Violence

The message of Gita is not violence, but the duty to defend, to do one's duty and to protect one's honour. Culture is about that. Defence is a natural instinct, but duty of a given position and honour are cultural additions. Law recognises fairness of defensive violence. Human rights activists take non-violence to a ridiculous extent of leaving the innocent vulnerable while taking up cudgels for the terrorists. The state action against terrorism and a border incursion fall within violence that Gita would sanctify. MG has conceded as much. Men naturally also fall into different categories, with some predisposed to violence. What we see in animals as difference in species (domestic and wild, say), we see within the species in humans. There would not have been so much emphasis on non-violence if it is an inherited trait.

August 24, 2014 ·

Non-violence:

What is non-violence and who has to practice it?

Violence is part of nature (the birth of the universe itself, volcanoes, storms, tsunamis, ferocious animals, horns for even milder animals, fangs for snakes, etc.) and compassion is a human derivative. We stress non-violence because there is an instinctive resort to violence (beating children to ensure submission, happenings in some assemblies, etc.) and a counterstroke is necessary as violence often fails. Violence is part of life process. One life has to depend on another, sentient or otherwise.

The Hindu thinking sanctioned violence as a policy in war and to quell evil. A kshatriya dying in war is eulogised and one dying of old age or infirmity is decried.

Non-violence as a principle (pancha-sila) was a later day development. It is possible that Jain and Buddhist philosophies caused the shift. For our day-to-day life, non-violence is necessary.

The idea of sama-dana-bheda-danda places danda at the last, and it is as it should be. In SBI, sama was preferred by dana at the cost of efficiency and customer service. A tough and firm stand would have achieved results in most cases, but everyone adopted a body language of meek surrender. The management was to blame, not the unions. A union man told me that they go to the mgt. with 10 demands with only 4 or 5 as the goal, but the mgt. concedes all 10. Being fair and firm wins the day, provided you are authentic, principled and exerting for the bank. But, to try danda as a policy would undermine HR.

When working in credit, there was objection to norms for inventory and receivables citing special situations where the norms were strangulating. We explained that norms were for normal times and for abnormal times, norms would be relaxed. So also, non-violence is a guiding principle, not a mandatory provision.

Mahatma Gandhi readily agreed that violence was justified in certain circumstances.

Non-violence as an absolute and inviolable policy is for recluses and gnanis. We have made up our minds not to have anything to do with such crazy things. So, violence is an available option provided we can battle it out.

May peace prevail by violent or non-violent means!

Mahabharata:

"Usanas has said that scriptures are no scriptures if they cannot stand the test of reason."

January 16, 2017 ·

Killing

“Killing is present everywhere in the food chain that runs throughout the animal kingdom.”

I am writing this in reaction to a post that draws attention to the cruelty to animals prior to being killed for food. There is an appeal to a person in public sphere (I see nothing to celebrate in them). Most of these persons will do something only if it means pleasure, money, attention, or fame. I have not seen any of them doing something for public good out of their personal wealth. Rare are persons like MS.

An animal that is being killed has no choice. People kill not only for food but also as a religious offering. The method of killing also is scripturally dictated and the pain to the poor thing is not in the least in consideration. (“If the blood being the soul was eliminated form the flesh, then the killing would not have been a true killing. .. To eat the flesh of animals, all that man had to do was drain the blood away”). The sacrifices performed were also cruel execises in killing.

What happens in advanced countries?

“In factory farms, right now, millions of animals spend a life of agony crammed together in spaces that prevent them from any movement, before being killed as hastily as possible. According to food industry ideology, this takes place with the ‘consent’ of the animals themselves, who are supposed to feel more secure in such conditions.”

I wonder how much we alleviate the suffering of animals by being a little kind to them before being killed. Do the bulls like having to work in the field and on the road, or are they as much amused by jallikkattu as we are? They sense death and that agony must be perhaps more painful than any comfort we may afford while transporting them to the slaughterhouse.

Can we altogether stop it?

“.. such killing is practically unlimited, based on alleged social need (the vegetarian diet cannot be imposed by law). On the other hand, all attempts at moral justification fail miserably, even by a civilisation that prides irself on giving moral justifications for everything. The conflict rings loud and clear. Bit it has to become part of general awareness. Indeed, the issue is regarded as distasteful and is avoided. It is left to professional agitators like Elizabeth Costello to raise it in academic circles, as J M Coetzee, her chronicler, recounts. The reaction is a series of muffled coughs of embarrassment.”

(The quotations are from Ardor by Roberto Calasso).

May 17, 2016

Terrorism

Terrorism and the response to it
Is terrorism (violence) justified? Is revenge justified? Is capital punishment justified? Are there incontrovertible amnswers to these? It would appear that for the first two questions, the answer is simple and straight. May not be.
We are familiar with the arguments on these issues and I do not have a proposal that will throw fresh light. But, my purpose here is to dwell on the response to the violence that refuses to die down.
More innocent people die as a result of such violence, and yet all protection is for those who waste public money even otherwise.
What about the cost? How far can we afford it – the anti-terrorist measures? Not that there is a choice, but will it bleed the economy heralding success to the terrorists? They want to destablise the establishment and exploit the anarchy.
Is there any way to weaken terrorism? Who is thinking of it?
If ideology is not inspiring terrorism, what does?
In mythology, it was told that if you kill one rakshasa many more crop up. Is that coming true in respect of terrorists?
In films (Tamizh for instance), we have a villain looking like one, but behind him there will be another having a ‘respected’ position and will be exposed at the climax. Is a similar situation prevailing in regard to terrorism?
How far 

are the guardians of the state in collusion with these for personal or political gains?
Are we heading for scary days

Jun 22, 2004

Does the soul exist?

Let us assume it does not. What do you attribute your experience to you? who experiences?

The body cannot explain consciousness, ego and experience. There is an I in us that seems constant though the body keeps changing. Soul is the experiencer. But the experiences themselves are transitory and not substantial. That is the principle of maya.

 

Thoughts and mind complicate life for us. ‘Nature abhors vacuum’ – Niels Bohr. Mind is no exception. If we push away some thoughts others rush in. So if we fill it with God, then the Satan is kept away. But good thoughts or God thoughts are only the first step. We have to transcend thoughts to dwell in our real being, which is bliss, Ananda. So long as we live a life of wants and think thoughts of such wants and non-fulfilment, life is a misery. Even the happiness of getting a rarity fades away. We grope or progress, but the real achievement is in finding that inner self in which awareness there is no otherness and no want. The body becomes immaterial. But such a state is hard like a razor’s edge walk.

Nature

15/9/2014
NATURAL
We use the word ‘natural’ by rote possibly correctly, but what it means is tricky to explain. The immediate meaning, ‘of or like nature’ is acceptable, but not explicit.
Often we have in mind that which is creation of man as opposed to nature. Artificial (made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally), contrasts with natural.
Man is a product of nature, steering clear of theology. But, the distinction that creation of man is not the work of nature stems from the idea that the world is creation of a Supermind. Otherwise, man being a part of nature, what he does is secondarily, at least, part of nature too. But, we are used to the prevalent idea that man-made things are artificial.
Sankara calls the state where (human) effort is involved as transient and the one where no effort is exerted as real. In Samskritam, prakriti denotes nature and samskriti denotes culture, human intervention. Culture and civilization, all knowledge including scriptures, are products of human mind. How far are they natural?
‘Natural is the best’ is a view that seems to be gaining momentum, nature cure, for instance. Nature is a huge laboratory where everything seems to settle by trial and error. It has no purpose that humans can discern. Nature is neither kind nor cruel to man. It does not care. The same nature produces delicious stuff that feeds man to be alive as produces poisons like hemlock with which Socrates was condemned to die. The same nature that brings on a zephyr to soothe the body unleashes a storm that destroys life. Nature is not benevolent or malevolent. It is human perception that describes it one way or the other. So, nature is not the best or the worst for human beings. It is just the setting that permits human life as a part of a whole rather than as the servant of man.
Let us take a controversial topic. Is homosexuality natural or not? There are people to whom it is natural! Why was it taboo? Nature likes reproduction and propagation, alongside destruction and renewal. Sex is the instinct that nature developed to aid its purpose. Only heterosexuality can ensure reproduction. Therefore, homosexuality does not appear to be ‘natural’. But, this presentation is human, based on reasoning, whereas the urge for homosexuality has occurred of its own. The very discussion herein may not be natural if human interpretation were not in the scheme of nature.
Would man have been better off living on instinct alone like animals? That may be a useless question to answer. The choice to live by instinct alone is gone. Instinct still acts strongly, but it is far from being trustworthy in the humanly organized world. We have to act by the norms of society and balance often instinct and intervention. For example, should we leave an illness to be sorted out on its own, or get medical help? The choice was not there for the early man. The modern man has to choose.
Nature is vast, its working complex, and my intellect and understanding limited. Naturally, I am unable to arrive at a denouement.

8/8/2016

All the time we try to arrive at some generalisation, a code of behaviour and a pattern of expectation that can be applied as a formula. That perhaps is the basis of human organisation, not necessarily preference of nature. Nature synthesises in interesting permutations and combinations and seems to avoid tedium in so doing. Look at how different we are from one another, with our look, voice, taste, and so on.

Life cannot be led without attention to the nagging differences in details. This truth is conveyed in the saying: ‘You cannot cross a river based on the average depth’.We need to develop knowledge necessary for the purpose on hand.

It is also a healthy habit not to see others from a standard model that has no sanctity.

 June 09, 2016

Reason

Nature does not follow reason. It chooses convenience. Human beings are part of nature and behave like nature does. The only difference is that they invent reason for what they do.

Dec 8, 2018
Nature is ever virgin no matter you molest her.
Nature endures even if you injure her.
Our nature is in Nature and our put-ons will wear away. 
There is only one god and it is nature. The Hindus have given the colour of blue and green to Krishna and Rama. That to me is to show that god is in nature and not in some heaven.

Nature cares for us as we are its child. Nature directs us to variety to sustain our interest and continue life. What disappears appears in another form and what appears feels the need to transform. Each atom of nature throbs with life.

Nature allows its children circumscribed liberty and shows no partiality.

Nature teaches us through curiosity, fear and uncertainty.

Nature is a miracle. It changes and yet changes not. It has shifting horizon and hidden secrets. It reveals its secrets but not all and in no particular hurry. It reveals only to make it still more mysterious.

Nature is a whole pretending to be in parts. No part is apart from it. Nature never lets anything go outside it.

Nature is all that is there and in nature anything and everything is complete.

Nature seems to circumvent obstacles. It does not care for normative rules, grammar or structure. Order in nature is what facilitates existence, not what adds to ornamentation. Art is not part of nature. The world of art is man-made and is for human enjoyment. You won’t see any other species appreciate it. Music is slightly different.

Nature presents gradation. Casteism sprang from gradation. Evolution is as great an illusion as any. It is an interpretation and deduction from gradation.

Astrology

Astrology is not a science, but we do not follow science in life. If someone believes in it, what objection can others have?

As for me, astrology cannot be a guide to life.

Let me present my case in another way.

It is not necessary that something must be a science to be true and valid. I believe in Soul/Brahman and it is not born of science. One may have conviction about astrology from his own point of view. I lack it. But, the conviction has nothing to do with astrology being a science.

Escalating the discussion, probably, there is some correlation between the planetary conjunctions at the time of conception, a definitive moment that fixes the identity of an individual, not the time of delivery. Scientifically, a large part of an individual’s make-up (colour, predispositions, etc.) are determined at conception. Delivery is not as significant an event except that it takes place normally about 270 days since conception. Where C-section is done, it becomes arbitrary. A relative of mine fixed the C-section on a star of his choice. Even, going by conception, the characteristics of twins differ and their fortunes. That has not been satisfactorily accounted for. I am mentioning this to bring out the point that I have been thinking of it. I tried a bit to understand astrology from the traditional point of view amateurishly. I did not persevere.

It is simply that I do not regard astrology relevant to life – and I have, if anything, right to my life only. Others will decide for themselves.

On the basic point, that astrology is not a science. I would like to hear counter-arguments how it is a science. Anecdotes are not an argument. Comparison with meteorology is ill-conceived. Metereology has explanation for the prediction. Failure of a prediction does not make it unscientific. Such a correlation is unavailable for astrology.

Astrology
In a discourse on Harischandra, Rajaji was present. The Pauranika praised him and said, 'His horoscope indicated that he would become a great person.' He invited Rajaji to speak a few words. Rajaji said, 'What the Pauranika said about my horoscope is against the grain of the story. When I was to be admitted in school, my parents did not know my exact date of birth. The question of my horoscope or any prediction based on it does not arise.'
Rajaji was against astrology as useless any which way you look at it.
The acid test is whether there is a reasonable basis for astrology to be taken seriously and there is none. We may believe and follow our belief. That is our privilege. That cannot add to or detract from truth.
Astrology to be science must meet two criteria. One is that it should be possible to form a theory from fundamentals that will hold good reasonably. Why Rahu, Ketu etc. are malefic? How does a distant planet exert influence on an individual? No plausible answers are there for this and many other basic issues. (General justification like moon's influence in mind etc. has been overdone). Second is there should be replicability. Not only should the observations uphold the conclusions arrived at, but similar conditions should produce like results. It fails on this count also. The one common dig at astrology is about the divergent fortunes of two born at the same time. (Lack of accuracy is an issue in science also particularly in micro world. That does not hold water for astrology's poor performance). The only factor in its favour is that a number of observations as per the chart are borne out in actual life. But, that does not make it a science any more than a positive correlation between two unrelated variables make them related. It is interesting, just as mythology is. No harm if it is not a science. It should never come into reckoning in the affairs of the state or science by some popular demand.

Mala Chandrashekhar Do you believe that ebbs & tides are caused by the positions of Sun & Moon? Is this fact Scientific or Unscientific in your view? Do you believe that mothers on family way, if exposed to the rays of Sun & Moon at the time of Solar & Lunar Eclipse, have invariably deformed children born to them? My husband Shekhar, who is a medical man and a man of very scientific thinking, says that most operating surgeons in hospitals always avoid the day of POURNAMI ( Full Moon Day ) for surgeries as there is tremendous bleeding on these days and all sorts of complications arise. They perhaps want to be on the safer side and don't want to risk their professional reputation.

Kv Chellappa No. 1 is explainable by gravitation. No. 2 is a myth. Even if true, it may be due to some radiation, it has nothing to do with extra-scientific factors. About operation on Pournami, I do not know. Several doctors in India believe in astrology and have superstitions (I too have loads of them). Someone should put up cogent arguments why astrology is a science. If there is some material somewhere, tell me. I will read and change my opinion (not that it matters to anyone or astrology) if there is convincing argument.  

Astrology and me

My horoscope was cast in the village by an amateur astrologer (an absentee landlord who was working in Madras and was on a visit during harvest). He did a few hours of strenuous calculation (no calculators in the fifties) and finished the chart and handed over to my father with a fair comment that it was an average horoscope. I came to know later only that he has placed Sani in the eighth house in the horoscope. (In the actual world we had only one old village house). It was not clear how we offended him.
I was used to hearing people use ashtama sani in scolding also. So, that kept me in mental knots.
In Bombay, Raghurajan, a close friend from Madurai days, whom I consulted, said, ‘You won’t die even if you are thrown in the sea with a crowbar tied to you’. Luckily no one did it. He however took pity on me, took the details of my birth, time and place, went to Asiatic (a store opposite Churchgate station) and got a new horoscope. He was so powerful he could shift Sani from the eighth to the seventh house. I felt triumphant.
But, it was short-lived. The next quack of an astrologer was not really pleased with Sani in the seventh house and predicted dire things. He was not a friend and was not well disposed to me and refused to shift Sani further. I changed houses many times since, but Sani has not. How cruel!
Horscopes and astrology are good fun like watching movies or comics.
My views are shaped in a way by Rajaji. Rajaji was dead against astrology.
In one upanyasam on Harischandra, Anantarama Dikshitar sighted Rajaji and praised him saying, ‘Rajaji’s horoscope is divine. A great life was predicted for him on seeing the horoscope.’ Little knowing what he was in for, he invited Rajaji to speak a few words. Rajaji said, ‘Dikshitar said about my horoscope. His father-in-law is a famous astrologer. So he goes gaga over astrology. But what he said about my horoscope runs counter to the spirit of the story he is discoursing on. Even my exact date of birth is not known so much so that when I had to be put in school they had to scratch their heads.’

Rishi

Rishi: my musings
Wikpedia: "A Rishi (or rishika, when referring to female rishis) is a sage of insight, one who practices self-cultivation as a Yogini or Yogi and attains asamprajñata Samadhi. A person through Yogic concentration first attains samprajñata samadhi (realisation of the independence of soul and body, Atma and Prakriti) and with continued effort attains asamprajñata samadhi (realisation of oneness with all). The Rishi's soul is interpreted as imbibing wisdom directly from the universal source. Vedic hymns are sermons conceived as delivered by divine inspiration by the rishis."

A Rishi utters, unalloyed by his mind or ego, the truth that he uncovers, so to say, by his tapas. He not only knows what he speaks, but becomes one with the truth that he expresses pithily. Variations in the expressions of different Rishis are reconcilable and arise due to trying to convey in words what is in essence ineffable. A prophet perhaps acts as a conduit and may not know what he is talking about, but it is inappropriate to equate such a prophet with Rishi. Another word used in this connection is tatvadarsi. tatva is truth, it means 'that you are'. The one who realises it is a tatvadarsi. He is not an ignoramus repeating like a parrot some momentous truth, but a realised soul who speaks from the depth of his being.

There is a sloka from Bhavabhuti. The translation runs thus: "With the pious man of the world their language follows the sense, whereas with the seers (Rishis) of old, the sense runs after their speech." The beauty of it is lost in the translation, though it is rendered in chaste English (obviously not my effort).

One might have read in Julius Caesar, "Not that he loved Caesar less, But that he loved Rome more." If you put it in prose, it will look lacking sense, but Shakespeare has struck a chord in our hearts with that usage.

Getting back to Bhavabhuti, the idea is, normally we have something to convey and find words to do that, often we may grope, but pious men find apt words. But, Rishis do not have the need to say anything, they are impelled to describe the truth that they have realised and whatever they say is full of meaning. Meaning comes later, words come first. It is not as though the meaning is laboured. It flows naturally and rhythmically.

Therefore, if anyone thinks that the Rishis did not know what they were uttering, that will be an error.

Rama Rajya

1. Rama Rajya
   

   Mahatma Gandhi wanted Rama Rajya in India. A friend wondered how the Muslims would ever have agreed to it. It is pathetic that he should misread Gandhi. What Gandhi wanted was good rule, not one of worshipping Rama. Gandhi's life is eloquent testimony to his love of Muslims and championship of their rights. What does Rama Rajya mean? Let us turn to Valmiki:
   "While Rama was ruling the kingdom, there were no widows to lament, nor there was danger from wild animals, nor any fear born of diseases.
   The world was bereft of thieves and robberies. No one felt worthless nor did old people perform obsequies concerning youngsters.
   Every creature felt pleased. Every one was intent on virtue. Turning their eyes towards Rama alone, creatures did not kill one another.
   While Rama was ruling the kingdom, people survived for thousands of years, with thousands of their progeny, all free of illness and grief.
   The trees there were bearing flowers and fruits regularly, without any injury by pests and insects. The clouds were raining in time and the wind was delightful to the touch.
   Brahmins (the priest-class), Kshatriyas (the warrior-class), Vaishyas (the class of merchants and agriculturists), Shudras (the servant-class) were performing their own duties, satisfied with their own work and bereft of any greed. While Rama was ruling, the people were intent on virtue and lived without telling lies.
   (This has to be interpreted in the context of divison of labour)
   All the people were endowed with excellent characteristics. All were engaged in virtue."
   (Source: sanskritdocuments.org)

Death

12/2/12
28th March is the date of my father's death.
जातस्य हि ध्रुवो मृत्युः ध्रुवं जन्म मृतस्य च.
Certain is death for the born and birth for the dead. while we know the former, the latter is a matter of faith. this passage of Gita is repeated by Sankara:
पुनरपि जनानां पुनरपि मरणं.

Death has puzzled us all along. Shakespeare is matter-of-fact when he says:
'The undiscovered country fro mwhose bourn
No traveller returns,..'
This presupposes soul and its journey beyond death.

Even the most ardent believer likes to prolong his present life. Longevity is one of the favours sought of God.

When we get a guest, we receive him well generally. when some respected guest comes we go to the gate and bring him in. When we extend such courtesy even to frequent visitors, should we not do it to someone who pays a visit once only? That is Yama. We should ever be prepared to receive him with open arms and.. closed eyes. 

Radhakrishnan writes, 'Subjection to death, the principle of unceasing change, is the characteristic of the cosmic process.'

Nachiketas dares into the kingdom of Yama and gets instructed on the destiny of soul and the way to realise immortality. but, it is spiritual immortality only.

Savithri pleads with Yama and restores Satyavan to life. Markandeya takes refuge in Siva and thwarts Yama's attempts to end his life. He is believed to be sixteen years of age ever. In the case of Ajamila, the representatives of Vishnu rescue him from the clutches of Yamadutas. Such mythological accounts lie side by side with attempts of demons like Ravana, Hiranyakasipu, etc. to defy death through the penance and divine boon, but are eventually outwitted. 

23rd Feb 2018
What happens when a person dies? I received a forwarded message how people who went through near death state, related incredible, but realistic experience. Consciousness survives death, the article argues.
Common experience or our experience counts more.
Our problem is we are not able to handle our consciousness even when we are consciously alive.
There will always be claims and counterclaims about supernatural, mystical, extraterrestrial, etc. Life will be interesting until these issues remain speculative and our life depends on chance and effort.
Weiss has written so much about rebirth, etc.
I am a firm believer in Advaita, which considers physical world as tentative and pure consciousness as the substance of existence; being rather than becoming, realisation rather than attaining a new state, is the way to moksha; moksha is not waking up in a new place, but awakening. I am fascinated by Upanishadic speculation and Sankara's masterly exposition of them.

July 28, 2016 ·

When I phoned my village to enquire about an old person (I am sorry to mention the caste, a dalit) who worked as thalayari (a village sewak) for my father, a village munsif, I was sad to know he is no more. He was an honest man. He taught me cycling and swimming.

The expression used to convey the news was 'avar kalamayittar'. It means literally he has become time. That is a very philosophic expression. In life we 'see time pass' or feel we have been fruitfully engaged if we do not see it pass. Time seems to be a master. We desire to be the master. So in death, we become time, the master. It seems more expressive than mar gaya or passed away.

It will be interesting to study all the common expressions in vernaculars, and appreciate how much our culture and Vedanta is impregnated in it.

/10/18

Death
In a simplistic way, I think that death is a non-event. It is one-off and irreversible. We are not exercised why a worm dies. I see no difference between two lives as 'life' phenomenon. A worm is born, lives and dies. So does a man. That he can understand that he exists, can manipulate what he finds, and indulge in questions like why he exists and what death is, does not take away from the existential fact that he is born, lives and dies.
We should keep on sensible leads and keep looking for new evidence and readjusted theories of world, life and progress. That is because we are so driven.
I feel that both are interesting, the sense-driven zest for living and the intellect-driven quest for knowing.

Death by Shakespeare!
Shakespeare is arguably the greatest killer after Vyasa (Mahabharata).
Let us see death from Shakespeare’s eyes.
He already presented the dilemma of life and death in the famous soliloquy in Hamlet before ‘The play is the thing Where I will catch the king’. To Elizabethans soul and ghost were reality. The play of Hamlet will fall apart without the ghost. Thus an after-death apparition is what greets the audience in the opening.
Death is not an end, and one is not sure what awaits after death since no traveller to that undiscovered country has filed any report of what it is like there. In Upanishads, we have the luxury of Nachiketas confronting Yama, discussing death intimately with him and returning. That facility was not available for Hamlet!
Now, after Hamlet’s legendary procrastination (something from which public servants have taken profound notes), we come to the end – literally. The stage is prepared for a mass funeral. Shakespeare takes pity on his prime victim (Hamlet) and the audience and provides a comic interlude. There is a discussion on death in a jovial way. Is it not something for us to take heart and join in instead of being lost in esoteric details of heredity, evolution, philosophy, and what not?
There was a talk by Sri Jaggi Vasudev. He asks the audience whether they have seen any dead man or woman. Many raise their hands, but he says that he has not seen any. He says that he has seen a living person, but only a dead body. He must have read Hamlet. The clowns make that point.
Hamlet surveys the destiny that awaits him instantly – or his body, but not knowing it. He is supposed to be mad, he puts on that show, or is half-mad and half made up. Horatio humours him and Shakespeare shows excellent knowledge of psychology.
The clown claims that the gravedigger builds something stronger than a mason, a shipwright or a carpenter, because what he builds lasts till the doomsday!
There is some interesting pun on ‘lie’ discussing whose grave the gravedigger is digging. The talk turns to 'Hamlet' and the gravediggers do not know that they are talking to Hamlet. They inform Hamlet that Hamlet has been deported to England. Hamlet asks them why and they say that it was because he was mad. Hamlet asks why England and they say, ‘He will recover his wits there; or, if he do not, ‘tis no great matter there.’ ‘ ‘Twill not be seen in him there; there the men are as mad as he.’
Madness is one way to escape the pangs of death.
To know more about death, Shakespeare has spread a wide choice. Death is sheer fun there.
*

Those that live may mourn the dead, it is the custom and cultural baggage, but it is for a while. The living have more pressing things to do than declare a lifelong mourning. No one has done it and it is wise. Let us care for the living, for ourselves too since we are living. When we are gone, let those that remain care for themselves and carry on.

*

July 16, 2014

Euthanasia

I feel it should be outside the ambit of law. No, not because religion says anything, but because it may be capable of being abused. We have no clue as to what life is. The entire spectrum of science has not yet unravelled the mystery. No, I do not talk of soul. I talk of the life process when it lasts. Medical science is scratching at the surface. Understanding some parts is not understanding the whole. Let us respect life- all life. Let us not think human life only is sacred. All life is part of LIFE. Until we understand life, let us live it by instinct. If someone will end his life quietly, let it be. Let us not create a code for it until we can create a code for creating life. It makes no sense if one life is extinguished in the infinity of life. Still, that one life is precious as it will never be again, and one does not know whether it has really finished its journey, however insignificant. Life is the biggest miracle. Let us do anything to preserve it, prolong it. That is the cumulative wisdom of mankind.

July 2011
கடலினின்று காய்ந்து ஆவியாகி பிரிந்த திவலை மேகமாகி, மழையாகி, ஆறாகி, பல இடங்களைக் கடந்து திரும்ப கடலிலேயே சேருவது போல, கடவுளிடமிருந்து தனித்த ஜீவன் கடவுளையே மறுபடியும் சேரும் - உழன்று திரிந்து களைத்தபின்.
आकाशात् पतितं तोयं यथा गच्छति सागरं
सर्व देव नमस्कारः केशवं प्रतिगच्छति.
கடலில் சேர்ந்த திவலைக்குத் தனித்தன்மை இல்லை. அதன் தனித்தன்மை சொற்ப காலத்துக்கே. அப்போதும் அது முழுக்கத் தனியாக இருப்பதில்லை. ஜீவனின் கதியும் இது.
திவலை நீங்கியதும் கடலின் அளவு குறையாது. அது திரும்பியதும் கடல் பெருகாது. பூரணமான பரம்பொருளும் அத்தகைத்தே.
ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदच्यते
पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवासिष्यते.
சில திவலைகள் குறுகிய நேரத்தில் கடலிலேயே மழையாகப் பெய்து கடலுக்குத் திரும்பலாம். இளமையில் காலன் வசப்படும் ஜீவனும் அப்படியே போலும்.

January 18, 2014

Death

Death!

Why are mortals afraid of you? A rhetorical question? Everyone knows that you are their inescapable destiny. There are a few who embrace you, but they are considered cowardly.

Death has not unsettled life. The living grieve the dead but they pass on to other things. Death is a renewal of life. If all those who are born are alive, it will be a dreadful prospect.

Only death defines life. Without death, there will not be any purpose in life. Death limits life and hence opens up choices. There are competing choices.

Curiously, people go after diverse choices. Imagine the monotony that would be there otherwise. The more conflicting the choices, the more interesting, the more rewarding, the more prosperous will be the society. Conflict is the basis of life, not consensus.

War is the spice of life, not peace. Do not misread me, I do not advocate war. I only point out its attraction and inevitability. When everyone is aware of the abysmal consequences of a nuclear war, why is there no consensus for nuclear disarmament? No one is holy in this game. Yudhishtira did the utmost to prevent a war. The very things he yielded to to avoid war brought about the war. Mahabharatha is an eternal spring of wholesome lessons for understanding conflict and war and how to handle it.

Oct 14, 2018

The key to life is TIME.

Time is the fourth dimension. For most part, we understand only the spatial world consisting of three dimensions and mistake it for life. Life is non-sense without time.

Plane geometry deals with two dimensions. Most of us do not follow even that. Solid geometry is still more difficult. Imagine understanding

it with an ‘imaginary’ time dimension. An event (space-time) cannot be captured on paper or in three-dimensional representation.

Those of us who master time can appreciate life. Death is a non-event in the apparent march of time. Eternity is also an illusion. Eternity is not the same as ‘timelessness’. 

In Indian languages, the word for time and death is ‘kala’.

If real is unchanging, this world which is spatially changing in the unceasing efflux of time, cannot be real. It is not imaginary, but undefinable.

Death is in the scheme of nature. It is not due to sin or karma.

To die in the seventies also is considered as unnatural, as many

live to the eighties. Many musicians have died in fifties and sixties like GNB, Ramanad Krishnan, MDR, Madurai Mani Iyer and D K Jayaraman.

I mention these names with a purpose.

All these like SPB had something more than their musical prowess, a sense of humanity and values, which to me matter more than name and fame, mass following. There are celebrities who set the trends in fashion and style and there is a hysterical fan following. I am not impressed.

We will never know whether god exists. But, faith has been popular. The only tenuous guidepost is the lives of these who appeared godly. Surely they were human and had perhaps some traits that the public would disapprove of on some unattained moral scale. But, they were worthy models.

We need people who guide us to order, hope and endurance, besides entertaining.

My respect for SPB is for his public conduct and becoming humility and consideration for all.

Vistas of Death

(Vista is a pleasant view)

Death is pleasant except in that brief moment when it occurs.

I am immortal because I will know when I am alive, but not when dead!        Eternity is seeing oneself in others and others in oneself.

Gita: 

सर्वभूतस्थमात्मानं सर्वभूतानि चात्मनि |

ईक्षते योगयुक्तात्मा सर्वत्र समदर्शन: || (6.29)

(The one who has his self in yoga and visualises unity everywhere, sees            himself in all living beings and all living beings in himself).

Cowards die many times before their death:’ Shakespeare.

‘The body never told us that it belonged to us and is under no obligation to give us notice when it quits us.’ Nochur Sri Venkataraman

'Death is not man's enemy.'

‘When you are alive, death is nothing. When you are dead, life is nothing.’ Epicurus

‘Not taking life quite so seriously – the pursuit of happiness notwithstanding – might then be Montaigne’s key to dying well. After all, there might be no surer inner peace in one’s final days than not needing it so badly.’ (From Aeon article)

"காலா! உனை நான் சிறு புல்லென மதிக்கிறேன்; என்தன்

காலருகே வாடா! சற்றே உனை மிதிக்கிறேன்-அட (காலா)"

Subramania Bharathi

(O God of Death, I treat you as grass; come near my foot, I will trample on you.)

मृत्योर्मुक्षीय माSमृतात्  (Sri Rudram) (Free me from pangs of death, not from immortality).

Asked about the posthumous state of man, Sri Ramana might reply: “Why do you want to know what you will be when you die before you know what you are now? First find out what you are now.” (Arthur Osborne)

A self-goal:

“Homo liber nulla de re minus quam de morte cogitat; et ejus sapientia non mortis sed vitae meditatio est. SPINOZA'S Ethics)

(There is nothing over which a free man ponders less than death; his wisdom is, to meditate not on death but on life.)"

(Quoted by Erwin Schrodinger)