute life variously. The first impulse is to identify as god that which gives us life. Mother is the first god because we came through her. But, she could not have given us birth without father. So, father is next in line. (God is seen as father in religion, esp. the Abrahamic religions. The whole male bias and god as a male seems to have arisen from the wrong idea that father is life-giver and mother is only a carrier). Real birth is when we get proper knowledge. (That is why when one starts learning, he becomes born again – dvija, which means any of the first three varnas; sadly the fourth varna was denied formal education, which meant Vedic education). Guru gives us that and he is god third in line. But, sustenance of life is by sun, fire, water, air, etc. These are treated as god. After repeated attempts, it was felt that the whole life is integral and that was called Brahman, a superset, if you like.

Many gods are not ‘persons’ in a ‘physical’ sense. Ultimately, Upanishads (as well as Buddhism and Jainism) did not talk of a personal god.

All belief is suspect, but valid for the believer, but his right of belief ends where ‘the tip of the nose of another begins’.

 

December 4, 2016 ·

Evolution

Evolution is not a mere cosmic phenomenon. It is also an individual phenomenon.

We evolve from being in the womb as a foetus in the amniotic sac like fish in water. The physiologically adequately formed baby is not as yet a person. It has the similarity to the first order of beings, not on its feet. It has to look around like a tortoise for its food. It has to live amid its excreta like a pig. It graduates from the animal to half-animal-half-man. It passes into an adolescent, but full of fury and retaliatory action. Often, the evolution stops here. It does not become a competent, but compassionate person, and then partake of the divinity it is in actuality, or become self-realised by awakening. The human purpose finds fulfilment in these last stages of development which are unappetising to us except in symbolism, superstition and myth. The last is the physical annihilation that is inevitable and the new cycle begins.

That is one take on the ten incarnations.

 

 

 

September 18

Hinduism at a handicap

Hinduism did not evangelise. It spread to some countries not by any conversion but by cultural exchange and enrichment. Buddhism, an off-shoot of Hinduism, spread by prachara (propaganda). The result is that Hinduism is confined to one relatively small corner of the globe, shrunken by geographic and cultural invasions (once it was prevalent from Afghanistan to far east), and it does not have foreign funding. NRIs in recent times do a bit, but it is a pittance compared to the deep pockets of some other faiths. Thus, Hinduism faces an unequal challenge. Enlightenment must debunk the myth of insubstantial faiths, whether home-brewed or imported, but enlightenment is a rare pursuit. People have to get on in life with its charms and struggles.

The non-Hindu population was about 10% when the British quit finally (independence is too big a word to describe what followed), and is now close to 25%. That is, it has grown by 150% in 70 years. This swelling came about both organically (uninhibited procreation) and by partial acquisition (conversions). It is highly probable that in another 50 years, it will cross the majority mark, if we do nothing about it. That will mean destroying irreversibly secularism and placing Hindus at the mercy of crusading faiths. That is the spectre that calls for preventive action. Arguments like ‘at the individual level, we are having no problem’ sidesteps the issue. At no time, common level understanding decides state policy and action. We must see what has happened in Pakistan and other countries which once had a different complexion.

We need genuine secularism and check on clandestine, insidious and even treasonous activities of conversion.

A friend to whom I mailed this muses as follows:

“The description of Christian evangelists as missionaries says it clearly. It was a mission to convert the population in India or the many African nations into Christians. The Mogul invaders used armed might to force the local population to convert. Their motto was kill those who do not convert. Today's IS and other Ishmaels have a duty to kill kafirs. Your example of Pakistan is apt. The proportion of Hindus in Pakistan has dwindled at a very rapid pace.

Russia put down religion in favour of godlessness. Has been equally inimical to every religion as state policy. China has Taoism, Buddhism, some Islam and some Christianity. But shuts off evangelism with main force. Chinese, Japanese and the Koreans are ethnic communities. For a while they dabbled with Buddhism. But the roots are strong and the ethnic identity is the strong identifier and not religion. Japan has remained Shinto while the Koreas have a mix of no religion and Christianity. Closer home, SriLanka is part Buddhist and part Hindu. No religious suppression though there is an ethnic colour to the civil war.

US has for ever a virulent racist outlook. The KKK in the last century and more recently the white supremacist cops in Charlottesville, New York and elsewhere. Many African Americans converted to Islam as they found that they were lesser persons as Christians. Europe had become Christian and has so stayed and Latin America peopled by Europeans is Christian.

The Muslim nations in the middle east and Europe have the shia sunni divide and are a hotbed of Jihadist movement. Pakistan is perhaps an opportunistic jihadist nation, whose purpose may not be Sharia driven Islam, but Kashmir driven ideology.

Other than Arya Samaj for a small period of time there has never been an effort to augment Hindu population. Arya Samaj had a small presence with the purpose of facilitating those who wanted to return to the Hindu fold. It was never into conversions. Today's Ghar Vapasi is a non starter with no clear programme. And was tainted by misconceived violence.

Hinduism had no religious ideology of growth or expansion to other regions. This position is not likely to change. Given this, the share of Hinduism in world religions will certainly reduce. Within India too the Muslim population will grow apace, and Christians less.

Centuries of Christian and Muslim domination and decades of patronage to Muslims disguised as secularism have affected the nation's psyche. I don't think the political forces will allow honest to God secularism to define the nation.”

After going through MB and Bhagavatham through English translation, I am convinced that they are only stories by human minds to illustrate some (Vedic) precepts and inculcate devotion.

 

14/9/17

Karma vs Divine pardon

I was reviewing my archives and saw this in a long article. It is radical and may be considered blasphemous.

"Just as the life-negating schisms of Jainism and Buddhism turned our hoary aniconic tradition into one of building larger and larger icons (monolithic Buddhas and Bahubalis) and, in the process, transferred our corporeal sinews to granite and marble, in much the same way the clearly post-Christian bhakti movement brain­washed us into believing that we may do what we please so long as we took refuge in the saving grace of Krsna (alias Christ). Jaimini's orthodox concern for dharma (dharma-jijnasa) slithered into the heterodox nonchalance of the bloated Bhagavad-Gita. Consider this transparently jesu-vian promise, which we are being asked to believe is what clinched the issue in the long eve-of-war dialogue between Krsna and Arjuna (long enough to have put both armies to sleep):

sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja; aham tva sarva-papebhyo moksayisyami, ma sucah.

(Give up all your duties and take refuge in me alone; I will free you from all sins. Have no misgivings.) …

In actual fact, it is the most enfeebling of the contraband ideas that were imported into India during the early part of the Christian era. It sets at naught the ecosystemic law of karma. Each one of us is answerable to what he does or does not do and no god or gods has the power to commute or condone. This is what distinguishes, at its root, the Indo-Aryan from the Semitic way of thinking. Not a retributive but a simple cause-effect relationship—but one from which there is no escape.

Once we fell a victim to what I shall call the 'fallacy of the fourth' (moksha and sanyasa), that signalled the beginning of our decadence, as a culture, and our emasculation, as a people. I am not an obscurantist. I do not blindly believe that all that is old is gold. Nevertheless, whether by accident or by design, I find that the threesome, the triune and the threefold has somehow held India together for long stretches of time."

T.K.Mahadevan

My thoughts on reading the article were:

"Life has only that meaning and purpose each individual assigns it. There is no absolute purushartha or gati (destiny).

I fully agree that in a sane order, action and consequence should be inseparable and as proximate as can be. It is debatable whether it is so, but any human effort to infuse order should have, for its basis, a belief in such nexus. Divine pardon as an eraser of the consequence of one's action is whimsical. But, bhakti satisfies the craving of souls born to that tradition. No one can say with certainty what is good for all, if such a thing exists.

I also feel that sanyasa as an option, after exhausting the others, may be worthwhile. To strive for truth without getting passionate about anything, is the lakshana of sanyasa. I feel there is sense in this. Sanyasa is not repairing to a forest in self-denial or masochism. Again, this has to be in tune with one's inner calling and station in life.

Moksha as an ideal, in the sense of renouncing this world, has not appealed to even the most die-hard Advaitins. I attended one lecture by a swami, who had several cushions for his sitting comfort. But, as I wrote before, moksha is not an end, but a temperament an adult may develop to cope with this world in relentless pursuit of truth. There may emerge knowledge that quells all desire to become someone. It will help not just the seeker, but many that get attracted to him. We need not denounce it any more than we would denounce other pursuits that do not hurt our fellow-beings."

I have since come across this:

"Some people pray for the success of their dishonest and corrupt actions, asking god or Buddha for help in covering up their wrong-doings. There is no point in such people describing themselves as religious." Dalai Lama.

 

 

 

May 31, 2016

Bhakthi

Marx was right. Bhakthi (any form of faith and worship) is a form of intoxication, but does not carry the evils of alcohol and drugs. Both should be, if one likes either, after we have done our job. Mixing up is bad – no cocktail!

It may sound sacrilegious, but it is because of the notions we carry that one is sacred and the other is evil. There is no a priori justification for this value superimposition.

Bhakthi connects a devotee with the deity worshipped. It is an emotional union. We have several prayer hymns where the devotee is in tears. It cleanses the mind and keeps out worries and errant thoughts. It cements a bond among people. Bhakthi is what characterises India.

Has bhakti movement weakened us?

I know I am stirring the hornet’s nest. I have been following prayer and bhakti (with fluctuating intensity). My discussion does not arise either from disenchantment or from atheism. I am a bitter critic of communism and rationalism, and I see far more sense in bhakti than in hypocritical and half-baked rationalism. Bhakti to me is an emotional engagement and does not point to any reality other than what we feed the mind with. I do not believe that any bhakta will one day come face to face with the mental picture he cultivates of god, either now or at any future. That is for my stance.

Bhakti has given rise to some points either scripturally or traditionally:

i) Think of nothing else but god and god will take care of you.

ii) Forget about everything and surrender to god and god will redeem you.

iii) If god is for you, who can be against you? If god is against you, who can really help you?

iv) Life is full of suffering which can be removed only by god.

v) God can mitigate the adverse effects of our actions.

vi) We should obey implicitly what some great man has said and never question it.

To me, the essence of life is effort and grit to face its ups and downs. Faith must prepare our mind to get the ability to gain knowledge and live practically. Faith should aid us in achieving the possible and palpable, not make us expect superlative results at any time.

If we overstate the efficacy of bhakti, we may be weakening the part of effort and scope of human action. Historians point out how we lost out in the past because we did not equip ourselves against marauders. Nehru makes a sarcastic comment about the Somnath devotees trusting in god and getting killed time and again.

There may be some truth that lopsided emphasis on bhakti has rendered us lethargic. We must see how the pioneers of bhakti movement have been energetic people taking action for results, not just leaving it to god. Their efforts have produced durable results. We must also at all times take action for results. Mere bhakti will be infructuous in a majority of cases. Exaggeration must have been used for emphasis, not for blind following.

 

Jnana and Bhakti

Many scriptures may be as said by god directly. Still, they are from human mind intuited by noble souls. The truth they contain is what matters. To experience the truth is jnana, to accept it unquestioningly is bhakthi. A life without jnana and bhakthi is natural.

 

For centuries bhakti cult has dominated Indian life and psyche. It has nourished art and music, and fostered the culture and entertainment. The puranic episodes and descriptions have been captured in stunning statues in temples with exquisite architecture and much of it survives in the south escaping the barbarism of invaders.

It is a negative mindset to nullify what is engaging people soulfully. No harm results because of the bhakti movement. Those who want to pursue other means of fulfilling their life are free to do so and they need not meddle with others’ ways.

Indian scheme does provide for one to disengage from mere bhakti and proceed to jnana, which is an arduous journey fit for a handful.

Mrs. Laksmi Viswanathan (a famous dancer who passed away recently): “There is a mystic beauty in these verses, mingled with an intimate spirituality, a personal devotion to the Supreme  ... for my way of Natyam, Tamil bhakti poetry is the soul, source and inspiration.”

 

August 19, 2017

Bhajans 

I listen to some music as I struggle to sleep after waking up at night. InSync is a channel that telecasts classical music, mostly Hindustani. I heard one Shailendra Bharti some time ago. A subscript said that he sings bhajans in Japan and Russia. That is interesting. It may be good to spread the bhajan culture. We will never know the mystery behind the universe. We have to be content with the truth of the moment. In the moment of singing or listening to a bhajan, there is peace. We have to multiply such moments to promote peace.

 

A Hindu can imagine his own god. He need not be beholden to the imagination of someone notwithstanding its popularity. Some imagine Ravana as their god. Not bad. In fact, Ravana is a direct descendant of Brahma whereas Rama declared himself ‘आत्मानं मानुषं मन्ये I consider myself a human being.’ (Brahma’s son was Prajapati, his son Pulastya, his son Visravas and his son Ravana).

 

 

Visit to a temple

How good do I feel visiting a temple?

It has been a mixed experience. There were moments that I felt there was a mysterious connection, and others when it was perfunctory and looked to be meaningless.

The crowd, the partiality to VIPs (I too benefited) and the precedence of money over duty for the priests, etc. irritate. A colleague said about the special treatment we enjoyed as the result of some good deed of ours. But, I have lost faith in karma theory and rebirth. It is logical, not necessarily true. The special privilege, if karma theory is true, must be a fresh sin as we are cheating many common people who suffer waiting longer.

In a way, the experience in a temple is a part of the experience of life in general where too we have fine moments in between bothersome occurrences.

Visit to a temple is optional, not necessary for one’s well-being and salvation. Well-being depends on our care of the body and mind (and the levels of hygiene), after ensuring income, and salvation depends on knowledge and truthfulness

 

Siva and Sakti

Siva and Sakti stand for physics: Siva is the jada principle (matter) and Sakti is the energy principle; physics is about matter and energy, or the world.

Ardhanareeswara symbolizes the inseparability and complementarity of matter and energy, like word and meaning in Kalidasa’s simile. Matter is condensed energy and energy is expanded matter. Energy pervades the universe whereas matter is sporadic and sparse. Energy is the creative principle and hence feminine.

Now, let us turn to Kalki describe in Ponniyin Selvan through the mouth of Sembian Maadevi:

Appar was proceeding to Kailasa Parvata, when an elderly man stopped him and bade him to go to Thiruvaiyaru which is Kailas on the earth. When Appar approached Thiruvaiyaru, he saw several devotees go toward the temple with water from Kaveri and flowers. Appar followed them. He saw a male elephant and a she-elephant and Appar visualized Siva and Sakti in them. Before he reached the temple he saw pairs of several birds and animals like that. He then realized that this world itself is Kailasam; there is no other. He composed ten verses describing his experience, ending each with the refrain, “I saw many things which I had not seen before.”

(When we get enlightenment, the view of a thing changes.)

 

 

A unique Stothram ....

Reading it left to right ....ut is Shree Rama Vandan.....and read it from right to left .....ulta it is Shree Krishna Vandan

तं भूसुतामुक्तिमुदारहासं वन्दे यतो भव्यभवं दयाश्रीः* ||१|| (श्री राम स्तुति)

From last to first- Reverse:

श्रीयादवं भव्यभतोयदेवं संहारदामुक्तिमुतासुभूतं ||२|| (श्री कृष्ण स्तुति)

 

 

 

 

May 17, 2016

Ithihasa and purana

One more controversial post:

I view ithihasa and purana as stories to inculcate values and devotion, as exhaustive and wonderful parables. That way, I resolve the inconsistencies and ethical issues that arise in the error-prone mind while reading them. I am no one to say about their ‘reality.’

Upanishads do not talk of any personal god (Paramacharya has pointed out two instances where they do, Katopanishad and Swetaswatara Upanishad, and they are not central to the ideas advanced).

Even Upanishads throw light on the path to Truth (Brahman), not on Brahman which cannot be illuminated by anything else. It will be like holding candle to the sun.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: ‘येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति तं केन विजानीयात्?’ ‘Through what should one know That because of which all this is known?’

 

October 20, 2015

Katha Kalakshepam

Discourses on Ramayana, Mahabharatha and Puranas has been described as Katha Kalakshepam. It means ‘spending time on stories.’ Nothing can be more meaningful. There has been little doubt that they are stories and listening to them was a good way to spend time. They are creations in an attempt to seek god, who remains behind everything, but beyond our grasp.

 

July 15, 2018

Ramayana and Bible

I am not interested whether Ramayana happened once in the past. It happens to me whenever I read it. I do not think it matters to me whether there is a temple for Rama in Ayodhya. I wish I had built a temple for him in my mind.

The same I feel about The Holy Bible. It is not of much consequence how far Jesus is historic or how authentic the incidents ascribed to him. Reading The Bible brings Jesus and the incidents alive and inspires.

 

September 17, 2018

Ambivalence of Krishna

Krishna persuades Duryodhana to avert the impending war by agreeing to allot a part of the kingdom to Pandavas. When he refuses, Krishna shows him the Viswarupa, but Duryodhana does not budge.

Later, when in the midst of the two armies mobilised for war Arjuna breaks down and dreads the prospect of annihilating the kith and kin, Krishna shows Viswarupa and eggs him on to fight.

It looks inconsistent. The purpose of Krishna was to ensure that dharma prevailed over adharma. His effort with both Duryodhana and Arjuna was towards this objective.

The story that Krishna wanted to reduce the population is not part of Mahabharata. It was a later addition in puranas.

 

 

October 28, 2014

Hindu groups

Hindu pressure groups

These thoughts rushed to my mind on reading about a Hindu group in a state.

 

I am afraid Hindu unity is a mirage. We should accept that we are not a pressure group, and work for secular ideals. Congress perverted it. That perversion should be undone. The State must function within the constitution respecting all faiths and keeping an arm's length between the policy and pursuits of the State and religious claims.

Public convenience should ride over religious sanctions. For example, if a temple or mosque obstructs public convenience, it should be got moved. God is everywhere and to demand that the place of worship should be so as to cause public inconvenience is arrogance.

Organisations that want to strengthen Hindu way of life should try to take more people on the path by learning, practising and inculcating it in the youngsters (we have a huge percentage). Militancy of any type is a game where we may lose easily. Work being done by Dayananda Saraswati, several genuine yoga practitioners, etc. should increase. Hatred of any group should not be there.

It is an integral part of our creed that the same soul prevails over everyone, in the essential oneness of the universe. Such lofty thinking must be to the fore and we should be able to let it take centre stage in the whole world, when the world will soon lose stream of the sort of consumerism and ostentatious opulence.

Happiness comes from real spirituality of truth and oneness, caring for each other as equals rather than in condescension (like PL 480). We should keep that spirit and message alive, rather than be drawn to the whirlpool of competitive materialism in which the space on earth is sought to be divided by jingoists of one type or another.

Let us hold high the ideals that evolved here and not be like that which irritates us.

 

 21/10/2011

Cyclicity

God has not created the world and he is not at the helm of its progress or conduct.

At any point of time, birth and death take place. Likewise, new stars and planets are evolving or burning out.

There is no beginning or end. Things are in flux and cyclical change. There is no purpose. It is in the nature of things.

Hinduism or Vedanta has not found out or revealed the ultimate truth. There is no ultimate truth.

Hinduism is a way of looking at life and Vedanta simply beckons us to go after truth.

 

 

My idea of Hinduism

1.

Hinduism is an evolving religion, neither revealed nor arrived, not fixed geographically (special for a race like Judaism, or place where it originated like Christianity or Islam) or temporally (like at one time in the narrow period of the last 2000 years). It admits of variety in perception and belief. Atheism is as ancient as scripture in the Hindu view and way of life.

2.

Hinduism stands on two legs: Satyam and Dharmam.

Satyam is basic, ever present, whole and unique.

Dharmam is relevant in worldly social life of duality of perception.

What is dear (priya) to me often obscures these two and it is a worldly (loukika) reality. Spiritual (vaidika) reality is what is in the best interests of us ((hitam), not just me but the society which impacts me and which I impact.

3.

Hinduism accepts gradation, multiplicity and variety in ability, expectation and taste.

It organises social life on the basis of division of labour (profession or service) and responsibility for a given field of action (dharma).

It divides individual life with periods of development, maturity and withdrawal. It talks of engagement (pravrtti) and disengagement (nivrtti). That envisages orderly generational change with the young stepping in and the aged retiring.

Its scriptures evolved in time with nature. They deify nature, prescribe action to harnessing nature for common good and to graduate to knowledge-based emancipation. They are open, encourage questioning, and guide to seek answers through experience and reason. They acknowledge need for changes. Nowhere is there any injunction or effort to convert anyone from one faith to another.

It is not superior or inferior to any other faith, but it is essentially different from other faiths.

4.

Metaphors in Hinduism

Siva and Sakthi

Siva and Sakthi represent matter (the gross, jada) and energy (the subtle, chetana).  They go together –Ardhanariswara.

Dakshinamurthi

This form represents the supreme truth that is taught in silence as verbally it is ineffable. The young Siva sits in chinmudra meditation and the four scholars wizened by age learn from him by silent communication that clarifies all their doubts.

The smallest and the biggest

The mystery of the smallest and the biggest will haunt human intelligence for ever. That is symbolic of the story of Vishnu and Brahma not being able to locate the head or foot of Siva – who is personification of the elements or the universe which is composed of the elements. God is defined interestingly as smaller than the smallest and bigger than the biggest, not susceptible to human perception. The human curiosity will not keep quiet. It must know what is not knowable.

Krishna’s miracle

When Droupadi runs out of food for the insatiable and angry Durvasa and gang, Krishna is able to help her only after finding a particle stuck in the cooking vessel. This illustrates that we cannot produce something out of nothing.

Halahalam

When the Suras and Asuras churn the ocean expecting nectar, a deadly poison comes out first. Our well-meaning efforts may produce harmful byproducts and we must cope with it to proceed to the desired results.

Viswarupam

This illustrates that God is in the cosmos indistinguishably and ubiquitously, not in some hidden place.

Rasalila

The most difficult episode in the story of Krishna is Rasalila.

We must note that sex was not taboo in the ancient Indian society and celibacy was not extolled; chastity was, but violations have been described. In one Upanishad, the union of Jiva and Brahman is explained by the example of conjugal union.

Krishna is personification of the Supreme and the Gopis are the Jivas. Their union produces ecstasy. It is symbolic of Brahamandam attained by realization. That is a positive way to look at it. Any other view is diversion

 

5.

“Sanatan Dharma does not rely on blind faith; it asks you to engage with & experience a higher level of consciousness. Once that happens, you understand Dharma for what it really is”: Stephen Knapp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gggft5zIYkU

6.

Swami Paramarthananda

The essence of Hinduism is that whatever we do we must treat it as an offering (arpana) to God and whatever we receive we must treat as the grace (prasada) of God.

7.

“We pray to god in order to purify our mind. Our prayer is not of any use to god.”

Kanchi Parmacharya.

8.

Knowledge of this world is as good as the assumptions. Mathematics starts with certain axioms and the axioms are conveniently termed as self-evident truths. Each brach of knowedge is likewise. It is facile to think that there is ‘physical’ evidence for the life sciences or physical sciences.

Advaita too depends on Atma as self-evident truth.

 

 

We have to believe fully in this life. Any other life is in the realm of conjecture. We have to believe in ourselves as all others exist only in our perceptions and thoughts. ‘I matter to myself’, ‘I am the most important person’, are attitudes that are positive and helpful. To have done anything at all is creditable no matter how inadequately it has been done. To strive for perfection without straining others is nobler. To achieve a poise of mind whereby the world’s boundaries melt is the pinnacle of one’s development.

 

Belief without experience is blind. We may believe in a state of fear to anaesthetise the mind, to turn it away from the thoughts and feelings that rekindle that fear. We may live a full life without realising the truth or otherwise of what we believe. A person whose thought processes do not rest with acceptance of one’s limitations in this front and make do with a comforting belief in total surrender, may choose to go mad or broken-hearted rather than give up in believing unquestioningly. The questions that arise are not those of an atheist. They are fundamental to life.

 

 

June 04, 2011

Festivals

Traditionally we celebrate many festivals in India. I recollect here the festivals I used to witness as a boy.

The Tamil year begins with Chitthirai. It is April 14. It follows solar cycle. The Sun’s path on the horizon is divided into 12 zodiac signs and the sun is said to enter these signs sequentially. It normally falls in the middle of the month as per Gregorian calendar the world has adopted universally. In most parts of India, the lunar calendar is followed. Each month begins on the first day after the New Moon. The names of the months resemble the Tamil months but there is a lag of about a month. The following table shows the equivalence about the months in the various systems covered above.

Tamil         Gregorian         Zodiac            Zodiac         Lunar

Month        Calendar          (Samskrit)      (English)       equivalen

Chittirai  Apl 14 - May 13    Mesham        Aries            Chaitra

Vaikasi   May 14 - Jun 13   Rishabham    Taurus         Baisaakhi

Aani       Jun 14 – Jul 13     Mithunam       Gemini        Jyeshta

Aadi       Jul 14 – Aug 13    Katakam        Cancer         Aashaada

Aavani   Aug 14 – Sep 13   Simham         Leo              Sraavan

Purattasi Sep 14 – Oct 13   Kanya            Virgo           Bhaadrapada

Aippasi    Oct14 – Nov 13    Tulam           Libra            Aswina

Kaartikai  Nov 14 – Dec 13  Vrischikam   Scorpio        Kaartika

Margazhi Dec 14 – Jan 13   Dhanus        Sagittarius   Agrahaayana

                                                                                      (Margasirsha)

Thai         Jan 14 – Feb 13   Makaram      Capricorn     Pausha

Maasi       Feb 14 – Mar 13  Kumbham    Aquarius      Maagha 

Panguni   Mar 14 – Apl 13   Meenam        Pisces        Phalguna

The zodiacal signs and the periods are not the same as in the Western system. Similarly the periods for the months in lunar calendar do not map with those indicated as corresponding to the Tamil months.

This digression was necessary to explain the context of the festivals. The festivals are associated with full moon or new moon.

Each month one star is close to the moon and the day of the star and the full moon day coincide or fall next to each other. The full moon day in each month is a festival day. The following table depicts the month and the star falling on the full moon day. Samskrit equivalent is given in brackets where it sounds different.

MONTH                              STAR

Chittirai                          Chittirai (Chitra)

Vaikasi                           Visaakham

Aani                                Anusham

Aadi                               Puram (Purva)

Aavani                           Thiruvonam (Sraavana)

Purattasi                        Purattathi/Uttarattathi

Aippasi                           Aswini

Kaartikai                         Kritthikai

Margazhi                        Mrigasirham

Thai                                Poosam (Pushyam)

Maasi                             Magam

Panguni                         Uthiram

The first festival, as you could have guessed, is New Year’s Day. It is Apl 14. It is called the day of Mesha Ravi, that is when sun enters Mesha. The special preparation for the day is a sweet-bitter-sour patchidi, made from neem flower (bitter), mango (sour) and jaggery (sweet). Other items include vada, paayasam, etc. It symbolizes that the year will be a mixture of all experiences and one should take them as they happen in one’s stride.

The day of full moon when chitra star also will fall on the same day is dedicated to Chitragupta, the meticulous accountant of Yama. He keeps accounts of all deeds of each and every individual, both good and bad and faithfully recounts them on the departed soul entering Yama’s durbar. No wonder keeping him in good humour is important. This festival is one of austerity. The devotee eats salt free food on this day and is on near fast. Not interesting.

Next two months are not that important for festivals. Aadi is considered inauspicious by many. In Thajavur district, where Kaveri used to flow once, Aadi has a special significance. Fresh floods used to inundate the sides of the river and people used to celebrate the eighteenth day of the month in festive gaiety and propitiation of the gods. Kalki’s account of the rejoicing of the people on the occasion can be found in the opening chapter of Ponniyin Selvan. Aadi Pooram is another significant day from the religious angle. I do not remember any merry making on this day.

Aavani heralds rains and a host of festivals. The first is Varalakshmi Vratam. It is a Vratam by married ladies praying for the longevity of their husbands. It is always on a Friday. The important items for the festival are Kozhukattai, vadai, paayasam and different vegetable preparations.

The next to follow is Aavani avittam, the day when Brahmins change the holy thread worn across their chest. It falls on the full moon day when the star is avittam. Poli and idli are the special items prepared. Vadai, paayasam is as usual. All festivals include vadai and paayasam. Gaayatri Japam is on the next day.

On the eighth day after Aavani avittam, Gokulaashtami comes. The system of counting adopted is by taking the day on as first. In other words, the eighth day will be the same day of the week.

There is often difference between the day a festival is observed by Iyers and Iyengars. A living person celebrates his birthday based on the star that ruled when he was born. For the dead the tithi on the day of death is the criterion.

There are 16 tithis as follows:

Prathamai : 1st day after full moon or new moon

Dwithiyai : 2nd day

Trithiyai : 3rd day

Chaturthi : 4th day

Panchami : 5th day

Shashti : 6th day

Sapthami : 7th day

Ashtami : 8th day

Navami : 9th day

Dasami : 10th day

Ekaadasi : 11th day

Dwadasi : 12th day

Trayodasi : 13th day

Chaturdasi: 14th day

Purnima or

Amavaasya: 15th day

The fortnight following Amaavaasya (new moon) is called Sukla Paksha and the one following Purnima (full moon) is called Krishna Paksha. Sukla is white and Krishna is black. Amma was translating one Hindi Bhajan song to me on Krishna. Krishna asks Yasoda why he is black whereas Radha is fair. Yasodha tells him it was because he was born in midnight and a black-eyed woman cast her evil eye on him.

Iyers choose the tithi for the birthday of Gods on par with the Pitrus ( departed souls who perhaps become one with God), whereas Iyengars choose the star on par with the humans. Krishna was born on ashtami tithi and Rohini star. These two fall on two consecutive days mostly and hence the difference in the day of celebration.

The next occasion for celebration is Vinayaka Chaturthi. It is the fourth day after Amaavaasya in Purattasi. This is considered to be an important festival for students and esp. brahmacharis (bachelors). Being a brahmachari then, it was my prerogative to do the pooja. A mud idol of Ganesh would be installed on a plank and a parasol of paper will be fixed over a clump of clay at the back to hover over the idol. A coin will be fixed on the navel of the idol and two kundumanis for eyes. A garland of erukkampoo and a sacred thread will adorn the idol. Aruhampul (long grass) is a favourite of the God as also thumbappoo (a white small flower – it is often used to liken teeth or anything spotlessly pure). Fruits and flowers of various kinds will be there to offer to the God. Naagapppazham is a delicacy for Vinayaka. Modakam (kozhukkattai), idli, vada, paayasam, etc. will be prepared. It would be a sumptuous treat. Nothing should be tasted before the pooja and naivedyam are over. Left overs of previous days will be taboo. You have to wear washed and dried clothes that are kept separate (madi) after bath. Head bath is compulsory. Ritual, yes, but the whole life is that. Hinduism believes in enjoyment in companionship with God. God is not a distant reality. God is with us all the time. He guides us. It is not for hereafter but for here and now. The festivals are a reminder of our intimacy with God. We cannot give up all the customs and traditions and hope to keep alive the faith. We owe it to our ancestors and the posterity alike to keep the flame burning.

The next religiously significant thing is Mahalaya Paksha, also called Pitru Paksha, the fortnight following the Full Moon in the month of Purattasi. The New Moon day is called Mahalaya Amavasya. Navaratri is celebrated for 9 days after that culminating in Vijayadasami day, which is the tenth day. As a boy this festival had some attraction for me. In houses of affluent people, kolu (exhibition of dolls) will be set up. Every day some sundal will be prepared and distributed. Ladies sand children will visit the houses in the evening when taamboolam will be given along with sundal. Those who can sing will sing a few kritis in praise of Devi. The first three days are earmarked for Parvati, the next three for Lakshmi and the last three for Saraswati, who are the consorts of Siva, Vishnu and Brahma respectively. Curiously the order is destruction (Siva), protection (Vishnu) and creation (Brahma). Possibly they thought it was inauspicious to end in destruction. Incidentally, Ravi Shankar defines GOD as generator, operator and destroyer. It looks cruel that God destroys. But destruction is in the chain and nothing is destroyed for ever. It is a question of renewal. Saraswati Pooja is an important day for students and a welcome one at that because one is asked not to study on that day. Vijayadasami is the day when all new learning should commence.

The new moon day next is the occasion of Deepavali. On the eve of Deepavai day, crackers are burst and a feast is got ready. Potato curry and onion sambar are the special dishes for the occasion. Water is filled in the boilers for heating in the morning for bath. We are expected to get up like a lark and finish ablution with oil, wear new dress, eat some lehyam and sweets, fire crackers and bow to elders and visit friends. Feast at dinner as usual. The sweets are the attraction. ‘Ganga Snanam Aacha?’ is the greeting on Deepavali day. The early morning bath is used to confer the same benefit as a dip in the Ganges, which is considered holy.

Karthikai is a festival falling on the full moon day of the month of Karthikai. It is a festival in honour of Lord Muruga, the second son of Siva. It is spread over three days. Lighting of lamps is the special feature. The first day of the festival is called Siva Karthikai, the second day is called Vishnu Karthikai and the third day is called Kuppai Karthikai. Kuppai is garbage. At the backyards in villages, the garbage heaps will be there and the lamps are lit and placed there. The garbage collected is used as manure. The village life is laid out with emphasis on conservation and recycling. The water used for washing is channeled to the plants. The rejects of vegetables, the water used to wash rice etc. are fed to the cow. The waste that is inedible, but of organic origin, is collected in a pit and strewn on the fields as manure for the crops.

The month of Margazhi is for early morning prayers. All 30 days, a lamp is lit and placed in the niche in front of the house. Rangoli is done in front of the gate and small balls of cow dung are placed covered with pumpkin flower. It is converted to varatti and used as fuel.

The end of Margazhi is a joyous occasion in Tamil Nadu. It is the harvest season and the festival of Pongal is celebrated for three or four days. The 30th dayth of Margazhi is called Bhogi. Bhogi is Indra who is the Lord of rain. The first day of Thai is Pongal, Makara Sankranti is the name used in the North. It is dedicated to Surya. The third day is Mattu Pongal. It is in gratitude for the bulls used to plough the land. The fourth day is called Kanum Pongal.

On the Bhogi day, old things are burnt and in the heat generated people rejoice. You should remember it is winter then. Poli is the special sweet for the festival. On Pongal day, Pongal is the speciality. Five curries are made. Sugarcane is one of the offerings to Surya. ‘Pal Pongiccha?’ is a customary greeting on the day. It literally means ‘Did the milk boil over?’ My uncle of PVR & Co used to send a post card every year with “Pal Pongiccha?’

The third day we eat chitraannam i.e. thengai rice, eumicham rice, etc. avail, pappad, etc. The cows and bulls are decorared and worshipped. In some places jalli kattu (bull fight ) is organized.

 

Secularism

Hinduism compels secularism, in a practical sense and in a lofty sense.

Hinduism consists of numerous factions differing in subtle, sometimes jarring, ways in their faith. In the eyes of Will Durant, India never had the sort of bitter and violent religious strife which dotted the history of other non-Indic religions.

Upanishads, the pinnacle of Indian scripture and thought, are secular, not about deities. The words used Om, Atman, Brahman, Tat, Sat, Chit, Ananda, etc. are about the quest for truth and understanding, and point to unity at a fundamental level.

We had Hindu Rashtra always in the sense of different faiths in coexistence, and in the spiritual sense. Hindu Rashtra in any other sense will never come.

Our ancestors have given us beautiful stories like Ramayanam, Mahabharatam and Puranas. The stories have shaped our minds and formed our character in a continuing tradition. They have provided themes for music, dance, poetry, drama, painting and sculpture. Our culture is deeply intertwned with them. We must protect it and assimilate features from other cultures as are beneficial without defacing the basic nature and beauty of our culture.

 

What is secularism? Where is it practised?

I understand that it is rhetorical.

Still, I offer my views. They are available 24 hours on tap, absolutely free, in case this point has been missed.

Secularism had origin in English monarchy when the hold of The Church was loosened, I thinlk. UK has been secular, perhaps on the way to being Islamised (vide the post of Mr. Krish on cricket spectators in Birmingham). France has been secular, though recent measures to curb Islamic subversion may give it a different hue. Most European countries and communist ones are secular in one way or another.

Secularism in Indian context arose perhaps to reassure Muslims not to leave the country, a magnanimity shown at the cost of common people and pursued to the disadvantage of Hindus. That is what rankles and has to be addressed.

True secularism is religious neutrality in state affairs, equidistance from all faiths and no special treatment on the basis of religion. In a mutilingual, multi-religious society with cultural variations, any ideal like Hindu Rashtra is impractical.

Muslims constitute about 20% of Indians. They are devout. In my limited exposure, I have not seen a non-believing, non-practising Muslim. While the point that most of them are descendants of Hindu converts may be in order, none of them has any qualms about being Muslim and are in fact proud of it. They are about a third of world population. India is next only to Indonesia in the Muslim population. They are part of the national stream and share the same genes as we. Any move away from genuine secularism is fraught with risk of injustice to, and disaffection from, a sizeable number.

We should stop with ending appeasement and plugging the loopholes that facilitate conversions, as the only way we can be secular is by being a majority ‘Hindu’ country. Propaganda for conversion is a misapplication of religious freedom. Conversion is an act of ignorance and a machination against the will of God. The idea that God favours a specific book, name or symbol is a ludicrous idea. Such aberrations have been there in the native faiths also.

True secularism is state not indulging in religious arguments for getting votes or decisions that tilt the scale in favour of any religion. It is necessary and has to be followed. That it does not obtain is a defect, not an argument against it. 

 

 

MORALITY

A few thoughts on morality

1

It looks to me that morality is a voluntary code for man and woman to live in an orderly society based on some shared notions of practical justice. A divine sanction for it is as much a human concept as the code itself. Lack of uniformity of the code across societies and ages puts paid to any idea that it started from a single source.

Next to religious basis, conscience has been posited as the basis for morality. Kant is one of its eloquent exponents. Let us listen to him:

“Now the most astounding reality in all our experience is precisely our moral sense, our inescapable feeling, in the face of temptation, that this or that is wrong.” “And an action is good not because it has good results, or because it is wise, but because it is done in obedience to this inner sense of duty, ..” “Morality is not properly the doctrine of how we may make ourselves happy, but how we may make ourselves worthy of happiness.”

Lofty as it sounds, sanctimonious in a very sincere tone, it is not true that all of us have the same call of conscience. Kant says otherwise, but conscience also is a historically evolved faculty, as the behaviour of people deemed virtuous in various places and times has not been identical.

Morality is required whenever there is another and not required if only one is there. We have more than one and hence morality is required. When more than one are there, there are problems of competing claims and ownership. Morality is thus a human social need. Animals decide by force and territorial integrity. They do quarrel and some perish. Human beings do likewise despite morality. What happens if morality is violated? Misery results and increases in proportion to the extent of violation. Animal instincts and practices reinforce themselves. The misery is not on one-to-one basis, but is random.

I see no need for god for morality. In fact, the case for god appears weak in the absence of credible explanation how evil gets away, or how people who believe in god are not necessarily moral. But, fear of god may improve compliance. That is no justification for god. Robbers may be the cause of less traffic at night, but that does not make robbers honorable.

God is not negated because he is freed from responsibility for morality. It is perfectly possible to believe in god without having to need him for our being moral. It is also possible to be moral without the idea of a reward.

 

2.

‘Morality is the sum of the prejudices of the community.’ Anatole France.

Our heroic rejection of the customs and morals of the tribe, upon our adolescent discovery of their relativity, betrays the immaturity of our mind. There may be more wisdom in the moral code of the group – the formulated experience of generations of the race – than can be explained in a college course. .. The institution, conventions, customs and all laws that make up the complex structure of society are the work of a hundred centuries and a billion minds; and our mind must not expect to comprehend them in one lifetime, much less in twenty years. .. Morals are relative, but indispensable.

Every vice was once a virtue.

Greed, acquisitiveness, dishonesty, cruelty and violence were for so many generations useful to animals and men that not all our laws, our education, our morals and our religions can quite stamp them out; some of them, doubtless, have a certain survival value even today.

Dishonesty rises with civilisation.

Internal cooperation is the first law of external competition.

The individual is not endowed by nature with only disposition to subordinate his personal interests to those of the group, or to obey irksome regulations for which there was no visible means of enforcement. Societies have made use of religion to provide an invisible watchman, so to speak, to strengthen the social impulse.

Strabo: ‘For in dealing with a world of women, at least, or with any promiscuous mob, a philosopher cannot influence them by reason or exhort them to reverence , piety and faith; nay, there is need of religious fear also, and this cannot be aroused without myths and marvels.’

Men are easily ruled by imagination than by science.

Fear of death, wonder at the causes of chance events or unintelligible happenings, hope for divine aid and gratitude for good fortune, cooperated to generate religious belief. .. Objects of religious worship fall into six classes: celestial, terrestrial, sexual, animal, human, and divine.

The German word ‘geist’ means both ghost and soul.

The philosopher accepts gracefully this human need of supernatural aid and comfort. And consoles himself by observing that just as animism generates poetry, so magic begets drama and science.

.. magic gave birth to the physician, the chemist, the metallurgist, and the astronomer. More immediately, however, magic made the priest.

Religion arises not out of sacerdotal invention or chicanery, but out of the persistent wonder, fear, insecurity, hopefulness and loneliness of men.

Religion supports morality by two chief means: myth and taboo.

A certain tension between religion and society marks the higher stages of every civilisation. .. The intellectual classes abandon the ancient theology and –after some hesitation- the moral code allied with it; literature and philosophy become anti-clerical. The movement of liberation rises to exuberant worship of reason, and falls to a paralysing disillusionment with every dogma and every idea. Conduct, deprived of its religious supports, deteriorates into epicurean chaos; and life itself, shorn of consoling faith, becomes a burden alike to conscious poverty and to weary wealth. In the end a society and its religion tend to fall together, like body and soul, in a harmonious death. Meanwhile among the oppressed another myth arises, gives new form to human hope, new courage to human effort, and after centuries of chaos builds another civilisation.

3

 

From a private mail:

A friend wrote:

Steven Weinberg, Nobel prize winning physicist, said, “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

Another friend commented (abridged):

“We all have both good and evil in us. Acculturation ensures that one realizes the difference, and, look at examples of how good is expressed to the benefit of all, and see how evil harms others.

Buddha, Aristotle and Plato (Socrates) talked about acquiring MORAL VIRTUE; which can only come from knowing self, being true to self, and cultivating self, to become morally virtuous.

There is no assurance that YOUR good KARMA will be manifest in your progeny. Many of us come from ancestors who had to KILL to survive (Think about the GITA), so, virtue and morals is a temporal matter for EACH soul. The great Greek Orator; the epitome of VIRTUE was astonished to see that his two sons lacked his virtue; they had gone POLI, by engaging in the pleasures of the flesh and appetite.

I am presently reading the work of an America scholar and a past pastor. His name is Dan Ehrman. The book is titled God's Problem. After he left his mission and became an atheist like me, he concluded that god engages in theodicy; that is he either does BAD and EVIL THINGS to even good people, and most of all he permits his MINIONS the priests like Vysya, to preach violence in settling human conflicts. In this respect, since, this subject is discussed in terms of the abrahamic tradition faiths; Dan's views are correct.

The priests of the god of abraham and their followers out of implicit obedience to him, will teach them bigotry and declare the followers of each of the three faiths to be their enemies because they have NOT FOLLOWED GODS LAW LITERALLY.

YES S WEINBERG IS DEAD ON: This is the Crisis of Faith, in faith and between faiths, where, one religion has evolved into three fragments and each is against one another. SO RELIGION IS THE PROBLEM.

We have to eliminate a phantom personal god who sadly is blamed for such bigotry by his followers, when in fact the fault lies in the literal interpretation of false theology.

What is the solution? We need to move to ETHICS; humanistic and spiritual based. The two belief systems that meet this criteria are Buddhism and Theosophy. The latter is a secular not religious approach to human affairs, but, does not challenge the conception of god, who is unknowable.

 

4

The epics and mythology are great companions to life. They are a pleasure, a treasure rather, to read again and again, and to relate to it in some way. They shape our minds in a way. All do not draw the same out of it. Each finds something to his like and make.

Are they a guide to morality? Yes and no.

People do not necessarily draw morals from epics. When a senior executive was undergoing tormenting moments and he thought that he was being wrongly pursued, I told him, rather audaciously, that we should draw inspiration from Rama and Yudhishtira, who suffered unfairly. But he brushed me aside saying, "No. They are gods." That is the travesty – people have deified the heroes, worship them and consider their model inapt for our daily life. I know 'religious' people who consider that in the workaday world, we need to be 'practical'. Anyone who is 'cranky' and wants to be principled is dubbed 'பிழைக்க தெரியாதவன் ' (one who does not know how to get on in life.)

If only a fraction of the fervour for Ram temple is channelled into following Rama in life, India must be the spiritual leader which we wrongly claim now. There will be great people among ordinary ones that are exceptions. That is no argument against the extant ethos.

 

 

Morality is shaped by contemporary society and culture, but mythology plays no mean role in evolution of culture.

 

9/5/18

Strands of morality

Morality differs from person to person esp. as regards

- oneself

- near relatives

- close friends

- unconnected persons

- unliked persons

Text book morality applies only to the last two categories. Manu niti applies to the last category.

 

 

 

 

May 19, 2016

Morals

We do not live for morals. A sportsman does not play for the rules of the game.

Morals give us the strength of character to live life with a sense of fair satisfaction.

 

21/6/2016

Morality and god

Morality is required whenever there is another and not required if only one is there. We have more than one and hence morality is required. When more than one are there, there are problems of competing claims and ownership. Morality is thus a human social need. Animals decide by force and territorial integrity. They do quarrel and some perish. Human beings do likewise despite morality.

What happens if morality is violated? Misery results and increases in proportion to the extent of violation. Animal instincts and practices reinforce themselves. The misery is not on one-to-one basis, but is random.

I see no need for god for morality. In fact, the case for god appears weak in the absence of credible explanation how evil gets away.

But, fear of god may improve compliance. That is no case for god, but for belief.

God is not negated because he is freed from responsibility for morality. It is perfectly possible to believe in god without having to need him for us to be moral.

Look at this:

“Dharma (as Bhishma tells Yudhishtira):

It is difficult to say what Dharma is accurately. Dharma was declared for the advancement and growth of all creatures. Therefore, that which leads to advancement and growth is Dharma. Dharma was declared for restraining creatures from injuring one another. Therefore, that is Dharma which prevents injury to creatures. Dharma is so called because it upholds all creatures. In fact, all creatures are upheld by Dharma . Therefore, that is Dharma which is capable of upholding all creatures. Some say that Dharma consists in what has been inculcated in the Srutis. Everything has not been laid down in the Srutis.”

 

May 26, 2017

Ethics

The more I think the more I am convinced that our ethical preoccupation with evil and suffering, and defining a goal of eternal life either physically or through an awakening, are just leisure time pursuits. We need to live this life and equip ourselves to live it. The sciences will enable us to understand the physical possibilities and the role of religion is to train our minds in useful channels. To build a hope of another life or suggest a route of escape from it are ideas overworked on wrong premise.

This life is neither a burden nor a trial. It is an opportunity and we need to turn it to good account, not for a future beyond our gaze, but for today and immediate tomorrow.

It is not that religion is a chimera, but its ostensible objective of a reward elsewhere is misplaced. Its usefulness is in the peace and togetherness it fosters in us. To pray, surrender, let the will of god prevail unquestioningly help us to carry on with some light in the way. The path is as arduous for a believer as for an infidel.

 

June 24, 2014

Ethics or envy?

We are ethically disturbed that others enjoy undeserved prosperity.

I thought this 12 years ago during a dinner chat, where the discussion was about how some x not in the gathering got undeserved things. It occurred to me that in ethics at least, we have strict code for others. Envy is good if it spurs you to positive action, not spite or sabotage. I feel, we have often too little information to judge others.

How much should one get is the sort of judgment I have in mind. I read that shibulal has 700 apartments in Seattle. Is this info required for us? Now, does he deserve it? Are we to judge and to what effect? My point is we need not concern ourselves with such info.

Our business is with our lives until at least we become Gandhi, Buddha, Warren Buffet or whatever.

On simply a practical plane, without drawing on belief, we do have neither a vakalat (authorisation to an attorney) nor the capacity to decide what wealth another person is entitled to. Nearer home, it distracts us from our own pursuits.

 

14/10/18

'Me too'

We are children of the god of righteousness. Indignation at the wrongs of others against conventional decency goes aflame in our minds and issues in choice words of condemnation.

We are products of nature that is wild, and civilization that tries to tame its wildness. One is long-standing and wily, the other is artificial and frail.

The inevitable differences between the sexes and their ‘fatal’ attraction are the culmination of evolution. There is no force that can counter them effectively.

Morality is a human invention for the orderly conduct of a society, and has to be humanly ensured. Mere law cannot help much. Upbringing, culture and faith will help, but all are slow processes and difficult to build at will.

No amount of criticism in media will have the desired effect. It is not that we must wink at it, but that we must realise that self-righteousness is vain. The action lies at home and school. Missing that, the society must discipline.

What we find is that the basic values are challenged, morals are no longer a subject in schools, and the media and courts are finding old rules irrational.

But, we must make sure that we are barking the right tree.

It is not men alone that are to blame. Women are equally to blame. Nature has made women different from men, more vulnerable. Every society has tried to balance it by restrictions on women. Men have exploited it and subjugated women. But, the original intention might have been benevolent. It was the need for protection that must have necessitated the restrictions. But, rightly, these restrictions have been overthrown on paper, but society is slow to change. It does not happen that this change will be from injustice to justice. It requires not verbal retaliations, but some practical ways of dealing with it. I am cent per cent sure that any amount of unanimous condemnation is not going to stop it.

When I walk around, I see the way people dress and move. We see movies and TV shows. They are provocative. What is the message they give? We are all human, not saints. If someone is restrained, it must be because of their background, but all may not have the same background. I feel that women must introspect and avoid exposing themselves to vulnerable situations. We must rein in voluptuous and violent men, but must first protect women from their reach. Women must take the first steps.

In my antiquated view, women alone can make a home, men cannot. Women alone can build a strong society, men cannot. They must play this role effectively. Equality and competition with men must proceed side by side with this, if we are to have a society where women cannot be molested by libidinous men.

 

Mar 31, 2006

Mathematics is a human invention. It is not imaginary. It is an interpretation of facts.

Morality is also a human intervention. It is not arbitrary. It accords with nature, its rhythm and responses. 

There need be no divine sanction for morality. Morality differs from society to society but maths appears to be consistent right across. The sanction for morality comes from our conscience and consciousness. Nature strikes back if we offend its collective force.

 

 

 

August 9, 2014 ·

Sin

Sin is an idea. Ideas are human, leaving aside Aesop’s Fables, Panchatantra and other such stories where animals are endowed with power of thinking.

Sin has a moral connotation and morals have been adjuncts to religions. What a sin is thus dictated by scriptures. There is no agreement between scriptures on even morals. What becomes a sin is therefore decided by one’s faith.

A parallel idea developed by man is crime. The system of jurisprudence defines crime and formulates punishment. A crime is a sin ordinarily, but the converse may not hold universally. The punishment for sin varies as one’s faith. It is slower and mostly invisible. A Tamizh saying goes, ‘தெய்வம் நின்று கொல்லும். அரசன் அன்றே கொல்வான். Deivam ninru kollum, Arasan Anre kolvan. God kills after a time, the king will kill instantly.’

Secular ideas have also sprung up on sin. ‘Whatever hurts others is sin’ is a line in a subhashita (proverb).

Sins have been graded depending on the impact, intention and even the victim. The same act is a sin for some, not for someone else. Killing is ordinarily a sin, but a hangman and a soldier do not carry sin while doing their duty. In Mahabharata, however, Yudhishtira is agitated to no mean extent about the sin of his having waged the war. Subtle differences are bound to arise in respect of all sins.

Is sin only a human idea or is their any natural force in it? Nature is guided by satyam and ritam, according to Indian reasoning of old. It is rather obvious. Satyam is existence and ritam is order. Anything that offends these two basic aspects would be sin for it will harm the prevailing form of existence. Promiscuity is known to lead to physical ailments that are incurable as yet and therefore would appear to be a sin in nature’s code. The man of religion looks at it as a cardinal sin with hell as the consequence. A permissive society develops methods of mitigating the consequence and instructing the members in diverse ways how to be careful while still engaging in it. We have no conclusive idea as to its psychological fallout even if an adverse physical condition does not precipitate.

Mahabharata holds moral to be subtle. It is not as simple as ‘telling a lie is a sin’. ‘If telling a truth will lead to evil, then it becomes sin, and telling a lie is not a sin if it is useful to uphold a virtue’. I have no difficulty in believing this, but those who are not born to this culture will find it repulsive. Interestingly, a variant of this concept is seen in deciding on crime by looking at extenuating circumstances.

The belief about what constitutes sin may also decide the ethos of a society.

There is no simple answer to what sin is and what its consequences are. All that appears obvious is that there is no visible and credible link between belief and events. Some sort of belief is, however, necessary to keep a working balance and apparent order in society. What that is seems to be historically settled. As for individuals, who are exercised on the issue, the solution may lie in relying on one’s conscience. I believe that anyone who is attentive to the issue of sin earnestly is bound to have a conscience that is neutral. A rough thumb rule is not to do anything ‘out of the way’ for personal gain or anything deliberately that causes hurt or inconvenience to others. As a Hindu, I believe that there is an invisible link between personality and destiny.

I think that world has gone awry because of the idea of sin and draconian punishment.

We must remove the idea of sin for making the world become human. Even if there is an after-life and a heaven, the first requirement for eligibility for it must be that we be human. To be human, we must understand that we develop in heterogeneous ways and our circumstances shape our actions along with our nature. Suffering is common and it is not as though only ‘bad’ people suffer. We must address each case on its merit and not on the basis of karma or scourge. We must try to instil socially desirable traits in people from young age, using faith as a starter if need be, but not as a regimentation.

Science is not god and science will not cure the world. It is by promoting understanding and recognising the right of others for their space and world view, and by adhering to truth and peace, that we can see better days. It will be an ongoing task.

 

Sin is a sinful idea. I do not know whether sin leads to misery, but the idea of sin does. Whatever we do, there will be an element of bad in it for some. It is not intentional, but in-built. If we want to build a responsible society, we have to sow the seeds of what responsibility is. A soldier, an executioner, a judge, etc. have defined responsibilities and they cannot sit in enquiry over the legitimacy of their role. These are extreme cases, but subtler ones arise in professional as well as personal life. The only sane guidance is what Valluvar has set down. “Think before you act, to mull over it post facto is a blemish.” Sin must have a similar dictum. No, it is not a call to sin, but to avoid getting into a mindset that hamstrings action and imperils further progress.

 

July 12

Transgression

Human nature is prone to transgression because the rules are against human nature. To improve compliance we should work at both ends: make rules more realistically, and inculcate the desired compliance by example and decent social persuasion – i.e. by c I found today that Buddhism derives its name not simply because Buddha (itself a reasoned name for Siddhartha) was its founder but because Buddhi is considered Atma in Buddhism, which Sankara disputes.

 

Evil

Evil is a construct of the mind, but natural that it arises in the mind. While the commonly perceived evil must be fought with all human might, individual and collective, we must appreciate that good and evil are inherent in the nature of the experienced world, and if one is eliminated, the other will go as well. Such a state may be attainable in human consciousness (which is what gives rise to this discriminatory perception) and is what is emancipation (moksha or nirvana). The world of nature, if we can observe suspending judgement, progresses relentlessly and impartially towards renewal and survival. A lion killing a deer sees no evil in it, even a man killing an animal for food sees no evil in it, until some dogma is introduced. A parent beating a child sees no evil in it, until a psychologist introduces his ideas into it. We can expand the list and see that the idea of evil arises from a standpoint that is arbitrary and unsupported in the totality of existence.

Evil will never be eradicated. It will survive even god's efforts to quell it. Otherwise we would not have had so many episodes of evil and so many avatars. The wonder is that there is so much good to make us live at reasonable ease.

 

Evil is in god.

The world is in god (otherwise god cannot be omnipresent or omnipotent) and evil is in the world (that is the explanation for suffering). The two add up to evil being in god.

There is no fallacy here. The problem is in our thinking of the world and life as sharply divided between good and evil. Good and evil are part of life, and evil is not a challenge to god or his authority, nor is good a tribute to him. If we look at things removing those filters, we will appreciate what is for what is.

 

Evil guides the world. The world will cease to exist when evil disappears. This is looking at what religion says from the ‘wrong’ end.

‘Evil’ and ‘live’ coincidentally are anagrams.

But for Satan, Adam and Eve would not have fallen from grace. And all of us would have missed a golden opportunity of being born.

But for the demons, God would not have taken so many ‘Avatars’.

 

 

REBIRTH

Rebirth

The Hindu belief about karma and rebirth sounds logical, but is far from a proven fact. The one ugly offshoot of it is treating all suffering as from some sin. It often blunts the help and comfort we have to offer at a human level to those that suffer. We judge and say ‘just desserts’ often. That is a wrong mindset. We do not know what is right and wrong from absolute standards, we do not know the background of someone’s action, we have no clue as to how a condition now has resulted from a past action. We have to brush aside value judgment and do what we can to alleviate any suffering. If it be god’s will that people should suffer, it becomes difficult to believe in such a god. Let us take god out of it and not comment how someone deserved his suffering or that it results from sin.

 

Oct 2018

The trouble with rebirth:

1. The a priori support for the theory is weak. If karma decides our fate, how did it begin? An exponent said with a laugh that it is a disallowed question.

2. We think that anything that happens to us is the result of some past birth. We do not realise that often it is the result of our doing in this birth itself.

3. If one is born as a lesser being, it is next to impossible that any realization that the birth was due to some sin would dawn. The lesser being will go through life in apparent bliss of the carnal pleasures. The purpose of the punishment would be defeated. It is not clear what punya of the lesser being will entitle it to a higher birth.

4. We would never know what it was in the previous birth which has caused a particular condition in this birth. Thus, the causality is loose and assumed, not defined and established.

5. We think that someone’s great ability is the result of some good in the past births and god’s grace, and their laudable achievements are because of some divinity in them. We fail to appreciate that it is, in genuine cases, the result of their untiring efforts and adherence to truth.

6. The division of people seems to hinge on rebirth. A man is born in a higher social strata because of past births according to this theory and is apparently unjust.

7. We deify and place on pedestal great people and worship them rather than emulate them and follow their advice.

8. If we have 8.4 million births, does this one matter?

9. It undermines human dignity. We all do different jobs and have varying degrees of understanding in the natural scheme of things. Any gradation is a human idea and supporting it with theory of karma and rebirth is contrived.

It is superior as a theory to belief in a whimsical god and eternal reward or punishment. There is no harm in believing in it, but as Somerset Maugham said about belief in god, we must understand that there is no proof for such belief.

 

Rebirth - Further thoughts

If one believes in rebirth, there is no scope for argument. Faith transcends reason and proof, but not reasonableness. It may come from tradition or inner conviction. It is weak in the former case, and is on firmer ground in the latter case. We cannot transmit inner conviction verbally. Sri Ramana used to do it by silence or provoking one to think. Answers that come from within do not care for validation from outside.

One devotee lost his son and was understandably in inconsolable grief. He wanted Sri Ramana to confirm that the son would be restored to him in some way, in another birth in the same family or some such thing. Sri Ramana was not forthcoming on this. Not that he believed or did not believe in it. We should take whatever lesson we want to or leave it.

Where some evidence is adduced, it triggers discussion.

The overwhelming evidence that is cited is disparities at birth even if born in a similar milieu or to same parents.

We must pause here to discuss the nature of proof.

When Einstein proposed theory of relativity, it was based on mathematics and intuition. There was no proof. Proof came much later, but came. When Big Bang theory was proposed, it was based on working backwards on the theory of expanding universe. It was pure theory to start with, but scientists have been working on proof in the form of cosmic radiations. Much evidence has gathered in, but still there are unanswered questions and puzzles. A mere theoretical explanation without some tangible correlation is not proof.

Look at the proof for god. It keeps changing as the old premises are demolished. There is some feeling that god explains what remains unexplained. That is totally unsatisfactory. The unknown cannot define god.

Take the explanation for why people are different and have different destinies even for similar efforts. Sometimes, there is an explanation. A student failing in an exam with no mistake in evaluation must look at his preparedness, not the stars. Often, people think that the stars are so placed that he is doomed to failure. In a Vedanta discussion, I heard that stars do not decide the destiny but indicate it. Karma decides destiny. Whatever its validity, it is unhelpful to extend it to action where better effort will be more rewarding. That was a digression, but with the point that karma theory may be overworked.

There is a genetic continuity and an observed recycling of everything in the universe. For example, it is said that the iron in our haemoglobin dates back to Big Bang days. There is a crutch for rebirth here, but not any proof. When things are recycled, the individual identity of an entity made of infinite atoms in mind-boggling combinations is lost irretrievably. Nature does not produce a duplicate. The difference between two individuals is contained in the genetic code which nature shuffles around as a mechanism to preserve and further life overall rather than any individual life. There is no clue in nature itself that human species has been its target or that it may not one day be supplanted. To say that nature is guided by karma in this complex mechanism is a hypothesis, not proof. We need proof for discussion.

We can broadly agree that results depend on our ability, effort and several unknown factors. Ability itself has a basic stock and capacity for improvement. What is decided by previous birth or births? Some credibility may be there in thinking that the innate, raw ability is what one owes to unknown past (no proof). For all practical purposes, we must take it as given and concentrate on improving our ability and intensifying our effort. The unknowns are unmanageable and are fate (not preordained, but beyond our control). But, the belief in karma and carryover has worked harder than tax authorities.

Everything is taken as predetermined and that thinking has done too much harm. To believe in one life that is known and work for the best in it taking in one’s stride the fait accompli can give us a healthier attitude to life and greater effort to improve as a society.

Our karma is strong for belief in karma. I have no illusion either that I have found something momentous or that belief in karma and rebirth will taper off. My effort is to present my heretical thought with as much cogency as my capacity will allow.

In lighter vein, I have received so much in this life from persons and situations that I will have to take many births to repay them. Overruling rebirths solves the problem!

 

Rebirth revisited

All my life contrary things occur in my mind with equal force, and evidence or testimony for the zigzagging views also presents by some coincidence.

I often get connected to what my heart is after.

That is perhaps a grandiose way of identifying my fickleness with some mysticism.

As I was almost done with my thoughts on rebirth, my wife got a present for her birthday: “Only Love is Real: The Story of Soulmates Reunited.” It is a story, the preface says, based on real incidents in the clinical experience of Dr. Brian Weiss, a psychiatrist, who has made a fortune as a writer. How people who connect heart to heart continue an unfinished relationship of an earlier birth is the theme of this book. I fervently wish that, even if it is real, we should not recall our relationship in previous births. As it happens there are enough complications with relationships known for certain in this birth. There is no case to add to the confusion and claims!

I do not doubt the claim of Dr. Weiss, nor feel compelled to review my rejection of rebirth, as the idea of a surviving soul seems more wistful than indicated in unbiased experience.

Weiss quotes in the opening of each chapter various celebrities. Some I reproduce.

“The soul of man is like to water;

From Heaven it cometh

To Heaven it riseth

And then returneth to earth,

Forever alternating.”

“I am certain that I have been here as I am now a thousand times before, and I hope to return a thousand times.”

GOETHE

“Know, therefore that from the greater silence I shall return …. Forget not that I shall come back to you … A little while, a moment of rest upon the wind, and another woman shall bear me.”

KAHLIL GIBRAN

My life as I lived it had often seemed to me like a story that has no beginning and no end. I had the feeling that I was a historical fragment, an excerpt for which the preceding and succeeding text was missing. I could well imagine that I might have lived in former centuries and there encountered questions I was not yet able to answer; that I had to be born again because I had not fulfilled the task that was given to me.

CARL JUNG

 “So the idea of reincarnation contains a most comforting explanation of reality by means of which Indian thought surmounts difficulties that baffle the thinkers of Europe.”

(Reading this my mind went in its own track:

1.Mark Tully‘s book: There are no fullstops in India

2.When I was in SBI, London, one Britisher Personnel Manager observed, ‘You do not want to close any case.’)

 

ALBERT SCWEITZER.

“I hold that when a person dies

His soul returns again to earth;

Arrayed in some new flesh-disguise,

Another mother gives him birth.

With sturdier limbs and brighter brain

The old soul takes the road again.”

JOHN MASEFIELD‘

“It is the secret of the world that all things subsist and do not die, but only retire a little from sight and afterwards return again. Nothing is dead; men feign themselves dead, and endure mock funerals and mournful obituaries, and there they stand looking out of the window, sound and well, in some new strange disguise.

RALPH WALDO EMERSON

“I have been here before,

But when or how I cannot tell;

I know the grass beyond the door,

The sweet keen smell,

The sighing sound, the lights around the shore.

You have been mine before –

How long ago I may not know;

But just when at what swallow’s soar

Your neck turned so,

Some veil did fall, - I knew it all of yore.”

DANTE GABRIEL ROSSETH

“My doctrine is: Live so that thou mayest desire to live again – that is thy duty – for in any case thou wilt again.”

NIETZSCHE

“It is again a strong proof of men knowing most things before birth, that when mere children they grasp innumerable facts with such speed as to show that they are not then taking them in for the first time, but remembering and recalling them.”

CICERO

“The deeds of the preceding life give direction to the present life.”

TOLSTOY

“O youth or young man, who fancy that you are neglected by the Gods, know that if you become worse you shall go to the worse souls, or if better to the better, and in every succession of life and death you will do and suffer what like may fitly suffer at the hands of like. This is the justice of heaven.”

PLATO

All romantic! Romance seizes hold of our hearts and chaperons in our life more than bitter reason does.

Belief in rebirth has spanned across all ages and peoples.

 

RAMAKRISHNA

Feb 12, 2004

Sri Ramakrishna’s relevance is not in his teachings as much as in his being which was/is beyond the limitations of his body. I was thinking this before reading Narendra’s telling him ‘I come to see you, not to listen to you.’

 

OTHER FAITHS

Buddhism and Advaita

I am a man in quest of truth. As early as Rig Veda it has been wished आ नो भद्राः क्रतवः सन्तु May good come to us from all sides. Incidentally Buddhism is an offshoot of the knowledge that was in vogue; not a revelation so much as enlightenment. What Buddha says and what Vedanta says are different only subtly. I have no doubt Buddha was a realised man and one of the great souls that adorned the earth. I am also attracted to the personality of Jesus portrayed by his apostles. Both of these greats emphasised love and compassion, and we witness today too much hatred, and their relevance is the greater now. As to truth, it is never anyone's or any sect's privileged property. I denounce claims to superiority of any faith or faithlessness.

Buddhism is pure science.

Advaita is science plus faith.

Dvaita (or any shade of it) is pure faith.

Buddhism and Advaita (which have influenced each other in my view) approach Truth in a scientific way, with logic applied on phenomena (empirical world and the sentient experience). Buddhism sidestepped God, whereas Advaita advocates God but not as something outside the universe, but as the very universe in its vibrancy (reality, consciousness and infinity). The other faiths see God as the non-material cause of the universe, with a distinct geographic presence (heaven, kailasa, vaikunta etc.) which cannot be verified by science and scientific enquiry. Buddhism and Advaita find echo in higher physics. cultural reinforcement.

 

 

 

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Christianity

‘CAN MAN LIVE WITHOUT GOD?’ by RAVI ZACHARIAS

The book is written in excellent prose and is good for those Christians who are looking for guidance not to trust outside Jesus.

The fallacies in the book for a non-Christian are many.

Firstly, God is not a theorem to be proved. A thing to be proved becomes an object. God is not an object. (To me God is the only Subject). No one should try to prove God and anyone trying to do so is ignorant. Far greater minds have gone into it and their only worthwhile statements are pithy and often they communicate in silence only, like Bhagavan Sri Ramana. Words are creation of man and imperfect and can never encompass the perfect. By definition Godhood is ineffable.

We find in Ravi more of a pseudo-Vedanthin’s intellectual arrogance than Christian charity, humility and love. The core message of Christianity is love and by spreading this message we can realise the lost paradise and save the magnificent creation from satanic diabolism of wanton immorality and war mongering, to speak in Christian paradigm.

Ravi falls into the pitfall of selecting the adverse points of any faith or philosopher and tries to disprove it in a few sentences and arguments. For his purpose such brevity may be necessary, but to arrive at the TRUTH it is woefully inadequate.

Exclusivity in the sense of uniqueness or oneness of the Absolute is nothing new. Upanishads, which predated Christ, talk of this.

In disposing of Kant, Ravi finds reason to be undependable since many different people will come to different conclusions on morality. So what? The trouble is obsession with morality and trying to find a justification for morality. Feeble minds need crutches to accept morality. To bind such minds, a scriptural authority and fear in punishment in the life to come after death are convenient. Morality is not the purpose of life; it is the rule of the game. As our experience matures we no longer look for support for morality, but try to grasp the TRUTH per se. One has to try with one’s total personality. TRUTH is a soulful longing whereas reason is a minor subset. All reasoning and reasonable people have conceded that reason cannot help one way or the other in coming to a conclusion about the existence of God. That is the greatest victory for those who feel the existence of God. A believer does not seek proof, but the means to understand the TRUTH. Christianity and all theistic faiths would shut out this option. Believe and be saved, or be damned. A non-believer can neither be converted nor saved by arguments and reason. Nor can he be eternally condemned as nothing in God’s creation (to accept this popular belief for argument’s sake) can go waste.

In the case of Soren Kierkegaard, Ravi dismisses his case as lacking recourse to reason.

Ravi upholds the case of Christianity as a civilizing influence, but there have been civilizations before Christ.

Ravi’s gibe at Russell and Nietzsche are uncharitable and unchristian.

Bible and the biblical dissertation of Ravi touch a chord at the emotional level. Not necessarily at the spiritual level. We cannot understand the true nature of God by arguments and emotion, the two tools tried by Ravi. It has to be attained by spiritual enlightenment. It is seeing the TRUTH for oneself as easily as we can see each other or the other objects. No one person has been able to relate the experience of mankind under one all-pervasive theory. It is this mystery, which makes us journey forth to find the TRUTH behind mystery.

Why live at all? Because we want to live. We do not look for any authority to live. In fact, many of us like to live for ever and fear death. It is the fear of death that daunts us, not fear of life. The meaning for life is not to be found in death. Nor in an after-life.

 

Is Jesus a historic person or a symbol? If he was a historic person, no matter there was resurrection (which is as hard to believe as any miracle), he is short of being God or God’s son. If he is a symbol, any other symbol may be equally valid.

It is gross misstatement to say that any strand of Hinduism says, "God is, I am not,” As an Indian, Ravi’s conclusion, “ I am not” as the essence of Hinduism is unpardonable. It is so different from

“Aham Brahmasmi’

“Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma”

“Tatvamasi”.

Aside from morality, the second obsession of the starting point of Western metaphysics is evil and the suffering of good people. We think conveniently that we are entitled to enjoy. No one ever bothered to ask why. Enjoyment and suffering are two sides of the same coin.

Ravi does not answer many basic issues. Firstly, the dichotomy between faith and reason is not explained. Faith cannot be at cross-purposes with reason. Secondly, what is the salvation for millions of people who may not have come to know of Christ? Thirdly, why are there so many sects in the ONLY religion? Fourthly, if God is all-powerful, then why did evil dodge Him? Fifthly, why are we so unequal?

There can be a number of questions and neither Ravi nor anyone else can answer such questions to everyone’s satisfaction. It is not required. The problem with Ravi is his claim of exclusivity for Jesus and his pathetic attempt to prove God.

Ravi postulates that there were 4 options for God and does not explain why God did not exercise the alternative of creating no world at all.

Ravi proceeds beautifully to show how our wonder at childhood emanated from ignorance. The wonder at adulthood is an extension of the same, Advaita in short. Ravi labours otherwise not so wisely.

The reasons adduced by Ravi why the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact are fallacious. ‘Jesus predicted his own resurrection’. We don’t know this except from the apostles. The apostles lived at a time when the dividing line between truth and faith was often blurred. It is so even for Ravi. The other statements are equally invalid in support of resurrection. If anyone believes it, I have no quarrel, but I cannot. It does not make the Bible any lesser. I do not require for my belief that God should be born, die and be resurrected, leaving witnesses.

Ravi takes a few messages from Bible and tries to construct a view that Christianity is THE religion and Christ THE way. Along the way, he pooh-poohs other religions picking holes at their aberrations. One can do the same to Christianity. The crusades are explained funnily by Ravi. Why did such a superior, or the only authentic, faith give rise to such a monstrosity? Even now there is a rejection of other faiths by Ravi by persuasion.

The whole book of Ravi can help a believer in Christianity to fortify his belief, but cannot establish the superiority of Christianity, which is a misconception. The book of Ravi is an intellectual exercise and a piece of wasted eloquence. Bible itself is a great book and radiates spirituality at the ordinary level. It is a valuable guide to spirituality.

 

 

Kingdom of God

22/2/2001

“The Kingdom of God is within you.”

We are attracted by appellations. To be king is perhaps the highest material achievement. To attain a kingdom is a distant dream. The Bible says it is within you. But when we mature, we realise kingdom is after all a vanity and as passing as anything else. We drop the kingdom. ‘God is within you.’ As we get more mature wisdom, God as an externality also drops off. The operative word becomes ‘within’. It is the inside that causes all the perception of outside.

The inside is what we have to understand if we are to get to the Truth. When we progress further in this vein, the inside also appears a contraption. ‘You’ alone remain. That is the ultimate reality. The Upanishadic dictum ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ says as much. Note that ‘Tvam’  i.e. ‘You’ is the centre of this pregnant passage.

Bible puts it in the end in keeping with English grammar not without metaphysical significance. When all else drops off, ‘You’ alone remain. 

 

 

Apl 12, 2006

If only all can follow he precept of Bible ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’!

You have to love yourself first.

There is no question about whether the neighbour is good or bad, lovable or not. no such choice.

What if the neighbour is not good?

I believe that if we sincerely love someone, he will reciprocate in equal if not greater measure. We have to take the first step.

We do not need loads of messages to make a paradise of earth. It is the absence of love that creates tension. It is the love of power and superiority that has set the world in a spin of self-inflicted pain.

If majority of the people practice this precept, we will be in a golden era. Evil will not go away altogether, but if evil fears itself, which will happen if good predominates, we will be living in a pleasant society.

 

 

7/6/18

Proselytization

Christians and Muslims must first decide which is the better religion. Then, Hindus will have a clear choice which religion they have to convert to. Until such time, they must leave Hindus alone. Already millions of Hindus are suffering in hell for having been Hindus. An increase in that number should not matter.

 

Conversions

It is my theory that the entry of tech-savvy foreign banks woke up the Indian banks to technology. The parallel I am going to attempt is the invasion of India by Abrahamic faiths. They acted as an eye opener and cleansed the native religion. It is full marks to the native religion that it has so far withstood the powerful attacks and has not succumbed wholesale like many societies around the globe.

The reality is that the converted people, mostly the descendants of the converted people, are quite happy and find no reason to revert to the native religion. Many of them have attained status even as priests in the new religion, which they could not have hoped for otherwise.

The doctrinal superiority of one religion over another would hardly matter, nor a scientific temper. People live by feeling and not by reason.

We must realise this reality and not think that all conversion was bad.

From Lucia Osborne on Sri Ramana:

“Once He immediately gave permission to a Brahmin to leave the Hindu fold and become a Catholic. When His (Sri Ramana’s) mother started expostulating He told her not to worry, that it was all right for this man.”

 

8.1.82 

How naïve a faith it is which proclaims that only its adherents are the chosen ones in the kingdom of God! Can God be so cruel that he created life with so much inequality and punishes the ones whom he has created less equal? What communion can we desire with such a partisan God?

Any proselytisation is negation of God and his catholicity. Conversion from one religion to another, with or without ceremony, with or without real change of mind, is preposterous and irreligious.

Has God created evil or is evil a by-product of God's creation? Or, is evil a clandestine entry into the world opposing the scheme of God who for that moment has lost his omnipotence? No answer can be satisfactory. Evil and suffering watered the seeds of intuitive speculation that discovered a Prime Cause, and by their relentless perpetuation they have loosened the grip of religion.

The simple answer, and the most unsatisfactory one, for all these in intellectual terms is - human wisdom even at its zenith is far short of the required power to know it.

If one is serious to pursue a metaphysical path, he is free to do so and discover the Atman and its unity or disunity with what surrounds it or of which it is a part. Philosophy cannot tell the nature of the Atman no more than can a text tell how sweet honey is. It is an experience.

 

 

 

Islam

2000

Jan 25

Religion is ultimately a question of faith. It is either ‘is’ (asthikya) or ‘is not’ (nosthikya).

There is a lot of truth in Islamic condemnation of worship of idols and ascribing human form to God. How can the unbounded be bound in a form? A dying God is anathema. But, to my mind, the part of Islam which believes in the various other human attributes to God (pleased with praise and submission and enraged by rebellion and heresy) seems invalid. If God cannot be born or die, he cannot be said to possess other qualities of humans.

 

 

Jihad

I read this highlighted comment in an article:

“Diminishing the appeal of jihād requires addressing the prevalence of inequalities, on a global level.”

That is food for thought. In more ways than one, the west esp. USA has been triggering jihadism. First, the conspicuous consumption and flaunting of economic and military might have been stirring envy. Those who struggle to eke out a livelihood outnumber the moneybags overwhelmingly. Second, the political alignments and backing of rulers without any principle (while insisting on democracy, dictators have been supported) have rankled. Third, actions like second invasion of Iraq disturbed the fragile balance of power in the Middle East. Fourth, negotiating with Taliban and siding with Pakistan has kept the fire of extremism aflame. Fifth, the policy of arming countries across the globe for economic gains and political leverage has enabled armed struggle.

Will jihadis win or will the west snuff it out? The ‘இழுபறி izhupari’ (tug of war) is likely to continue.

There is a lesson for us in India. It is not possible to end terrorism just by counter-terrorist military operations. We need to have a consensus about justice and progress shared by diverse groups. Politicians of all hues are too busy in fishing in troubled waters. Beneath the veneer, they all share the same DNA.

God becomes relevant for the ordinary people in these circumstances.

 

Islam must have the largest number of believing adherents. I have not come across any heretical Muslim in my limited contacts or one who is not devout sincerely.

A colleague told me in 2002 that Islam means peace. That does not seem to be correct, but it is as well that it does mean and that peace prevails.

There is a tendency to equate Muslims with the cruelty perpetrated by the invaders. We do not associate Christians with crusades or Hindus with social iniquities. We must expect all people to be new copies with altered genes, not Xerox of distant relatives. It is necessary to isolate terrorists and create an atmosphere of social cohesion and amity on the basis of equality of faiths and need for peaceful coexistence, for which India stood always.

 

29.3.99

Islam’s claim to putting an end to idolatry is unacceptable. So long as symbols are venerated in any form, idolatry will survive. Why should we be apologetic about it? We require symbols, but too much of importance to symbols at the cost of what they symbolise has to be deprecated. In the end, there is just one reality but to live this life, we have to cope with plurality and diversity.

Samadhi is different from santhosha. Any association is anathema to samadhi- it is a pure state of consciousness without ‘I’. Santhosha can come only in the differentiated state. This world is driven by emotions. The good and bad, the right and wrong, virtue and vice stand in balance. All the time we are aiming at tilting the balance in the way of good, right or virtue. A state of one-sided world where there will be only good, right or virtue is a self-contradictory thesis. Heaven or hell is thus not possible. Any enjoyment or suffering will be in this world.

 

 

Today is the 126th birth anniversary of Sri Chandrasekhara Saraswati Mahaswami, variously known as Maha Periyava, Maha Swami, Kanchi Paramacharya, according to the English calendar. He was born on 20th May, 1894. He became a legend in his own lifetime.

Let us look at a very thrilling incident in the early years of his pontificate. It is needed in these times though no human now can hope to even remotely match this kind of humility. This may even be difficult to believe. Had it not come from the horse’s mouth itself.

 

We cannot question faith and experience as we cannot get into the mind of another.

But, if someone says that he is sure to go to heaven, we can ask how he knows. If he says that it is his belief, he withdraws from argument. If he says that he knows it from some revelation to another person, we may ask how that is validated, and again argument is not possible if he says that his conscience confirms it.

But, if he tries to turn earth into hell for him to enter heaven, we have every responsibility to put him down.

 

 

Islam spread by destruction (Siva) and Christianity by corruption (Krishna). Hinduism did not seek to spread.

 

15/11/2001

Pascal postulated that a believer is taking an insurance in that if there was no God, nothing is lost, and if there is one, his belief will land him in heaven. It does not appear to me to be any wise. The problem of belief will not just be God, the question is which God and what commandments to follow. It does no credit to the faith or the believer. We can take no position on God without ambiguity, doubt and discomfort. The problems are blown up by Christian and like faiths which do not satisfactorily explain life on earth.

The hostility between Christianity and Islam guarantees the security of other faiths. Both these faiths have spread by unspiritual means and survival by mass appeal of egalitarianism which never obtains.

Theocracy is the idea of Abrahamic religions. Their calling for secularism is like Raul accusing others of dynastic ambition.

There is nothing to convince a sane thinker that Christianity is the ultimate religion, or Islam is the last word from god, or any such claim to speciality by Hinduism or any other religion, or atheism.

 

RATIONALISM

Religion on par with other enagagements

If religion is wrong because it is creation of man, those opposed to religion do adopt other creations of man without any qualms.

If religion is false because it promises unverifiable benefits, those opposed to religion do indulge in other pursuits of similar overtures.

If religion is bad because it is enmeshed in corruption, those opposed to religion have not abandoned other human institutions because of corruption.

If followers of religion are to be ridiculed for belief in something intangible, those opposed to religion are more guilty because they are after pursuits less edifying to the mind or healthy to the body.

Rationalists do not act on reason, but pretend to do so.

Bertrand Russell was an agnostic. He waxes eloquent about love, tradition and attachment to one’s place of birth. All these are not rational. You can of course justify them. That is, a rationalist finds reason for what he does. You can extend that sort of reason to faith also.

 

30/9/18

Questioning belief

Do we have the right to question belief? Certainly. In fact, not just the right, but a duty. But, whose belief? Our own, not others’.

We cannot have the same belief as when our parents told us ‘umaachi kochikkum’ (god will be angry). We have to advance in our belief as we experience and learn. The more staunch our belief the more strongly experience will reinforce it, and the greater the need to question it. We do not turn our back on belief, but become mature.

Can I question the belief of another? What for? What do I gain? Others have got an independent life from which they have to learn. But, thinkers and philosophers have questioned belief of one kind or another. Where it is genuine and not vicious or propagandist, it is for seeking truth, and is a healthy exercise. Vedanta is the first documented evidence of such questioning.

There is a crucial difference between questioning the belief of others and questioning the veracity of some incidents or interpretation that has come down to us by hearsay or by some recent brainwave. If I question the veracity of some story connected with a gret soul, I do not question his greatness or the faith of those who follow him. His greatness is not the result of an apocryphal story, but something more intrinsic and divine. Those who do not see the difference are yet to grow up.

 

 

May 22, 2014 ·

I like irrationality

In my village, an old lady remarked about a child that appeared detached, ‘The child has no trace of agnanam.’ Literally, agnanam means ignorance. As attachment to another is because of the body which is not permanent, agnanam has come to mean affection in vernacular. I prefer this irrationality.

Charles, the timeless heir apparent to the English throne, nursed a partiality for Camilla though wedded to Diana, the heart throb of millions. A friend remarked, ‘How can he prefer an owl to a parrot?’ I made a similar remark to a friend regarding another such partiality. He smiled and said, ‘Love is blind.’ I understood its meaning when he married. I prefer love to rationality.

Belief in God is not based on facts and logic. It is rooted in instinct and fed by hope and expectation. I have derived great satisfaction (pleasant illusion in the words of Russell) from belief. I prefer belief to rationality.

My actions are not based on cold calculations but on my nature and habit, result of genetics and society. I have the audacity to say that all human beings are guided similarly.

Rationalism is a false claim of accordance with reality as reality is indecipherable.

 

Reason does not rule in life

Rationalists do not act on reason, but pretend to do so.

Bertrand Russell was an agnostic, not a rationalist. He waxes eloquent about love, tradition and attachment to one’s place of birth. All these are not rational. You can of course justify them. That is what I mean by saying that a rationalist finds reason for what he does. You can extend that sort of reason to faith also.

We are overawed by science and assume that we can lead a life based on the findings of science. There is a catch. Life is dependent on reason in a very limited way. Not that life is unreasonable or that science is away from life. We live life by instinct honed over a very long time and it is true for a scientist as for any life. Science has certainly helped us understand a lot and added to our comfort and variety. Science is also a source of joy to minds that want to know compulsively. But like all fields of knowledge that is humanly conceived, science is only a way of looking at reality, not vital or conclusive.

 

 ஒருவன் கணக்கில் புலியாக விரும்பினால் அவன் கணித ஆசிரியரிடம் கற்றுக்கொண்டும், அயரா முயற்சியாலுமே அதை அடைய முடியும். ஒன்றுமே செய்யாமலிிருந்துவிட்டு கணக்காவது புண்ணாக்காவது எல்லாம் பொய் என்று சொன்னால் அது மடமை என்று பட்டென்று சொல்லிவிடுவோம். கடவுளைப் பற்றிய விஷயத்தில் மட்டும் நாம் இதனுடைய உபயோகத்தை உணர்வதில்லை. கடவுள் ஏதோ நம் வேலைக்காரன் போலவும், நாம் நினைத்த அல்லது கூவிய நேரத்தில் நம் முன்னே ஆஜராக வேண்டும் என்றும், இல்லாவிட்டால் கடவுள் வாதம் புரட்டும் பித்தலாட்டமும் என்று புறக்கணிக்கத் தயங்குவதில்லை. ஒரு கணித மேதை உயர் கணித் உண்மையை நமக்கு விளக்கினால் அது நமக்குப் புரியாது. காரணம் நம் மன அப்யாசமும் பக்குவமும் அதற்குப் போதாது. கடவுள் பற்றி ஒரு ரிஷி சொல்வதை நாம் பரிஹாசம் செய்ய நமக்குக் கூச்சம் ஏற்படுவதில்லை. அது மட்டும் நம் மேதா விலாசத்துக்கு உட்பட்ட விஷயமாக நாம் கருதிகிறோம். நம்மையே நாம் நிர்தாக்ஷிண்யமாக அலசிப் பார்த்தால் நாம் நினைப்பது, சொல்வது, செய்வது இவற்றில் உண்மையின் கூற்றுக்குப் புறம்பாக பல சங்கதிகள் ஊடுருவியிருப்பதை உணர்வோம்.

 

We live in a reasonable world but not in a rational way.

Physical laws, dharma and morality are deduced from the working of nature which follows a pattern. Nothing happens by chance. We do not know the cause in many cases because of many factors at work and our own limitations. Even when we improve our knowledge progressively and collectively, the system’s complexity proves tough to crack.

Knowledge of the above does not mean that we live our life according to reason. We do not. No one is a rationalist. Everyone proceeds on certain assumptions and beliefs.

Recently I got to know Kahneman’s (a psychologist who won nobel prize in economics) work on rationality in economics. I just read the review and it is more rewarding to read the long review rather than the insipid short post of mine:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/books/review/thinking-fast-and-slow-by-daniel-kahneman-book-review.html

 

Atheism

What atheists have to say about religion

Here is what knowledgeable atheists have to say on religion. It has to be taken with caution as excerpts do not comprehensively summarise their views.

Bertrand Russell

“In religion, and in every deeply serious view of the world and of human destiny, there is an element of submission, a realisation of the limits of human power, which is somewhat lacking in the modern world, with its quick material successes and its insolent belief in the boundless possibilities of progress.”

Will Durant

“Religion – the use of man’s supernatural beliefs for the consolation of suffering, the elevation of character, and the strengthening of social instincts and order.”

(He describes eight elements of civilisation with religion as the fourth.)

Yuval Noah Harari

“There are no gods in the universe, no nations, no money, no human rights, no laws and no justice outside the common imagination of human beings.

Unlike lying, an imagined reality is something that everyone believes in, and as long as this communal belief persists, the imagined reality exerts force in this world.”

He describes in detail how Peugeot: “How exactly did Armand Peugeot, the man, create Peugeot, the company? In much the same way that priests and sorcerers have created gods and demons throughout history..”

The point is that religion is a creation of human minds in much the same way like almost everything else. To say that everything is real, but religion alone is false is untenable.

I respect the atheists like the above, but the home-brewed atheists are shallow and their atheism is not from knowledge but from hatred and with a view to hurting the feelings of certain sections of believers. One can have nothing but contempt for hatred-mongers.

Atheism has a place, but not the supreme place. It is one more opinion of human mind.

 

 An atheist believes that life is mechanical. A theist believes that it spiritual. A theist understands the mechanical part but sees something more.

An atheist is guided by the laws deduced from observation whereas the theist goes by insight gained by introspection apart from the laws.

An atheist is fixated on the symbols created to commemorate the insights, but a theist can rise above that.

All that is there is life. So long as we believe in it for ourselves and others, it is good enough.

Religion has been useful for an overwhelming majority and will continue to be so.

 

 

Friday, June 13, 2014

Atheism

Atheists have no right to mock at and wound the feelings of believers as though they have all the wisdom in the world. They may keep their ammunition dry and use it at those who try to convince them of the existence of God. They need not strut about spraying the bullets at random.

Atheism is nothing new. It is as old as religion. Charvakas, who believed that the world perceptible to the sense organs is the paramount reality, were there in Vedic times. I read a story related from the scriptures by Paramacharya. The believers tried to convince the charvakas that God was beyond the senses, but did not cut ice. They performed a sacrifice and God manifested in a form that humans could see. The charvakas laughed and said, ‘All along you said that God is not intelligible to the senses. Now we see whom you call God. How can we believe him to be God?’ The moral is that atheism is met with in the scriptures and also that arguments may not help in understanding.

Two millennia ago, India produced two great men, Mahavira and Buddha, who rejected scriptural authority and did not accept God.

In the last generation, we had J.K. who discoursed sans God.

In Tamil Nadu, Periyar and his alleged followers went about frantically to destroy belief in God. They gave a new twist based on dubious history that God was essentially Aryan and that it was a clever ploy for gaining hegemony over Dravidians. Half a century later, we find that Tamil Nadu has more than 90% believers. Even a 100% count is no proof of God. The point is there is a felt need for belief.

In my student days, I had friends who read leading rationalists and would argue about the falsity of God. A friend asked me whether a child would come to know of God if it were brought up in total isolation. At least Hinduism is clear that we get to know of soul and God only through the scriptures firsthand or from those who have read them. There is nothing new in it either.

I was not born with my name. My father gave me my name. Do I tell all that since I was not born as Chellappa, they should not call me so? I was born naked. Do I become a digambar Jain? I was brought up in my father’s house. Do I quit it the moment I realize it? Take any aspect of our external living, it is the result of human evolution, development and civilization. We dare not challenge it on the ground that it was not a congenital phenomenon.

Rationalists are not all that rational, after all. They apply reason where it does not hurt personally. Believers belong to the same species as rationalists and apply belief where it helps. In rare instances, believers hit a spark and become beacons of spirituality and illumine the world. They give more peace and joy than the talk of dry reason can ever afford. That is because they align with life holistically with the whole being rather than with just one faculty of reason.

 

 

22/12/2010

If you believe that there is no God, that is the end of it. God will not appear before you to confirm his presence. There is no complete atheist. Everyone is in doubt and ambivalent.

 

Heretical thoughts

1. All religions are based on the creative ideas of many human beings.

2. Revelation and incarnation are wonderful ideas from fertile human minds.

3. Bhakti is useful as an attitude and an enabler, but is infatuation as an end (cf. Marx’s comparison to opium).

4. Is it not a paradox to say that the fruit of liberation is surrender?

5. All of us are assured of videha mukti!

6. Even the virtuous or the renunciates are in no hurry to quit this life for the better one.

7. If you sin abundantly you may live long because god takes away early those whom he likes!

8. Purusha refers to god as in Purusha Suktam. Purusha is one of the thousand names of Vishnu. So, aporusheyam would mean not created by god!

9. We use terms like god, fate, maya to overcome our ignorance.

Who created the world? God.

Why did he create? Maya.

Why do catastrophes strike, good people suffer? Fate.                                    

Replace the word in each answer with ‘I do not know’. It will fit in.

 

But, there is a grand TRUTH before which these are shadows. We have an inkling of it but it is veiled.

 

April 23, 2016 ·

Heretical thoughts

Sin is a sinful idea. I do not know whether sin leads to misery, but the idea of sin does. Whatever we do, there will be an element of bad in it for some. It is not intentional, but in-built. If we want to build a responsible society, we have to sow the seeds of what responsibility is. A soldier, an executioner, a judge, etc. have defined responsibilities and they cannot sit in enquiry over the legitimacy of their role. These are extreme cases, but subtler ones arise in professional as well as personal life. The only sane guidance is what Valluvar has set down. “Think before you act, to mull over it post facto is a blemish.” Sin must have a similar dictum. No, it is not a call to sin, but to avoid getting into a mindset that hamstrings action and imperils further progress.

 

The world appears topsy-turvy because our minds are topsy-turvy. The rules and expectations we framed were given a fake divine authorship. God never spoke except in the language of nature. He never promised us a long life or fulfilment of our recurrent desires. The wise ones go by intelligible experience without astronomical expectations. God to them is in what they see and understand.  

 

Worry, fear, god enter into our psyche when we have nothing better to do, or when we are desperately in need of an accomplice.

 

It is inconsistent to glorify vision of an angel or god, and ridicule delirium. Both are an away-from-normal perception and in so far as they are not replicable for a good number, they are only anecdotal.

 

 

In a lecture when someone asks a doubt and the lecturer has no clue, he will say, ‘I will come to it shortly.’ He will not. The promise of another world is like that. 

 

Do I have a future as an individual? No. Does this negate God? No. While the ‘I’ is not the body, ‘I’ does not seem to stand alone without the body.

The world we see is actually an image, a virtual image, formed by the lens of the eyes. The world is just seen indirectly by us. A virtual image has no existence apart from the object. Thus whatever we see is not ‘real’. But it reflects a reality. That reality is not the mental images we form, by convention and indoctrination, through the medium of our desires. When we remove these interferences, a tall order, what we can realize is the Reality, call it God if you like.

What do we do with our life? Does it depend on an analysis? We live. We make choices. The broad guideline is that good acts lead to good results and bad ones to bad results. It is a guideline. People do transgress, some with troubling impunity – troubling to others, not to the transgressors. 

While we should be ethical, we should not live as though we are the arbiters for ethics. We have no mandate for moral policing of the world. It is not given to us in consideration for our peace. 

God is common to all and is neutral. Our prayers reach our own self, not anywhere outside. If it gives peace, it is welcome. If it looks ridiculous, its absence is no sin. 

We cannot arrive at any conclusion about God that is built on cast-iron proof. 

 

April 12, 2016 ·

One more controversial post:

I view ithihasa and purana as stories to inculcate values and devotion, as exhaustive and wonderful parables. That way, I resolve the inconsistencies and ethical issues that arise in the error-prone mind while reading them. I am no one to say about their ‘reality.’

Upanishads do not talk of any personal god (Paramacharya has pointed out two instances where they do, Katopanishad and Swetaswatara Upanishad, and they are not central to the ideas advanced).

 

2006?

My current state of belief:

1.     There is no heaven or hell physically.

2.     Creation is a myth. Soul is neither born (created) nor destroyed.

3.     God is real and is independent of a person’s belief.

4.     Evil and suffering will be there along with good and enjoyment.

5.     There shall be no resurrection or rebirth.

6.     This life is complete in itself.

7.     Religion is for living this life well.

8.     The only intellectual activity worth is to find out the nature of our existence.

 

Religion vs atheism

It is a beautifully argued article by Yuval Noah Harari, but it must be remembered that the opposite view can be expressed by someone with as much force. There is nothing like a priori opinion or objective opinion. Opinion by nature is subjective. The fact that it appeals to a large number of people does not validate it – precisely the point made in the article - can be applied to his opinion also.

Religion is an opinion (मतं). Atheism is another opinion. What is true?

It can be easily seen that the idea of revelation, incarnation and scripture has proceeded from human mind with a human perspective. What is however not easily seen is that every other branch of knowledge or description of experience has the same bias. We are capable of nothing better.

Religion has laboured with the idea that human beings have a special place in the universe and are assured of a permanence. The modern view of science tends pretty much to the same predilection. We think that human beings can overtake the cosmic design (accidental or engineered) and ensure a permanent place for human beings, that mortality can be a thing of the past (some pleonasm is inevitable). (cf. Physics of the Future By Dr. Michio Kaku).

 

The one belief that keeps reinforcing itself in me is that universe is a composite life form with human beings being a small and insignificant part of it. There is no plan, no ground for any assurance, for preserving the sapiens. You may believe in god and redemption and a heaven or redemption by succession of births, universe does not care. If we are humble enough to accept the minor role in the universe, we may be better off.

The world exists. How it came about and why are a mystery. Yes, science has unravelled many of the secrets about how it came from a zero point, as it were. The question 'Why' is beyond science. It can never be solved without assumptions.

It matters little. We have a transient life and I believe that we are the fortunate ones while millions suffer physically or under duress from priests, making a hell of earth, fearing a non-existent hell, or pining for a non-existent heaven. How silly that for some insignificant acts we do here, and that too of praising this god or that, we will get a jackpot of an eternal life of immense bliss!

 

 

Religion can be attacked better at its starting point rather than at the fanciful conclusions it has reached.

Religion has gone wrong in two ways in my thinking. The starting point of religion is that life is a burden and we have to go through it quickly and aim at another in the benevolent and munificent presence of god which will be eternal, or that we should aim at enlightenment and detachment from the worldly life as a means to deliverance from it. Given the starting point, the conclusions may be justified, but the opening assumption is quite wrong. It is hardly our experience that life is repulsive. In fact, our experience and expectation is that it is enticing, engaging and fulfilling. We are so enamoured that we want to live on and on.

Imagine a game we play and want to wait for another game than playing the current one or leaving a difficult ball and waiting for an easy one to play. Religion has by indoctrination on credulous minds inculcated this psyche. If we start believing that we have a life which is neither easy nor difficult, neither predictable nor unpredictable, neither fair nor unfair and that it is by doing and relearning and doing that it fulfils itself, we do not need unverifiable and extravagant promises. It may not happen because we do not even want to accept that religion has an untenable basis as it is. This has nothing to do with a god if there be one. It can be shown that the concepts of god we have are products of human mind with fertile imagination.

The second problem with religion is that in its idealistic quest it went after truth unadulterated by human desire and not objectified, but felt the abstract difficult to peddle across to common minds and created symbols and rituals to universalize the abstract. But, human mind is more apt to deal with the gross leaving aside the subtle. When I listen to an interesting talk interspersed with humour to lubricate the mind, I enjoy the humour and skip the theme. Much in the same manner, symbols and rituals have overtaken truth and we have the mummy stuffed with lifeless things though life proper has long left.

There is no hope that soon we will reorient ourselves. The symbols and the mindset of another life of ease and enjoyment have obtained a long lease and the court of life is typically Indian, and it is impossible to make the lessee vacate.

We all have our unique experiences that may not be relatable. I read in a science book that there is no way of knowing whether two people feel the same taste of one and the same thing. I cannot question another’s experience. Religious experience can be a valid experience. If a T has authentic experience of visiting shrines, we cannot sit in judgment on it. We can say with absolute legitimacy if T wants us to live that experience, ‘No, thank you.’ We must cede his right to have that experience without any opinion on it. All our experience is of the same kind. There is nothing like rationalistic experience.

 

The only sacred thing is life and our small place in it. We will be closer to the truth if we tune ourselves to non-verbal experience without the need to analyse, reason and rationalise.

https://ideas.ted.com/are-we-living-in-a-post-truth-era-yes-but-thats-because-were-a-post-truth-species/

 

The case for atheism

1.       Show god

This is invalid. Some people argue that we cannot see air, but it exists. That is not correct. The demand is to give sensory proof, not necessarily visual. God by definition is beyond sense recognition. A god that can be shown through sense perception cannot be god. We must have the humility to accept that we have epistemic limitation. But, we have the power to understand beyond perception and reason.

2.       Make a statement on god that can be maintained.

Language is a human creation and does not capture all reality. Even in matters that are susceptible to the senses, there is difficulty that is genuine.

3.       God is an idea implanted in our minds.

That is true. So is everything else we consider to be ‘real’ or ‘meaningful’. We must advance to right knowledge, not abrupt conclusions.

4.       The scientists have not found existence of heaven or hell.

It is a misconception. We have got hooked on to the personification of ideas in symbols and stories. Heaven and hell as geographic locations attainable in time are primary lessons in religion and it was a gross error to have made it a goal of life. The lack of proof of heaven and hell is not proof for non-existence of god.

5.       The laws of physics hold and account for the universe without any adventitious cause.

Fair enough. But, that does not put paid to the theory of something fundamental to existence, something that pulsates as REALITY making the universe possible as one conditioned system. Science speculates other universes with oher conditions. The theory of a constant REALITY call it what you will is not challenged.

Existence (सत्) is God. ‘God does not exist’ means ‘Existence does not exist’, which is absurd. सत् also means good. ‘Veda’ reveals God. ‘Veda’ means knowledge. Goodness and knowledge lead to realization of God.

We live in God.

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि.

 

14.1.2002

Reasoning

Reasoning is man’s worst enemy. The question ‘why’ can often be met only with ‘why not’. Even the apparent reasoning that we arrive at may be merely accidental. So much debate on TV etc. is a stupendous waste of time. Let us not reason. Let us understand. Reason can never lead to happiness or truth. Truth has to be lived and experienced. It is not a mathematical or logical proposition. It is life.

Cf. Oscar Wilde: “I would to God that I had been able to tell the truth.. to live the truth. Ah, that is the great thing in life, to live the truth.”

 

2011

Rationalism is superstition

பகுத்தறிவுவாதிகளை மூட அவநம்பிக்கையாளர்கள் எனல் பொருந்தும்.

 

 

 

15/2/2010

பகுத்தறிவுவாதி: கடவுள் என்பது பித்தலாட்டம். நான் நம்பவில்லை.

முனிவர்: ரொம்ப சரி. 'கடவுள்', 'நான்' என்பதில் என்ன பொருள் கண்டாய் சொல். கொஞ்சம் யோசிச்சுச் சொல். 5 நிமிட அவகாசம் யோசி. உனக்கு எல்லாம் தெளிவாகத் தெரிந்தாலும், மௌனமாக யோசி. பின்னால் உன்னிடமிருந்து நான் தெளிவாகத் தெரிந்துகொள்கிறேன்.

 

பகுத்தறிவுவாதிக்கு இருப்பு கொள்ளவில்லை. எதிர்த்து ஒன்றும் சொல்ல முடியவில்லை. 5 நிமிடம் யுகமாகப் பட்டது. முனிவர் அவனையே தீர பார்த்துக்கொண்டிருந்தார். 5 நிமிடம் கழித்து முனிவர் கேட்டார்.

முனிவர்: முதலில் 'நான்' என்பது யார்? சொல்.

பகுத்தறிவுவாதி: 'நான்' நான்தான். என் உடம்பு, மனம், அறிவு சேர்ந்த ஒன்று.

முனிவர்: நீ குழந்தையாக இருந்தபோது இந்த மூன்றும் ஒன்றாக இருந்ததா? அப்போதும் இப்போதும் ஒரே மாதிரியாகத்தான் இருக்கிறதா?

பகுத்தறிவுவாதி: என்னை ட்ரிக் செய்யவேண்டாம். நான் என்றால் நான்.

முனிவர்: அந்த நான் எப்போதும் ஒன்றா?

பகுத்தறிவுவாதி: ஆமாம், இல்லை.

முனிவர்: ஆமாம் என்றால் எப்படி என்று விளக்கவேண்டும். இல்லை என்றால் தெளிவு பெற்றபின் வந்து விளக்கவேண்டும்.

பகுத்தறிவுவாதி: மாற்றம் இருப்பதை ஒத்துக்கொள்கிறேன். அது ப்ரத்யக்ஷம். ஆனால் உடல் போனபின் மனமோ, புத்தியோ, வேறு எதுவோ மிகுதி ஆவதை நான் நம்பவில்லை.

முனிவர்: மறுபடியும் நான். பின்னால் இல்லாத ஒன்று இப்போது இருப்பதாக மட்டும் நம்புகிறாயா?

பகுத்தறிவுவாதி: கண்கூடாகப் பார்ப்பதை நம்பவோ நம்பாமலிருப்பதோ எழுவதில்லை. 

முனிவர்: 'கண்கூடு' என்றால் கண்ணால் மட்டுமா? மற்ற human facultyயால் உணர்வதும் உட்படுமா?

பகுத்தறிவுவாதி: உட்படும்.

முனிவர்: நீ உணரமுடியாதது இருக்கவே முடியாது என்பது உன் தீர்மானமா?

பகுத்தறிவுவாதி: ம்..இல்லை.

முனிவர்: ஆக, நீ காணாததை உணராததை இன்னொருத்தர் அறியமுடியும். இல்லையா?

பகுத்தறிவுவாதி: ஆமாம்.

முனிவர்: அப்படிப்பார்த்தவர்கள் இருக்கிறார்கள். உனக்கு அக்கறை இருந்தால் நீ அவர்களில் ஒருவரிடம் போய்ச்சேருவாய். அப்படி உனக்கு அக்கறை இல்லாவிட்டால், பாதகமில்லை. வேறு ஜோலியைப் பார். அக்கறை இல்லாத விஷயத்தில் ஏன் உன் காலத்தை வீணாக்குகிராய்? வேறு உனக்குப் பற்றுள்ள விஷயத்தில் நியாயமாக உழைத்தால் உனக்கு ஒரு குறையும் இருக்காது.

பகுத்தறிவுவாதி: உம்மிடம் வந்ததில் உபயோகமில்லை. நான் வருகிறேன்.

முனிவர்: மௌனம்.

 

 

Jan 7, 2005

He said, “When a king kills, he is not prosecuted for murder.” Does Sankaracharya come under this logic? It would be travesty of religion. A king is a mundane lord. A sanyasi draws the strength not from the man-made laws and protections. He is inwardly directed. He draws his power from truth and natural order (sathyam and ritham). He cannot come down to the mundane level and still claim spiritual authority. 

He said, “It is not enshrined in our scriptures that one should starve while observing religious rites.” I do not know. It makes sense. If starving deprives you of stamina and focus, it is not a virtue or desirable quality. Espousing suffering cannot be a virtue. It is in a way the reverse of mindless pursuit of pleasure.

 

 

 

 

RITUALS

A way of life

Rituals interest me. They have nothing to do with spirituality. It is a way of life, a way of bonding with nature, a way of kindling hope and expressing thanks.

The rituals have a mantra part, a part of action and some meditation. It is a combination of the three faculties – body (karmendriya), speech (gananendriya) and mind (manas). We need them for living this life, not when the three are gone.

Spirituality concerns atma which stands detached from what rituals require.

It may be superfluous today, but in the pastoral or agricultural days when organic processes occupied pursuits of men, time was in surplus supply and the rituals filled out the time that today is demanded by TV, cell phone, etc.

I belong to those days. A school friend told me that I was an anachronistic being, a century behind. I listened to him then with no hard feeling or shame. I have realized since that truth does not always hurt. I am not sure that the modern ways of using time are better.

When doing the rituals for manes (I am no longer in that bad habit), I felt a sense of satisfaction. I have no hope that the dead are alive in some other form or in some other existence. But I sincerely believe that I exist and their memory exists in me, at least the ones I have seen. I get to remember them and in a poignant manner during the ritual. I seek no further justification for the rituals.

So with puja. Here again I have not been an addict though people assume and begin their talk with whether they have disturbed my anushtanam – observances. My anushtanams are eating, sleeping and spending time in the restroom (the only American expression I like as appropriate). Puja is a ritual that gives its own satisfaction regardless of the verity or sanctity of god. The few times I did puja I enjoyed. There is nothing more to expect than that I felt well while doing it.

So with the rituals in a temple. People question whether the materials used (wasted in their opinion) on the gods (stones for them) could not be diverted to the needy. Poor is the country which has to live so parsimoniously. India was a rich country and the customs evolved were not as to cause deprivation. Once when I was bathing, i thought whether the water poured over me was also not a waste as that thrown without being poured on me. What is my sanctity?

I used to enjoy when milk was poured over the idol. It stirred a curious feeling of fulfilment. It is psychological, but to argue that psychology is waste will be funny.

Let rituals continue if people feel happy with it for whatever reason, without protruding into public affairs or harming others. Let rituals be discontinued if one feels under duress performing them.

 

Rituals

Rituals serve an economic function today, not necessarily a belief system. In misery and loss, there is flourishing economic activity, and rituals vie for its place.

It seems unreasonable to believe that rituals for another could make a difference to that person. If there is fairness and order, the ideas that have occurred to human minds, then the actions of the person concerned will determine his future even beyond death, if there be one. The benefit of rituals is for those doing it. In my experience, it does afford a certain feeling of well-being. The rituals for the departed are to commemorate the continuity whose beginning and end are not known to us, but in which we have developed a vested contextual interest. The rituals do nothing about the course and destiny of that continuity, but superimpose our individual consciousness on it. It is like carving out a space and building a house and calling it ours.

 

 

No rituals for a realised soul

I feel soul is one and not born, not migrating, but the changing world creates impressions in our tutored brains as though soul is chalana, and we cling to observances, now with shaky belief. No question has been satisfactorily answered as I see, even in science. We have to rephrase the questions from time to time as our understanding matures (hoping it does). That is why a sanyasi whose understanding must be complete has no obligation to perform rituals, nor are scriptures of any value to him. Not all will go daringly far as Sankara has gone, and so later religious men have challenged Sankara. I feel Sankara has anticipated them and answered them. So long as we are in chains, we are bound by sastras, karma and upasana. Once the chain is sundered, they also fall away urvarukamiva. But, one in a trillion may really attain it. I feel that Brahmaneekam is desirable, but it is only one of the different ways to life, neither superior nor anachronistic.

 

Thursday, January 04, 2018

Symbols and rituals

Sage of Kanchi: “If we keep performing the rites prescribed even without understanding their meaning, it will stand us in good stead in later life when we do come to understand the meaning.”

Symbols denote an identity or a link with a tradition. They have been prevalent no one knows from when. All movements rally round a symbol. To carry on with the symbols even when the idea behind it is dead is perhaps empty, but it affords satisfaction for those sporting them. Others can have an opinion on its hypocrisy (in their view), but that cannot take away the right to exercise one’s free choice. I find that many who carry the symbols conspicuously also try to stick to the dharma or devotion associated with it. In a pluralistic society, such diversity is in order and there is no need to hasten its demise in a spirit of truth or reform. In India, even regulations meant for order and safety, like traffic rules, are violated wantonly. We need those regulations nevertheless. Violations call for disciplining and cannot justify abrogation of regulations. This may not be evident where an intangible cause is at issue, but even there the symbols keep the embers alive and serve a purpose.

Rituals are a fulfilling activity for occupying the time. Most of our activities are rituals in a sense. As Russell said, through technology we create a lot of leisure and the problem shifts to management of leisure. The value of anything, to simplify it crudely, is while it lasts. (It is often painful that it has side effects). The rituals commemorate a connection that is conceived in human mind and fulfil an expectation of the mind in imagination. It has value for those that imbibe that tradition. To attack it is an act of ignorance of human propensity and the way we use our time, which happens almost always, if not invariably, without regard to reason.

The meaning of anything including life is what we give it.

 

Sunday, May 07, 2017

Sankalpa

In rituals, the first part is sankalpa – a determination to do what we propose to do. Why is it necessary?

Determination produces energy. I have seen in a small way that I get the energy to do a thing if I plan it one or two days ahead. If I have to do the same thing without that mental preparation, I can’t really do it. I may not be representative as I am lazy generally. But, still I feel it may be true.

The idea of taking a pledge must have this as basis. But, it is a mockery when corrupt people in corrupt departments are administered a pledge of no corruption by corrupt bosses. There the real determination is to take bribe. The pledge is a lip service.

 

 

 

Rituals will last

“What distinguished the Jews .. was not theology but ritual.

There was in the Talmud a strong emphasis on ritual; .. the ritual  was a mark of identity, a brand of unity and continuity.”

“In every religion ritual is as necessary as creed. It instructs, nourishes, and often forges, belief; it brings the believer into comforting contact with his god; it charms the senses and the soul with drama, poetry, and art; it binds individuals into fellowship and a community by persuading them to share in the same rites the same songs and the same prayers, at last the same thoughts.”

(From The Story of Civilisation by Will Durant)

I used to watch two ladies talk hours on end and there did not seem to be any real sense in what they talked. No communication took place or no knowledge was gained or no tangible objective achieved. It kept them busy and visibly satisfied. That is a ritual.

We write copiously in social media and fight or rarely agree, and take care to stick to our life positions. What do we achieve? It does not add to our GDP, reduce incidence of chinavirus or lift some people above the poverty line. But, we are supremely satisfied in this exchange or even monologue. That is a ritual.

In the bank, we have had periodic review meetings, meetings for follow-up of audit reports, and so on. Mostly, I found that the growth of business was due to strenuous efforts, and slippages due to depositors taking away the money like thieves, or advances less because some stupid borrowers repaid. We read Mr.Kishor Pandya describe how a controller was going through the whole exercise perfunctorily. This is a ritual.

We discuss the weather helplessly. Sometimes we make meaningful statements how a sudden cooling may be followed by a quick heating or a sweltering heat might end in a cloudburst. This is called pastime in the language of transactional analysis.

We do a thousand things that sidestep reason and any vital utility, and are subconsciously satisfied about that being normal and unexceptionable.

 

 

 

Come to religion, we become alert. Why do this or that? Why not make it simple and be done with it? Very pertinent points. I am sure it will be set right when the other pursuits are made reasonable in the same way we expect religion to behave.

The voice against rituals has been raised from time to time from Vedic times. Vedanta itself is a growth out of rituals. Buddha did his bit. Purvamimasa – the earlier part of Vedas dealing with rituals – was raging at the time of Sankara. He debated with the leaders and some became Vedantins. Ram Mohan Roy created Brahmo Samaj to cleanse Hinduism of rituals, impelled by the challenging faiths. But, rituals linger as humanity needs a filler.

Religious rituals are a commemoration and an emollient to the frictions and bruises of mind. My father died as I was about to start earning before I could do anything to make him live in some comfort after a long suffering. I did not know how to do anything for him. I did the posthumous rites and while it is no substitute for looking after him while alive and I saw no way that what I did would reach him, I liked to do the rituals and it gave me a modicum of satisfaction. There are still quite a good number who believe in them and do. It is not just in Hinduism or Brahminism that rituals survive, it is there in every religion.

Just as any human arrangement (nature itself) is in need of change from time to time, rituals may be dropped or added in course of time. That is an inescapable fact of life, and we will do well not to wrestle with facts.

I assure the sceptics that all this will stop when Homo sapiens become extinct.

 

Pooja

*Hindus do pooja. People of other religions too have rituals, but they do not partake of the characteristics of our pooja. The most apparent difference is idol worship. There are several subtle differences and nuances, which the superficially minded folk miss.

Of course, the number of people who do pooja at home is only a handful. Hinduism is a way of life, it is said almost as a cliché. Pooja is one such way. A Hindu claims nearness to God, intimacy and intense relationship on a day-to-day basis. It is not a division of here and hereafter. To a Hindu, salvation is union with God rather than a plebeian presence in the Kingdom of God as one of His mute subjects ordained to pay obeisance and be grateful for the benefit of nativity in that Kingdom. Pooja is a way of seeking and furthering this relationship. It may sound amusing that one is called upon to communicate in a mundane way with the Power that appears incommunicado.

 

God is the given and no question is asked about it in the minds of most Hindus. It is like the ghost in Hamlet. Take away the reality of the ghost and the play falls apart. The ghost was a reality to the Elizabethans who patronised Shakespeare. Life is axiomatic and we live more in reverie than on cold logic and reason. Reason, after all, is as human and as fallible. We see the best-argued logic crumbling when new facts or discoveries or a more cohesive theory comes to light. Belief is not irrational. It transcends reason. Reason is a subset of the unified life view. As we grow from ignorance to wisdom, from darkness to light, we also graduate from mortality to immortality. Mortality is a veil which is pierced when we shed ignorance with knowledge and let light shine through the dark recesses of our mind which are overcrowded with fear and lesser emotions like anger, greed and envy. I am simply paraphrasing the Upanishadic saying (asato maa sadgamaya…).

Pooja then is a way of relating with God. ‘God is not a concept, it is the reality’. How do we grasp that reality? If you want to know a person what do you do? You move closely with him. You observe him, talk to him, study him, and share your feelings with him. We are, to be sure, human and the methods we use even in relation to God have to be human. Even God is human to us. Whether it is true that God created man in His own image or not (cf. Bible) man has fashioned God anthropomorphically. Pooja does just that: invoke God in a form to suit one’s fancy and circumstance, mostly human with certain ‘idiosyncratic’ variations, four limbs, six faces, elephant or lion face, etc. But it is intrinsically an exercise to partner with God. God is invited to our house. You may chuckle. If God is everywhere, what is the point in specially inviting him? The sun is shining all over but we use solar heater to harness its energy in a conserved form. It may be a trivial example, but is to illustrate the point of human effort to adapt the environment to one’s need. When a guest comes to our house, what do we do? In pooja we just do that. If a VIP comes we ingratiate him by singing his paeans. God is a VIP in our house.

I was travelling with a senior officer long back. He used to do pooja for three hours in the morning. He told me that doing pooja would prepare you to avoid doing harm to any one knowingly. He believed that faith in God would give humility. We pray to God for universal benefit. One Siva devotee has written a poem in which he prays to God to grant him a boon and the boon is to be kind to all beings. Another devotee says that the motive behind his prayer is alleviation of all suffering in the world. Rarely does a prayer seek selfish ends. True, there are several instances where people have a desire and seek fulfilment through God’s blessings, but the surviving spirit is freedom from desire. Prayer and pooja lead the way.

So much by way of prelude. Let me now lay bare the anatomy of pooja.

Whom should we propitiate? Hinduism has a bewildering variety of Gods and Goddesses. One can choose from among them. One can choose more than one also.

The pooja starts with an invocation to Vigneswara or Vinayaka or Ganapathi. "Suklambaradharam vishnum sasivarnam chaturbhujam

Prasannavadanam dhyayeth sarvavignopasanthaye"

Then one seeks the blessings of elders that the time of doing pooja be auspicious. Pranayamam (om bhuh, ..) is next. Then you make a declaration of your intent to do pooja. The seat where the idol is to be installed has to be purified with a mantra. It is like site preparation for installation of a computer system. Then the bell is purified with a mantra. Actually, the bell is sounded with a mantra to ward off evil spirits and to invite good spirits.

Next ritual is Vigneswara pooja. A cone of turmeric mixed with water to a paste is got up with an invocation to the God.

The question whether God resides in a stone has been raised time and again from the days of yore. One explanation given is that if God exists everywhere why not in the stone. Chinmayananda said, ‘where you see a stone I see God’. It is the God we worship, not a lifeless stone.

The process is well conceived. The pooja specifically tries to invest the idol with godhood by an invocation. It is called Avahanam. The devotee visualises God in the idol through a well-practised process. The idol in the temple also passes through the process of sanctification. It is hallowed over time by the visit of many holy people and devotees. The more the people visiting and composing songs in praise of the deity the more powerful it becomes. The church and mosque attain sanctity by this process only. To a Hindu all places of worship are equally powerful. Hinduism is not based on one-upmanship. In pooja the invocation of a God in the idol precedes the further steps and at the end the God is bid farewell. It is like a person visiting us and taking leave. It is a personal experience and not an empty ritual. In a devout pooja, you can feel the difference, a spiritual sojourn that is invigorating.

There is a craving in us to belong. Various attempts are made to capitalise on this, to bind us. But freedom is the only worthy aim. Bondage results in misery. Hinduism beckons us to achieve this freedom. Freedom is achieved only through a disciplined process. Pooja is one such process. If you have attained that poise of mind which freedom ushers in, you need no crutches. But we are a long way from that. We cannot pretend to have reached that culmination. Our conscience will remind us of the innate reality of dependence. Dependence by itself is not a thing to be eschewed. The question is dependence on what. If it is, say, alcohol, it is certainly deleterious. But dependence on God that will lead to freedom is of a different genre. I shall arrest the digression here and return to the pooja. In fact, even when doing pooja such mental or even outward digressions take place. People chant mantra and in the same breath give some mundane instructions or engage in other talks. What is required is devotion that is single-minded.

After avahanam several upacharas (you can roughly equate it with playing host formally) are performed. Asanam (giving seat), Argyam (water for washing hands), Padyam (water for washing feet), Achamaneeyam (water for drinking), Oupacharikasnanam (bathing), Achamaneeyam (water to drink after bath), Vastram (dress), Akshata (traditionally it is an offering of rice yellowed in turmeric), Yagnopaveetam (sacred thread), Gandha (sandal paste), Akshata again and kunkuma (vermillion) are the various upacharas. These are done for the Vigneswara invoked on the turmeric cone. Then flowers are offered with mantras. Various names of the deity are chanted. For Vigneswara the following 16 names are chanted: sumukha, ekadanta, kapila, lambodara, vikata, vignaraja, ganadhipa, dhoomakethu, ganadhyaksha, balachandra, gajanana, vakrathunda, soorpakarna, herambha, skandhapoorvaja.

Then naivedyam is done. This is offering of some specially prepared items or betel leaf, betel nut, coconut, plantain, etc. Dhoopam (burning the incense stick) Deepam (lamp preferably using ghee) and Neerajanam (burning camphor) are shown. While doing naivedyam, we chant the same mantras as when we do (if at all) parishechanam (mini-prayer before eating).

Food is a very important aspect of our life. I am sure you are not startled by this statement. Food that is not properly digested is poison, thus goes one saying. Good feelings and a positive frame of mind help digestion. Parishechanam is just the process of praying that the food we eat be digested and assimilated healthily. There are supposed to be 5 vayus that govern our life process. They are : prana (crystallisation), apana (elimination), vyana (circulation), udana (metabolism) and samana (assimilation). We have learnt in biology as much. The ancients appear to have had an uncanny intuition of these processes though they have not gone through the analytical route science has familiarised us with. We invoke these five vayus so that whatever we eat is well taken by the body. We also salute the Brahman, the Supreme deity that directs our destiny cosmically. At the beginning and the end we pray that what we eat be amrta, the celestial drink that is said to confer immortality. I feel this is an orderly way of eating with our mind on eating and a good frame of mind that will convert the food into a useful life process. We do this process for the god also during the pooja.

The above process is done for Vigneswara at the beginning of pooja for any deity. It is believed that Vinayaka is the deity who wards off all obstacles. Obstacles interfere in any process and to overcome them is a significant management task. There are a few other poojas that precede the main pooja.

A prayer is uttered to Vinayaka during naivedyam:

Vakrathunda mahakaya suryakotisamaprabha

Avignam kuru me deva sarvakaryeshu sarvada

The Vinayaka in the form of turmeric cone is relegated to the background with a mantra.

The main pooja starts now. First pranayamam is done. This comes at some regularity. It is the process of taking deep breath. It increases oxygen supply and makes you feel more energetic. Try it and you will know. Such charging helps you to complete a task. The ceremonies combine prayer with practical steps. Everything is not left to a supervening divine will. Human effort is enjoined in a systematised way.

The vessel in which water is kept for pooja (kalasam) is sanctified with a mantra. All things, the deity, the deepa, the kalasam, etc. are applied sandal and kunkumam.

Atmapooja is done, that is pooja to oneself.

Peeta pooja is done i.e. sanctification of the seat where the deity is kept.

Next gurudhyanam is done.

Gururbrahma gururvishnuh gururdevo maheswarah

gurussakshat parambrahma thasmai srigurave namah

Next comes pranaprathishtai. This is important. The idol was so far a piece of material. Now the devotee prays that the idol be animated, so to speak.

A colleague of mine told me a story. An illiterate lady used to go to a sadhu. She complained to him of her difficulty in crossing the river to reach the place. The sadhu told her to chant the name of Rama and said that she would be blessed with an easy passage. The devotee went to the river bank and with her heart and soul chanted the name. Lo and behold, the water parted and she was able to cross the river easily. One day she invited the sadhu to her abode. The sadhu accompanied her to the river bank and waited for a boat. The devotee asked why he was waiting for a boat. They could chant ‘Rama’ and cross the river. The sadhu called her mad, but he was in for a surprise. The lady chanted ‘Rama Rama’ and the river gave way. She led the way and asked the sadhu to follow in her footstep. She could cross the river, but the sadhu was drowned. The relevance of the story here is to emphasise that faith makes a difference.

The process of invoking the God’s presence in the idol is symbolic but is of momentous significance in our intercourse with God and in creating a wholesome atmosphere in our home. The God who is everywhere, who resides in the hearts of everyone without exception (nihseshatma), is fixated on an idol of otherwise no worth. When you see someone do this piously you will feel an aura and sanctity that defies common sense and logic. God came as Krishna and Yasoda tied him with a rope. It is symbolic. God who is infinite can be made to take a finite shape to partner with us in our just endeavours. It is not hallucinatory; it is inspirational.

After pranaprathishta, dhyana follows. It is a sloka addressed to the deity. The idol, which now has attained a vitality in the faith of the devotee, is propitiated to be benevolent.

Shodasopachara (16 formalities of welcome) are performed. We have seen part of this in Vigneswara pooja. To repeat, the 16 items are: asana, padyam, argyam, achamaneeyam, madhuparkam (offering of honey), panchamrtam (five delicious things mixed), snanam, vastram, upaveetam, gandham, akshata, pooja with flowers, dhoopam, deepam, naivedyam, namaskaram, visarjanam. Visarjanam is disinvesting the idol of the powers and discarding it.

The main part of the pooja is offering flowers to the deity with mantras, which are various names of the deity that describe the quality or action of the deity.

I must recapitulate the gist of the above meandering account. Pooja is done to invoke God’s blessing. Different deities are chosen for the purpose depending on one’s choice. An idol is chosen in which the devotee invokes a desired spiritual form in the likeness of a human being. All upacharas are performed as we do to a VIP guest. A string of names of the God are chanted with offering of flowers with each name. Special preparations and fruits are offered at the end. It concludes with lighting of camphor. The process brings inner peace and closeness to God, who remains always hidden from view. It is a tradition to which we are born and it is as well that we know it even if we do not follow it.

 

July 11 ·

God and evidence:

1. The prophet claimed revelation that idol worship is sinful. There are any number of Hindu saints to whom it was revealed that they should install an idol and institute worship of it. Which evidence is right and why?

2. Jesus claimed that he was son of god. His resurrection settled the doubts of doubters. The prophet to whom god revealed much did not accept Jesus as son of god. Which evidence is right and why?

3. Sankara asserts that anything gained will be lost and moksha is removal of ignorance by proper knowledge. Strong personalities have repudiated him and assert that there is a heaven, call by what name you will, to which the virtuous ascend. Which evidence should I take and why?

I can quote a contrary evidence to anything you quote. Where is my salvation? Can I decide in a brief life on the basis of such evidence and then live this life? Then, what is the use of evidence? Faith is the only answer and there is no evidence for faith that is incontrovertible. The trouble is when you want to establish one faith or other as final and supreme.

Einstein:

“The means to knowledge of this world cannot help us really in understanding if there is a reality behind it.”

Someone:

“There are multiple realities phenomenally speaking, but one Reality in itself. (noumenon).”

 

 

SOUL / SPIRITUALITY    

The spirit cannot be found in dry and dreary discussion of philosophy. The spirit cannot be found in the relentless pursuit of fortune and fame in a bid to be one up on others. The spirit cannot be found in the information rushed at us by the media and the channels. The spirit cannot be found in the fossilised scripture. The spirit has to be found in life in us and all around us, including in the most insensate objects that lie next to us.

If Brahman is all-pervading, how can our Atman be different from Brahman? It can only be part of it. But, Brahman by definition is indestructible and indivisible. Therefore, the whole is in the part and the part is truly the whole. There can be no difference.

Spirituality is more immanent than transcendental. That is the essence of Upanishads. Spirituality is what pervades the universe. The speciality of the Upanishads is that 'brahman' is not something which is external to the immanent. 'That is this' or 'This is that' occurs as a refrain in Upanishads. In fact, god as adventitious is not the way our Rishis have intuited. A cow looking at a calf in tenderness and fondness, or a flower shining on a twig is also spiritual.

There have been sects in Hinduism that have claimed exclusivity in terms of the particular deity which alone will lead to salvation. Bigotry of one type or another has prevailed. But the general purport and the common belief of Hinduism is one of diversity at the empirical level and unity at the spiritual level. The preponderance of available literature and scripture and the conduct of people born to this faith point to one reality or truth that has no form or name. The various forms and names are a matter of workaday world convenience.

Sage of Kanchi: “In the Advaita shAstra that has been handed down to us by tradition through the efforts of great ‘anubhavis’ one has been asked to move on to Advaita-sAdhanA only after one has reached a reasonable perfection in the discharge of his shAstraic duties.”

Sage of Kanchi

Merely to talk about non-dualistic liberation is nothing more than an intellectual exercise and will serve no purpose. The truth of such liberation must become an inward reality. In other words the quest must culminate in actual experience and it can be had only with the grace of Isvara. Great sages proclaim that it is only with the blessings of that Power which keeps us in a constant whirl of action that the whirl will stop and that we will have the Advaitic urge to seek the ground.

"Isvaranugrahadeva pumsam Advaitavasana.

“We have no quarrel. In order that we may realise non-duality, we should gain the grace of god. For gaining this, we must practise devotion. Devotion may be shown to any divine name or form. It is the same non-dual reality that is everywhere. And, with a view to gaining its grace, I have written works expounding the different schools.” Appayya Dikshithar.

(Sri Kanchi Acharya quoting in an article in Sankara’s Voice.)

January 17, 2014

Enquiry into Soul

Body-mind-intellect-soul is said to represent a gradation with soul perched at the apex. While all agree on the first three, atheists deny the soul and agnostics suspend judgement for want of any clinching evidence. To me it represents an inseparable unity, the distiction being for convenience and comprehension. The grand truth is how this unity found first expression, why, and what becomes it eventually. We shall march in our search to find an answer and the answer shall never be in human language that is half-baked.

 

Unity of Soul

SOUL is REAL, souls are not.

A travelling soul is an unstable soul.

The Upanishad says:

“तदेजति तन्नैजति तद् दूरे तद्वन्तिके। तदन्तरस्य सर्वस्य तदु सर्वस्यास्य बाह्यतः॥“

It means to me that Soul is stable and ubiquitous.

“Soul does not come and go, bodies come and go,” said a Swami.

The Upanishads say repeatedly that Soul is अजः (unborn), एकं (whole) अखण्डं, निष्कलं (indivisible and has no parts) and पूर्णं (perfect, needing no addition or modification).

There is no scope for individual souls. Individual souls are a working hypothesis to impart stability and character to human consciousness, a hope, like a rattle or a banana to a crying child as it were, to the human minds craving for impossible individual permanence, a hope to be overcome by right knowledge. There is no empirical evidence, or sufficient evidence for inference, that individual souls have extra-corporeal identity.

Brahmam okate Parabrahmam okate.

 

12/7/14

Soul

Soul, in the understanding of Hindu evolution, is a disinterested observer. It neither does nor is affected by deed. Is it inert? No. Observer is not inert. In a way, you can compare it with a referee as against the fans (say mind). Soul is given the epithet of अभिज्ञः in Bhagavatam. Not only it understands, it does so completely. It is psychosomatic experience that keeps us engaged in the affairs of the world. Is soul detached? The simile here is water on lotus leaf. Is water touching the leaf? Yes. Does it wet the leaf? No. Such examples are only a guide towards truth. Truth by itself is experiencial and ineffable. Those who are spiritually inclined can experience it, but it is an option. To be content with what is is in order. The import of the message to me is we evolve spiritually by silencing the mind. The mind produces interference like atmospheric disturbance in a radio broadcast. The message of the soul is coming through, but is obfuscated by the noise of the mind. Note the words: message for the soul and noise for the mind. Message is intelligible, noise is senseless ab initio, i.e. it is not as though there was a message which got garbled. The soul heals itself in the sense it is realised and santhi is achieved. It takes time only in the sense the period of mental activity is unending, and is the consequence of our choice. It is not an attribute of the soul. The soul has no desire and is not in any urge to do anything, to prick or to be pricked.

 

Unity

Analysis results in duality. Understanding identifies unity.

An electron is not a particle and wave; it is one. In trying to analyse and explain its behaviour, we think of particle and wave as we have formulated. But electron is electron. It is not two, but one.

 

1/7/14

Unity with reality

Spirituality is identification with the undivided reality call it by whichever name you choose. It is not a wishful state or hallucination. It is a definite state of being in total consciousness.

 

One Soul

My funny ideas on self, world, god and spirituality

There is unity of life. There is one reality, call it what you will. I will call it soul.

The soul is the abiding reality. Several forms and lives come and go while the soul stays like a joint stock company (not of Mallya!). There are not many souls, it is an appearance.

Things go cyclically as that is life. Nothing continues with one identity. The story of a travelling soul is a convenient assumption to give meaning to the passing life.

 

Spirituality is being content with what we are, being at what we do and accepting the temporary nature of the life we lead now.

 

Ineffable mystery

When we go beyond symbols and rituals, and keep questioning unremittingly what it is that life (being or sat) is about, very interestingly and understandably, the great minds grasp a mystery that passes above words and semantics. That state of grasping the mystery seems to be a moment of fulfilment like no other. It is lost when anyone tries to explain it. Philology is no way to grasp it and philologists grope in vain.

If imperfections point to existence, will perfection point to non-existence?

Spirituality is the tendency to be good without the need of supervision or reward.

 

1   Y  Y

2  Y  N

3  N  Y

4  N  N

We can analyse various related things in the above matrix.

e.g.

A.

1. I am OK, you are OK.

2. I am OK, you are not OK.

3. I am not OK, you are OK.

4. I am not OK, you are not OK.

 

B.

1. I am responsible for good and bad.

2. I am responsible for good, but not bad.

3. I am not responsible for good, but for bad.

4. I am not responsible for either good or bad.

 

We can think of a fifth state of not doing any analysis- that is a state of liberation, salvation, bliss.

 

Pursuing spirituality

My friend related that a person wanted to take to spirituality and sought his opinion. My friend asked me what I would have advised. This was my reply.

“Rajaji told his daughter to spend a year or two away from Devdas and consented for the marriage when they still stood by each other. Possibly he should test his resolve to go into spirituality by some way of testing the depth. As I see it, spirituality is not a quest in a cave but finding it in whatever you are doing. Ego and pride draw a veil over our being which in its pure state is spiritual. If one can push them to the background and keep doing what one is into not only will one see spirituality in its full glory, he will do whatever he is doing well. I do not know what he proposes to do spiritually by giving up what he is doing. I am disenchanted with so many noisy spiritual self-anointed gurus.

A young colleague asked me the same thing in 2006 or so. I told him to do his work and look after his family and keep the spiritual quest alive. He was perhaps not as serious. All I know is that he is still working.

In the bank we had a separate planning wing and it floundered and was wound up. Planning is part of operations and cannot be divorced. In much the same way spirituality is part of work and ordinary life just as breathing. You do not stop everything and say you will only breathe. That is the advice of Gita. karmapalathyaga rather than karmathyaga.”

 

 

Spiritual Progress

i believe in god.

I am in God.

I AM GOD.

 

My take on spirituality

Science has achieved in waking up people from slumber and dream, and instilling a desire to be with the real and rational. I studied science but kept sleeping and dreaming, philosophising and questioning what passes for certainty derived from science.

It is a vast subject whether science in fact leads to any certainty. But, it is assumed that science has shown us the way to the ultimate there is to know. I do not propose to walk that way which I do not know.

I want to speculate on what I feel life has meant to me.

I grew on a heavy nourishment of mythology and superstition, which was freely available. I am now at a stage where I can see the human hand in their build up, but am not convinced that it is sheer waste. I would also not like to be harsh on my past, nor would like anyone else to feel that he was stupid yesterday. We will have occasion to feel about our today’s stupidity if we live long enough. Judgment of any type is not required based on later knowledge.

We are told that mythology cannot stand up to rational scrutiny. I wonder what aspect of our life can. If reason is to guide our life solely, life will be meaningless. It will lead us into flight from life, not into life. If we are to be guided by utility, then the argument for mythology is won. We do not live life in the company of Buddha and Socrates. It is more colourful with Rama and Krishna. We are creatures of emotion than of reason. We have to find an anchor for our emotion.

If we sit up and argue, we will be able to demolish mythology wholesale. And in fact, many people have tried it. But, mythology is there. Despite very powerful atheists and so-called rationalists, belief is dominant, not reason. Why? It must have some hold somewhere. What is it? Foolishness? Then I vote for foolishness. I am happy to be a fool.

Indian life, which I have imbibed greedily, draws heavily on mythology. At every turn it is mythology.

When a pouranika describes the story from mythology with such intensity making the story come alive before my mind’s eye, it is reality of that moment to me. When MS sings ‘Hari tum haro Janaki bhiru’ with devotion and feeling of divinity, it is reality to me for that moment. When I see a koothu performed and Dussasana disrobes Draupadi (a male in woman’s make-up) and faints in the process, it is reality for me at that moment. When I read gopika githam with its eroticism-tinged bhakthi in vivid detail with no euphemism, it is reality for me then. I can go on. Any reality that we appreciate in other contexts also are changing phenomena. I have seen some samples of other realities also. The reality of mythology is nourishing, edifying, ennobling and emancipating.

I feel at home in my twilight years mulling over many things like mythology, philosophy, music, literature, science, and a sense of spontaneous gratitude for all that happened beyond what I should have hoped for. Prayer has helped me emotionally and even tangibly. To use the filtered wisdom of today forgetting the process of its culmination will be dishonest.

Someone asked why Sankara wrote hymns if Advaita was his conviction. He was an Acharya. He knew that students are there from primary stage. He cannot cater only to doctoral students. One-size-fits-all is not our tradition.

Let each choose his reality. Let us live in our world and let others live in theirs.

India is a land of mythology. Let us pass it on, not pass it.

 

1/7/14

Spirituality and morality

Life depends on life. While I am a vegetarian, vegetarianism is a product of human thought and not of the process of life. Life is interdependent, intertwined, renewing constantly at the surface. The entire field of morality is a human making and has been incorporated into religion. See the variety here. If God made it, why should there be such variety of what is considered by many religions to be the deciding factor for receiving God's mercy? It does not appeal to me. I feel we have to move away from such human intervention as clouding spirituality. Let me make it clear. We are not moving away from morality, but away from morality as the sole basis for spirituality. Spirituality transcends human-specific ideas and tries to seek LIFE in its true nature. Immorality distracts form spirituality, but morality does not lead to it.

 

No one has revealed the ultimate truth. Scriptures do not reveal the truth, but call upon us to find it out. It is personal and cannot be shared.

Spiritualism comes through transgressing or transcending thought. Thoughts produce philosophy. Religion enjoins dependence. Spiritualism enables emancipation. The freedom is from fear, from attachment, from excessive and engrossing indulgence.

 

Aug, 2001

Universality of truth

Truth cannot be spatially, temporally or contextually bound. If truth was revealed, or occurred to a favoured few in human race or at a particular point of time in history only, such truth is bound to be hollow. There is ore weight if the truth manifested itself to different people at different times.

Buddha, Christ, the Prophet, Sankara and so on bring to mankind the same truth from time to time.

I feel there is a unity between the grand nothingness that Buddha implies and the all-pervasive everythingness that Advaitha asserts.

Hinduism also believes in a universal truth- sarvam kalvidam brahma.

The word Brahman is not understood even by Hindus. It is different from the Creator. Hinduism represents progress of thought. To me, Vedas and Vedanta are evolved human thoughts, articulations of spiritual experience, and are not of mysterious origin.

 

God inheres, adheres and coheres. God is inherent in all and provides coherence to the world of variety. He and his creation adhere to each other.

Spiritualism comes through transgressing or transcending thought. Thoughts produce philosophy. Religion enjoins dependence. Spiritualism enables emancipation. The freedom is from fear, from attachment, from excessive and engrossing indulgence.

 

 

Realization: a few random thoughts

1.         श्रद्धावान् लभते ज्ञानम्

2.         "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you.”

3.         (a) We need to have a clue as to what we are seeking. We cannot look for something about which we know nothing. A seeker starts with some clues, traditionally given by scripture and guru. The basis of the clues is hazy.

(b)       If we seek with nothing in mind and intelligence (buddhi) as the only guide, we will find ‘nothing’ (sunyata) and become a buddha. There is nothing wrong with it.

(c)        If we seek with a description of something, we may visualize that form. That is the lesson I see in Dhruva story. Dhruva proceeds to the forest to do penance and get a boon from Vishnu. He was so small and had no idea what he was up to. Narada intersects him and describes the glorious form of Vishnu. Without that description, Dhruva would have found nothing. For Prahlada, Narada does one better. He catches him in the womb itself and implants the idea of Narayana. It is impossible that any one will get the vivid idea of god religions talk of without initiation in some way. Surely, the various ideas about a personal god have started from some inkling or expectation and padded up over generations. The variety and the conflicts about such a god are proof of this human construction.

(d)       If we start with the idea of finding out who or what it is that wants to know, we may find out an answer, but if we make no assumption that there is a seeker within, we will find nothing.

4.         Not that soul and god are imaginary. We are not equipped to know it comprehensively. I sincerely believe that there is ONE SOUL that powers and pervades the universe or multiverse. I have no proof. I have no experience.

5.         The universe has no special place for human beings, no special dispensation. There is no evidence for such a proposition. It arises in human mind.

6. Echart Tolle quotes St. Paul: “Everything is shown up by being exposed to the light, and whatever is exposed to light itself becomes light.”

Tolle says further on: “Once you have understood the basic principle of being present as the watcher of what happens inside you- and you ‘understand’ it by experiencing it- you have at your disposal the most potent transformation tool. .. The process could be taught to a child, and hopefully one day it will be one of the first things children learn in school.”

7. असतो मा सद्गमय

तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमय

मृत्योर्माsमृतम् गमय।।

The prayer from Upanishad quoted above has nothing to do with any religious deity. It is praying for light and knowledge, which are the path to immortality. It is unexceptionable.

It is prejudice to object to a simple secular prayer. That it is in Samskrtam can be the least of objections. Samskrtam is far more intrinsically and inseparably integrated with Indian languages than English which does not raise much unrest in our minds. Tamizh has enriched and been enriched by Samskrtam. My Tamizh teacher would quote, ‘Samskrtam has no mouth and Tamizh has no face.’ Samskrtam is a universal language of India, not that of gods or Brahmins. Brahmins anywhere in India share the lingua franca of the region as their mother tongue. For example, Tamizh is my mother tongue not Samskrtam.

Hope people wake up from obfuscation to understanding.

 

September 9, 2015 ·

Realisation

Religion is compartmentalisation. Spirituality is breaking free. All religions behave as closed and superior groups, dishing out ignorance. One has to believe in his personal experience unalloyed by his mundane interests to understand the divine in him. What a heavenly life it would be if we can do it! Each must try it as if he is an island. If we expect a day when all of us will be in one and the same flight to such a world, we are into the trap of religion. The world is perpetual and variety sustains it. Uniformity is a myth. We must aim at realisation individually. It is not selfish. It is true altruism. The great people the rishis, Jesus, Aquinas, the list is endless, give us hope and joy. It is the followers who brand them and trade them regrettably. Let us realise the bliss of awareness, aunthenticity and autonomy.

 

 

Nov 11, 2006

Flashes of realisation

Deep within us we feel a longing, we identify ourselves with what is immutable and real. It comes in a flash and disappears like the will-o-the wisp. It is not aflame non-stop even in the higher beings, who hold to the vision longer than any ordinary, untrained or unrealised soul.

 

Starvation and realization

We read a number of stories in mythology how person after person starved for days and months and years at a stretch and obtained the grace of god, or mystical powers. Science tells us that the body cannot survive so long without nourishment. But, even without science, Buddha said: "Austerities confuse the mind. In the exhaustion and mental stupor they cause, one cannot understand the ordinary aspects of life."

The conversation between Uddalaka Aruni and his son, Svetaketu, also brings out the point:

Uddalaka: Do not eat anything for fifteen days, but drink as much water as you like. Life is dependent on water. If you do not drink water, you will lose your life.

Svetaketu: Śvetaketu did not eat anything for fifteen days. After that he came to his father and said, ‘O Father, what shall I recite?’

His father said, ‘Recite the Ṛk, Yajuḥ, and Sāma mantras.’

Śvetaketu replied, ‘I can’t recall any of them, sir’.

The father said to Śvetaketu: ‘O Somya, from a blazing fire, if there is but a small piece of ember left, the size of a firefly, it cannot bum anything bigger than that. Similarly, O Somya, because only one small part of your sixteen parts remains, you cannot remember the Vedas. Eat something and then you will understand what I am saying’.

Śvetaketu ate something and then went to his father. Whatever his father asked him, he was able to follow.

 

 

Touch with Reality

Spirituality is identification with the undivided reality call it by whichever name you choose. It is not a wishful state or hallucination. It is a definite state of being in total consciousness.

 

January 6, 2015 ·

முற்றும் உணர்ந்த முனி

முற்றும் என்றால் முழுமையாக. அரைகுறையாகத் தெரிந்தபோதுதான் எல்லா கலவரமும். முற்றுப் புள்ளி: அதற்குப் பிறகு ஒன்றும் இல்லை.

‘உணர்ந்த’ – ஆத்மார்த்தமாக அறிவது. intellect, emotion ஆத்மாவின் நிழல்கள். அதனால் உபயோகம் இல்லை. ஆத்மாவால் உணர்வதுதான் இறை.

முனி: மனத்தை முறியடித்தவர். முனிவர் குணம் மௌனம். முற்றும் உணர்ந்தபின் பேச அவசியம் இல்லை.

அப்படிப்பட்ட முனிவரின் கடாக்ஷமே உபதேசம்.

 

Feb 3, 2005

Science and spirituality

Is the world materially random and spiritually ordered, or Spiritually random and materially ordered?

Science takes us through understanding of matter and energy and unravels the order which becomes more complex and looks incomprehensible except to a few.

Spirituality beckons us to explore the extra-sensual areas and consider the world of matter as of no consequence.

The purpose of science is to find order in the material world. That of metaphysics is to find order in the spiritual world. 

 

June 01, 2016

Turiyam

Mandukya Upanishad talks of four states, waking, dreaming, deep sleep and the fourth. The fourth corresponds to Atma, but it is present subtly in the three other states also.

The clue to spirituality is here. Spirituality is not a state different from the day-to-day life; it has to permeate entire existence. The great men have lived their life in accordance with such a belief and conduct.

 

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Efforts and spirituality

Actually, we have to disengage from 'efforts'. Effort connotes authorship. Authorship means ego. Ego is the villain of the piece. When Krishna says, see karma in akarma and akarma in karma, a lot is conveyed. The moment we realise we play a part without understanding the whole, the burden is off. We catch a glimpse of the whole and our insignificance flashes. Then, it is a matter of ego-less wait when the whole becomes a vision. Ramakrishna and Ramana, and a host of the Rishis and great men, are such realised souls, who had the vision, and shared it in the aura of their personality, more than in the grandeur of their words and parables. It is our good fortune we come in contact with them at least in books.

 

Truth

10/10/2014

I feel that whatever truth is there holds good everywhere. The truth is whole. Divisions arise in human thinking. We divide even a single individual anatomically, in terms of intelligence and emotion, ego, superego and id, and so on. We miss the wood for the trees. Belief in God is a human necessity (there are of course superior beings who can do without such belief) and the separateness of God from us and the world (all philosophers and messiahs strain to explain the link between the three) is a fallout of the anaytical thinking. The truth in various disciplines is intelligible only to those that have travelled there. That truth is not a revelation as religious leaders would claim for their case, but at times the truth dawns on the scientists like a revelation. I read that Kekule saw in his dream a serpent coiling round itself and solved the mystery of the structure of benzene. Of course, the cyclical structure did not provide a complete solution, but is not contradicted either. There have been several such serendipitous discoveries. Why such things happen, how Srinivas was a maestro on a foreign instrument least suited to Carnatic music, etc. remain wonders. I am not sure science by itself leads to any proof of God. Recently, there was news that life after death was proved in some experiment. I take it with a pinch of salt. My belief has to be based on what I feel in my bones, flesh and blood. The more I seek to find evidence in an experience which is as strange to me as God in the first instance, the more is it likely to be elusive and of doubtful value.

 

Sep 17, 2007

Truth and love

Curiosity and feeling make the wheels of life rotate. Curiosity to know the truth and feeling for others (love). Truth and love confer ananda. That is the natural state. When we discover the truth and love as standing alone without any purpose, we realise a oneness and a freedom, a state beyond mere body and mind. Body and mind are artificial limitations. Bhakthi is a state of realisation of the truth and love that is universal. It is convenient to visualise truth and love as emanating from a deity and focus the mind on the deity, but if it does not transcend the symbolism, it becomes binding and infatuating.

 

2/12/18

Curiosity

Curiosity to know and ability to think – these single out human beings from other species. Assuming instead of trying to know is the actual demise of a human being, not the disappearance of the animating principle. Science is one discipline that has flourished under this human faculty, but not the only one. The blunting development has been religion. The difficulty with religion is not belief in something unseen (we have not seen ‘life’ too), but in not questioning it critically and rejecting what does not fit into experience.

 

December 21, 2016

Truth prevails always

If we consider life as a productive activity with a product or result, means would be secondary. But, if life is a continuous stream, a journey in the cosmic time, more a fantasy than a real thing, the way we live from moment to moment is the only thing that matters. When I look at life, I am bewildered. What is the beginning and what is the end? Is seed the beginning leading to fruit or is fruit  a new beginning starting all over again, and so on with no beginning or end in sight except in some contemplation and rationalisation, in evolution, which however has not told us of the beginning or likely end in clear terms. Is life any meaningful in idle comfort? Or, does it fulfil itself in struggle, effort and release? Does the epic hero tire of the troubles he is asked to undergo by man and nature, with no apparent cause?

 

Truth wins, not at the end or beginning, but at every step. We are yet to understand it. We need to accept it and try to understand. It will elude us with as much determination as we show in denying it. 

 

Nov 11, 2015

Truth is all pervasive. It is outside scriptures more than in them. Scriptures capture it and freeze it. But, truth is manifesting in myriad ways all the time. When you get to know relativity, it is a new facet you appreciate. In science, we make similar mistakes. With Newton and Galileo, we fixed truth at some mechanical level. With relativity and uncertainty, we try to fix it there trying to find something that will bridge the two. But, truth is not to be bound statically. The story of Yasoda trying to bind Krishna (pure mythology to me) is perhaps to convey this point. There is no way we can bind truth, but truth lends itself to be bound to amuse us.

 

5/12/18

Thoughts obscure truth

Our thoughts determine reality by the purpose and value we attach and however hard we may try to find the truth that exists without our care (science or no science), we are slaves to our thoughts that rule subtly, powerfully and ineluctably. There is a near congruence of this conclusion in Vedantic and scientific approach as I understand peripherally.

 

April 21, 2017 ·

Satyam and Rtam:

The profundity of these two terms is amazing.

Satyam refers to the physical world, thought of as comprising the five elements. Sat stands for earth, water and fire (visible things) and yam for air and ether (invisible things). In short, it is space.

Rtam stands for orderly movement, a measure of time.

In scientific terms, space and time define the world.

The exact similarity cannot be accidental.

 

February 08, 2014

Satyam and Rhythm

In Samskritam, there are two words ‘satyam’ and ‘ritam’. Sometimes, they are translated as truth synonymously, but it is not appropriate.

Satyam is ‘truth’, the real nature, so to say. Ritam refers to the natural order, rhythm, perhaps. The was planets revolve, the heart beats, and so on follow ritam.

‘Satyameva jayate nanritam’ however seems to treat satyam and ritam as synonymous.

When sruti says ‘satyam vadishyami, ritam vadishyami’, the two words cannot denote the same thing.

Ritam makes the world possible. Satyam is a substrate. The world may disappear when ritam is destroyed, but truth can never be destroyed. Truth is what survives when all else is gone. What can go is therefore not of the nature of truth.

 

August 23, 2015

What is reality?

This is a philosophical question. 'What exists' can be an answer. But metaphysically 'what exists for ever' will be apt. The two definitions will make a difference to the answer. That is the problem that creates all discord. We know of nothing that exists forever. This is the most potent argument for not believing in a permanent entity call it any which way you like. If Reality always exists changelessly, unaffected by the passage of time and the events that dot the locus of its transit, it is subtle and unseen.

Let us look at reality that is transitory.

Let us take dreams. We see or experience many states in dreams. When we wake up, we dismiss it as unreal, but when we were dreaming it was not so. During the dream it was a reality. The protagonists of 'maya' use this argument to dismiss this world itself as being as illusory as the dream states. We will not go into its merits. The point to note is that we took the dream as real when it lasted.

Now let us take an instance in the wakeful state. A person sees a ghost. It is real for him. He sees it. Even after the experience (hallucination) is over, he would scarcely accept that he did not undergo the experience. Whether the ghost is real or not may be secondary to the tangible experience. The ghost, to rationalise, was conjured by a confused mind out of thin air, but left a devastating effect. The part mind plays is significant in our experience and we now traverse rather uncertain terrain in explaining reality. Rationally, we cannot question the reality of the suffering, only the cause is dubious.

Let us examine just the world of matter, believing for a moment that we stand aside as disinterested observers, however untenable. This is exactly the stance we assume in our scientific search. Matter consists of atoms and molecules as the basic building blocks and they have been further studied deeply. Much has been uncovered about the world of subatomic particles; yes, they seem to live in a world of their own, with their conduct and morality being different from, if not in opposition to, ours! Revolutionary ideas have been propounded to fit into facts or observations. Particles behave as waves and waves as particles. An entire branch of knowledge has evolved over this duality, which is not our cup of tea. The location of an electron, a fundamental particle, has become hazy or indeterminate combined with its momentum.. One was led to believe that science would usher in certainty, but it has ended in probability.

Thus reality that we assume for the perceived world is a series of ideas that have shifting standpoints. Varying the standpoints alters the perception. This is not a call to dismiss the experienced reality of the world, but to let us accommodate the possibility of other experiences and the impossibility of certainty that one experience disproves another or is superior to the rest.

As we mature, we understand this ‘reality

 

November 16, 2014

Satyam

सत्यं वद. ‘Thou shall not lie.’

Scriptures are categorical.

What is satyam?

Satyam is that which exists, literally. In Samskritam, the literal meaning is the real meaning. Samskritam means what it says. No other language is as honest perhaps. Truth is not an exact equivalent. In Tamizh, we have three words actually for truth. உண்மை (உள்+மெய்), வாய்மை (வாய்+மெய்) andமெய்ம்மை (மெய்+மெய்). Unmai is truth of mind, vaimai is truth of speech and meimmai is truth of body or action. There is a Samskritam saying

मनस्येकं वचस्येकं कर्मण्येकं महात्मनां

For the great, the thought, word and deed are one and the same. By the way that can be taken as the definition of a great soul.

In actual practice, one has to be truthful in all three aspects (thought, word and deed). That is satyam for a person.

But satyam for the world and god means the attribute of existence. That which exists is satyam. God is satyam, God exists. The world is also satyam, it exists.

In Bhagavatam, we have this prayer to Vishnu by Brahma:

सत्यव्रतं सत्यपरं त्रिसत्यं सत्यस्य योनिं निहितं च सत्येI

सत्यस्य सत्यं ऋतसत्यनेत्रं सत्यात्मकं त्वां शरणं प्रपन्नाः II

God is established in Satya and is attainable by seeking Satya. All quest for truth is a spiritual journey. We see many things disappear. They had an existence, but have lost it. But, God is eternal. He existed, exists and will exist. That is the import of trisatyam.

Satyam is split into सत् and त्यद्. Sat denotes fire, water and earth, and tyad denotes air and ether. Satyam, a combination of the five elements, has thus a meaning of the observed world. God is the source of the world – satyasya yoni. He is in the world – satye nihitam.

Satyasya satyam occurs perhaps for the first time in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. He is the Satya behind Satya, the world. Advaita interprets the world as Brahman, but it appears as the world because of Mithya, which is caused by ignorance. The world and God overlap and by proper perception, we can see Brahman in the place of duality of the world and the individual self. God is thus not adventitious, not outside the world. We become free when we appreciate this in our experience.   

The world is real (satyam) and has order (ritam), which attributes it owes to God. That is the meaning of saying Satyam and Ritam are the eyes of God. Atma of Satya (world) is again Brahman.

Satyam was considered the foremost of virtues. Harischandra underwent untold ordeal for refusing to tell a lie. Rama was described as dharmatma and satyasandha, the quintessential avatara purusha, an ideal man. Yudhishtira was devoted to truth, but lied in the battle to distract Drona and paid a price.

We have adopted satyameva jayate from Mundaka Upanishad as the national logo and are carefully preserving it there lest it escalates to the society spoiling our sleep. One of the things that has to happen for India to be counted in the world is that all of us should adopt Satyam as the way and the goal.

Truth is not what we cling to, but that which clings to us. One who is not free from bad conduct , has no control of senses and is not focused of mind, cannot realise the truth (Katopanishad). The great people have advised us in this regard: choose and stick to good conduct.

But vyavaharika satya is different from paramarthika satya. ..  There are so many aspects where people take a view based on predisposition and do not change when compelling evidence points the other way.

August 13, 2014

Truth is simple and pure

"Truth is rarely pure and never simple." Oscar Wilde

I like Wilde to no end, but this one sets me thinking. Truth is pure, but covered in Kosas which are impure, so it appears impure perhaps. Truth is simple, but we overlook simple things, like we pass a good and honest man as a buddhu. Truth is simple and pure, what is difficult is to get to it because it means giving up ego (both egoism and egotism) which binds us to life like electronic media binds children (many fail to grow up, so they continue to be children). The world of truth is timeless whereas the one we are used to is ephemeral, so let us attend to this world- make hay while the sun shines.

 

Truth

I forwarded this quote to friends:

“The truth has never been of any real value to any human being. In human relations, kindness and lies are worth a thousand truths.”

Graham Greene.

They came back with beautiful comments.

1.

I think this is a point made by Graham Greene in his book "The Quiet American". The book was also made into a movie. It is about the breakdown of French colonialism in Vietnam and early American involvement in the Vietnam War.

As to the first point "The truth has never been of any real value to any human being" - I would prefer the "words to any human being" perhaps "any" may be substituted with "Many or even most who are in power "

There are individuals who have stood by truth even under dire circumstances - even today there are many who value "truth" and kindness in human relations around the world.

As regards "Truth" - here is a movie "Rashoman" by Akiro Kurosawa - the theme goes:

"Brimming with action while incisively examining the nature of truth, "Rashomon" is perhaps the finest film ever to investigate the philosophy of justice. Through an ingenious use of camera and flashbacks, Kurosawa reveals the complexities of human nature as four people recount different versions of the story of a man's murder and the rape of his wife."

 

It is the "four people recount different versions of the story" as they saw & perceived - there was no attempt to lie or deceive by them. In effect.

The story, based on two short stories by Ryūnosuke Akutagawa, features a horrible crime which is told through various conflicting points of view, raising questions about the nature of truth.

 "Rashomon" (released in1950) was the film that brought Akira Kurosawa, and many would say Japanese cinema, to international renown, and it's a true cinematic masterpiece.

2.

At a tangent.

Felipe Armesto wrote a book called TRUTH. The second title for the book was A HISTORY and a guide for the perplexed. I quote from the blurb and from the book. “We need a history of the truth- though until now no one has tried to write one. We need it to test the claim that truth is just a name for opinions which suit the demands of society or the convenience of the elites. We need to be able to tell whether truth is changeful or eternal, embedded in time or outside it, universal or varying from place to place.”

“It is universal in philosophical terms, which is held to exist apart from all its instances, or a hypostasis- a single Truth which transcends all particular truths and makes them true. The Satyasya Satyam of the Upanishad.”

“We need a history of truth to illuminate the unique predicament of our times ..........and to escape from it.”

Graham Greene was pilloried for writing the truth in the QUIET AMERICAN, in which there were some harsh portrayals of the American role in the Vietnam war. The Americans were even more incensed because the novel was acclaimed in England.

In a lighter vein: In his Our Man in Havana, another very interesting novel, MI6 believes everything their informant- a vacuum cleaner salesman turned Secret Agent- tells them as the truth, not suspecting that he is filing fictitious reports.

3.

My own theorising mind at work: “Truth is the most fascinating and the most elusive thing in science (nature of the physical world), life (what it is) and philosophy (abstractions). I feel that as in life - which is enjoyable as a process if we are not interested in a destination- so in the effort to seek the truth the journey is engaging. Being truthful in every situation has been the most satisfying part in life. 'Truth alone triumphs' is not an assurance of material success, but this supreme feeling of satisfaction.

*

Heard in a discourse:

For what I experience, no other corroboration is possible or necessary.

 

 

Truth is in direct experience

In description, there is no truth. Truth is in direct experience. There is truth in the mountain I see. More ontologically, there is truth in me rather than in the mountain. Delving deeper, the truth is integral in me and the mountain. There is no truth in the above as it is a description.

A jnani does not speak because the truth in experience is different from the truth in narration, which is deficient always if not deformed. (‘For words mislead as often as they guide.’ Chuang-tze as quoted by Will Durant. Tyndal as quoted in ‘Mahatma’s Letters’: “Facts looked directly at are vital, when they pass into words half the sap is taken out of them.")

C.L.Wren, in his book, 'The English language,"(any) language, like any other way of expressing the human mind, must be by the very nature of its being, be both inaccurate and incomplete: and for this reason some modern philosophers have doubted its validity or usefulness for the attempt to convey any kind of truth.'

Truth, Goodness, Beauty (Satyam, Sivam, Sundaram – Western idealisation)

Satyam, Jnanam, Anantam or Sat-Chit-Anandam (Truth or Being, Consciousness, Infinity/ Bliss – Upanishads)

Authenticity, Awareness, Autonomy (Eric Berne)

When we are centred on this (the three are different ways of looking at one reality), transcending transactions of pleasure and pain that are incessant in a passing tiny life and immaterial in the totality of LIFE, we sense the unity and fullness of LIFE as it is.

The persistent feeling of individuality as separate from the totality is the root of our problems and seeking an impossible escape and immortality. Just as water evaporating from the ocean returns to it in course of time, the appearance and disappearance of individuals go on. Water that has left the ocean has the same ‘waterness’ as the water in the ocean and will be indistinguishable once it is merged in the ocean.

We have several diversions to free the mind from the disturbing vicissitudes of life, but actually they crowd the mind, do not clarify. Freeing the mind of the idea of separateness leads to wisdom. We do feel it (oneness) in clear moments just as when we feel happy at others’ happiness and feel sad when others suffer.

In oneness, our destiny is fixed.

 

Aug 5, 2004

One should keep one’s head clear, mind still and heart pure to receive divine communication. Head is what facilitates all understanding (awareness). Mind is a collection of events, real and imaginary. Heart is a symbol for our feelings. Only positive feelings help in connecting with God.

Silence has to be practised. Silence is absence of thoughts and tough to attain.

 

 

 

Ananda is within us.

Reality is both immanent (Personal->Religious->superstitions, beliefs, customs) and transcendental (Non-personal->realisation->universal).

God is universal as well as unique.

Religion is like language.

When mind is closed, understanding goes.