Is there order in the current economic systems?

I am no economist. For that matter I do not even know many of the terminologies that are associated with this subject. I do not read the Business magazines to qualify myself as an expert on everyday affairs


Here are some straightforward questions that need to be answered

1. When we talk about some country economies doing well, is it happening at the expense of another country? If so,  is it because the performance of that country has degraded or is it because of cut throat competition? If it is the latter then is not a shame that life is all about competition and not about opportunities? Has that impacted the number of people employed in the other country. Has someone's ability to meet the basis expenses in his or her family been taken away because of that?

2. Is a country or organization making money at the expense of the health and happy social life of its people? A person working for more than half a day , is likely to miss out on so many important things in his life starting from the priority given to health and the priority given to one's family. Broken people do not make a success story

3. What has been the motivation towards generating wealth. Is it well being or is it motivated by acquiring more than what is required to be happy? Which goods produced by the economy is really required? Do we produce all that which is essential for everyone? Do we produce something that is harmful or unncessarily consuming resources difficult to replace. Are there ways of leading a more austere life which puts less strain on the environment?

4. Are some of the technologies which might be helping us out in many ways, because of lack of regulation, being used in ways that exploit the society and also cause disharmony ?

5. Is there a solid argument to suggest that monetary institutions like bank which thrive on loan interests or credits do not actually cause inflation and collapse of economy in the long term?

6. Is there a backup  for the world economies in case some critical raw material used by different products produced to sustain the economies dries out or are we hoping for some good fortune or luck to intervene just before time runs out? In that case can we not term the economy as non sustainable and unpredictable?

Sanathana Dharma - 8- Unity of Religions - Paramacharya

In this I will try to explain Paramacharya of Kanchi's views some of which will easily be considered reasonable and some which is likely to be difficult to comprehend for a Non Hindu

http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part1/chap6.htm

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.
The temple, the church, the mosque, the vihara may be different from one another. The idol or the symbol in them may not also be the same and the rites performed in them may be different. But the Paramatman who wants to grace the worshipper, whatever be his faith, is the same. The different religions have taken shape according to the customs peculiar to the countries in which they originated and according to the differences in the mental outlook of the people inhabiting them. The goal of all religions is to lead people to the same Paramatman according to the different attributes of the devotees concerned. So there is no need for people to change over to another faith. Converts demean not only the religion of their birth but also the one to which they convert. Indeed they do demean God.

A perspective that is common among some scholars is that polytheism gave way to monotheism . There is also a strong view that there are religions that are clear that there is more than one God, and the efforts to
present a one god behind the many is a later development. These views are born from the belief that religions are disconnected from an earlier religion and many religions excepting a few ( or one or two ) are nothing other than human invention. Question of religions being disconnected does not arise unless it is proven that at some stage of human development there was no religion of any kind. All that we know about civilized and uncivilized world points to the fact that religion has always been there wherever a human settlement has existed. Thus every religion must have been preceded by another religion. Thus the question would arise that if today according to scientific view, all humans must have originated from a single place, and if this is a reasonable argument to accept, then it is reasonable to accept that all religions have come from a parent religion. Whether the first religion was monotheistic or polytheistic is difficult to answer but if we look at the major religions atleast there is a similarity in some outlook and the fact that today all these religions endorse a single god principle. Paramacharya points to this fact and his spiritual experience and insight indicates that there is much that is similar in the different religions, the differences not being denied. He therefore goes one step further and says that conversion in religion is wrong.

 "A man leaves the religion of his birth because he thinks there is something wanting in it," so you may think. 'Why does the Svaamigal say then that the convert demeans the new religion that he embraces? " I will tell you why. Is it not because they think that God is not the same in all religions that people embrace a new faith? By doing so, they see God in a reduced form, don't they? They presumably believe that the God of the religion of their birth is useless and jump to another faith. But do they believe that the God of their new religion is a universal God? No. No. If they did there would be no need for any change of faith. Why do people embrace a new faith? Is it not because that the continuance in the religion of their birth would mean a denial of the blessings of the God of the new faith to which they are attracted? This means that they place limitations on their new religion as well as on its God. When they convert to a new religion, apparently out of respect for it, they indeed dishonour it.

The Quote above  is self explanatory. Two things are being denied by the convert
   1. That blessings of the God of new religion is available only to the convert and that God is not universal in his blessings, and not helping out people of different attitudes and circumstances.
   2. That God's grace was absent in the life of the individual until a certain period of the individual's life and that God is selectively guiding

Howsoever the missionary sugar coats the purpose of the conversion, the implication above cannot be sidestepped or overridden at any step even if the conversion be only for the purpose of marriage or convenience. It is either a hypocrisy or lack of patience or sincerity that is behind any conversion.

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. " And says one of the Azhvars: "Avaravar tamatamadu tarivari vahaivahai avaravar iraiyavar". This is the reason why the Hindus have not practiced- like adherents of other religions- proselytisation and religious persecution. Nor have they waged anything like the crusades or jehads.

The above view is not agreed by many sociologists in India. They present a violent hinduism which absorbed the tribal religions and they see the ruins of buddhism in every idol and forest god which was eliminated by hinduism. Less said the better about most of these theories. A crucial point in these theories is lack of actual evidence, either in any ancient oral or written tradition for most of these specific instances.

Our long history is sufficient proof of this. All historians accept the fact of our religious tolerance. They observe that, an empire like Srivijaya was established in the East, people there accepted our culture and our way of life willingly, not because they were imposed on them by force. They further remark that Hinduism spread through trade and not through force.
In my opinion the Vedic religion was once prevalent all over the world. Certain ruins and relics found in various regions of the planet attest to this fact. Even historians who disagree with my view concede that in the past people in many lands accepted Indian culture and the way of life willingly and not on account of any force on our part.

There are a lot of interesting pointers to this fact starting here http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2007-01-04/rest-of-world/27876299_1_ancient-coins-ancient-village-ancient-town
here

All religions that practice conversion employ a certain ritual. For instance, there is baptism in Christianity. Hinduism has more ritual than any other religion, yet its canonical texts do not contain any rite for conversion. No better proof is needed for the fact that we have at no time either encouraged conversion or practiced it.
When a passenger arrives at a station by train he is besieged by the driver of the horse-cart, by the rikshavala, by the cabbie, and so on. He hires the vehicle in which he likes to be driven to his destination. It cannot be said with reason that those who ply different vehicles are guilty of competing with one another for the fare. After all it is their livelihood. But it makes no sense for the adherents of various faiths to vie with one another to take a man to the one and only destination that is God.
There is a bridge across a river, consisting of a number of arches, each of them built to the same design and measurement. To the man sitting next to a particular arch it would appear to be bigger than the other arches. So is the case with people belonging to a particular religion. They feel that their religion alone is great and want others to join it. There is in fact no such need for anyone to leave the religion of his birth for 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.

The simple thing to add here is that attempts to have uniformity is the cause of disunity as there is always a different view of what should be uniform. It is better to establish practices which have deep roots in tradition which give moral strength in the individual, which he/she can be influenced from the time of his or her birth, which is acceptable to a group of people who can provide ethical/moral support to each other. A human being is a man of a community and not an isolated person. The community must have a commonly accepted set of practice and a strong commitment to these ethics and which must be naturally vibing with their mindset and mental makeup. The commitment to ethics can be only fostered across generations if the individual discipline is maintained from  childhood.  This later becomes a habit and then strong rooted . the grown up individual would then act out of conviction not because of some kind of blind adherence or worry about what others think. By allowing intermarriages this kind of committed attitude to any set of religion specific beliefs would tend to become diluted and lost overtime in such families. It is common to see communities arising out of intermarriages break the taboos in both their parent cultures . I may be labelled as someone possessing a strong and outdated view. Also I could be labelled as a person promoting differences in people. The point is if individuals can be comfortably fit into communities suitable to their family and also to their temparement then we have a better way of propagating good practices and reforming the bad within. The other scenario is chaotic and unmanageable. The disunity among communities is a result of conversion or aggressive attempts by one community to influence or sidestep the other. Some implications of having multiple communities in a state cannot be avoided unless the Government has a neutral and impartial planned policy to accomodate the interests of all.  Other aspects are purely because of the aggressive attitude to absorb another culture or break a stable setup of another community or a family within that community. Reading this some might tend to think it is better to have one community and one religion. My answer to this is that it is good to speak theoretically and for name sake define one common religion but as long as there is a wide difference in ethical standards or in emotional responses or in desires of individuals , a natural division of society into specific groups is unavoidable. The only question that remains is that "Given the fact that a natural division of human society into parties with different interest , inclinations and beliefs is unavoidable, howsoever the effort may be to bring uniformity, what is the way by which we can regulate formation of groups and to allow stable societies to exist and which  have a clear agenda not to cross over into another's path?" The answer is there and one must logically evaluate all options and previous experiences in societies. Therefore when the Acharya says "The goal must be unity, not uniformity."  he has pointed to the key thing that we all must understand and he could not be more right. This is truly the spirit of Sanathana Dharma.

Sanathana Dharma - Part 7


The basic argument is that Every person has to adhere to Dharma to expect to live a happy life. This has been the subject of discussion earlier as well. The argument has to hold true even from the time of birth whether an individual is conscious or unconscious of it. We can look at a reasonable position that one has sufficient inputs right from the time of birth to follow Dharma. One can also take a stance that this is  not the case. One can say that this happens only at some stage of life and perhaps to only some and not to all.
If we go by latter stance we must admit that we have no chance to rectify our course of action until at a certain stage in life. We must then say that some people are very lucky and some not so lucky. If we assume the birth as the "The starting point" then we must further conclude this is unfair. That universal laws can be unfair in operation. One can take an unemotional stance and say life is life and there is nothing that can be done about it. All this might suit an atheistic stance but for one who believes in god as a living active principle one must have to be forced to take recourse to the former stance that one's dharma and the opportunity to select the right path is available the moment one begins to think. In other words the Dharma a person is introduced at birth becomes his religion.

There must be in it what is the seed for all that is required for the individual to get the maximum benefit out of life. The contradictory facets and the misinterpretations looking at it this way must be the mask or the dust on top of a stainless glass. To look at an another example. A horse can be disguised as a donkey but a horse will still be a horse and can work like a horse provide you use it as a horse and not as a donkey. The same applies to religion that behind all that is seeming to be unfair or wrong about it , there is that crust which is certain to lift the individual to the highest level. Just because someone's religion is good enough for him or her does not mean it is good for another. The reason being that the principles on a day to day life are most certainly contradictory. Even if we assume the core in all religions is the same, you should be able to see the core or it is meaningless to say all religions are the same. Thus the most sensible position to take is that all religions are sufficiently meaningful , a comparison not worth the effort, and further they are actually different in common practice and quite possibly not suitable for the follower of another religion, unless the practitioner has seen what exactly is the core and has no requirement to follow any lay practices. In the advanced case indicated above it is also apparent that there is not likely to be discussion on even the statement "All religions are the same". When Ramana Maharishi was asked about his view on duality. He kept silent . It was later explained to him that when truth was one , one would not even see the need to speak of duality. This would be the advanced stage. For the rest, it is easy to see that one cannot live without following some or the other ritualistic aspects of religion which changes from religion to religion.


There can be another smart question? What about the Dharma of a person born in an atheistic family. Firstly I throw open a challenge. Is there ever more than 1-2 generation of atheistic culture in any family where all members are hard-core atheists? Even if there is , they as common people tend to believe in certain ethics and values which is derived from the majority religion of their country. These values and ethics is sufficient to percolate down to the individual from the time he eats or drinks. Further there is no ancestral religion of atheism , unless it is some from idolization of a thinker or a preacher. There are atleast one or two members in a family who carry forward nominal aspects of a certain ancestral religion. Thus grace of God is great that everyone is under his perview whether he likes it or not and everyone have been under some great influence of a particular religion from the day he or she is born which might have got hidden under the mask of an imaginary atheistic religion or concept. But the fact is one has the guidance and one must accept that!

Sanathana Dharma - 6

Upto part 5 I was trying to present a reasonable argument to support the view that we should submit ourselves to the Universal laws that govern all aspects of life to live in harmony with the society and to derive maximum benefit from life( not all of which being known to us). That this cannot be man made and whimsical was also discussed. That these set of laws at its application level might seem contradictory when we compare religions and sects. Infact there is nothing wrong even if we admit that some ideas and concepts in different religions are also opposed to each other so much so that only one of it can be held truly valid.
But that is when we examine at a superficial level.
   "Those that commit sin and not seek repentance will burn  in eternal hell
   " Those that commit sin will get punishment in their next rebirth till the time they seek atonement

If we look at the above two statements there is a direct contradiction. But if you examine the purpose for this admonishment and the spirit there is actually the same spirit. So at the superficial level an eternal hell does not exist. But when the religion branches out in time , it starts composing stories of an everlasting hell . So yes there may be ignorance in understanding the spirit and it might cause some blind beliefs and arguments with other religions, so much so that this point itself becomes an argument for conversion. It may be so. But one can see that there are two facts behind this ignorance
           1. Sins have to take their toll and it can be for a very long time
           2. That there is redemption through atonement and repentence
Whether there is a rebirth or some continuance can be a contradiction when literally interpreted. But if one views that there is only Dharma which gets mis-understood to be taken up in different contexts , one feels safe that religion is after all guiding but with mis-understanding creapt at some point.
However people might argue that Eternal hell was spoken by none other than but by the founder of the religion. This is where I object. I say , "you might say that your religion was founded at some time. But my view is that your religion just like mine was never founded by anyone. Further I say there was a time when men amended the religious concepts to suit their requirements. But since God is there as an active principle, he is always correcting the path of humans, to the extent that humans have their consciousness and goals evolved" ... To be contd.

Sanathana Dharma -5 man made laws -

Part 4 of my post is here

http://reconcilecomplexity.blogspot.sg/2012/10/sanathana-dharma-part-4.html

I discussed that the requirement of different people is different. Some would agree and say that therefore Organized religion be banned as it tries to create a standard set of regulations.

The requirement of people may be different but we cannot cater to all the requirements just as the craving for icecream of a little kid cannot be catered to all the time. There would further be no progress if we have laws that can be changed at a whim nor will it work out if each allows his own rules. The former means there is no respect for a law and the latter means that there is nothing but individualism. Individualism is opposed to unity of the world. Some would therefore say that there should be a compromise between freedom and restriction.

Is there any scientific rule to distinguish what can be allowed as a choice and what should be restricted. I will not be surprised if people are busy preparing mathematical models on this subject. Needless to say any model is good only as much good the information that we have. We have some well documented works on human behavior for last 200 years of the known 100000 years of human history. This is a far from anything comprehensive. Some would say sufficient sample. I would say not. We are dealing with only 7-8 generations of humans , and many historical events and circumstances have never occurred during this period. Nor can we conclude that certain circumstances not believed to have been possible , have never occurred. To get to a scientific basis would not be to postulate laws on limited information( for which there is no sufficient scientific law to explain if it is anywhere near to being comprehensive) but use a different approach from studying and deriving laws of human psychology from the current state of nature and consciousness itself. Even here the state of human nature has never been comprehensively predicted . We have best been able to summarize some behavior outcomes to a few decision points.

To not deviate from my discussion, what I intend to say is that the conventional belief that religions carry forward some laws which have been in existence for more than a millennium, cannot be dismissed outright and they need to be treated with respect as they bear the stamp of a long human experience to circumstances.

Sanathana Dharma dictates that humans are governed by laws which cannot be altered and are not subject to imagination and they do vary in time and place. The variation in application cannot be divised without understanding the core principles involved . At one level laws are eternal and at another level they seem practically different. The difference is because of the limited scope under which a particular human operates and may not be considered a limitation in the universality of the law. That every now and then one cannot restate and create a new law seems crystal clear to anyone who observes the chaos in society and the failures in such attempts. That people and the adminstrators try to universalize a local application and meet with failures is also clear.

At this juncture there can be a question. What is the so called original Sanathana Dharma laws? Today the situation in the mind of people is different. There just seems to be deviated religions and wrongly applied principles. Obviously the concern deserves attention as no-one wants to accept religious laws under the notion of improperly applied principles( the discussion here pertains to what is commonly discussed today as the corruption of religion)

Sanathana Dharma - Part 4

 The part 3 of this series is found here
http://reconcilecomplexity.blogspot.com/2012/10/sanathana-dharma-part-3.html

My attempt here is not to present anything new. But use my modern ideas and jargon to elaborate on the age old concept of Dharma.

Sanathana Dharma we must understand teaches us not only that life is all about living harmoniously with the living and non living world but also to uplift oneself to discover the true nature of oneself.
So far I have written about living harmoniously with the world. For this there is a way. But no way should be so as to cause confusion and sadness in an individual.

 No way should be something that an individual cannot practice.We could take a step forward and say that ways of righteousness must be so defined as suits the individual and must be based on time and circumstances. Just as we proclaim this, we must realize that laws are laws. If force of gravity is inversely proportional to the distance from the object then it is so. In the same way , nature's laws cannot be twisted to suit us. What can be done is to create those circumstances by which the laws when they act do so favorably to us. It is the circumstance that we place ourselves in, that gets changed and we can beneficially create that circumstance. There is obviously a limitation but there is also a freedom. Thus we must say there is a degree of freedom within that limitation. 

When the requirements of humans was limited the stipulations that an individual had to lead was simpler. As people started being more and more different the positive recommendations so that they can bring about a favorable circumstance in their life became more different and more complex. Thus though the end goal became the same the way of life, the rituals and religions started branching out to suit differential temperament. This is the reason why religions are different not because one religion is completely right and another is completely wrong.

In a sense the parent Sanathana Dharma is the same . The branches have come about to cater to the varying times and varying requirements of people.

To give an example-
A person is happy with a meal and shelter provided to him and a reasonable life span that supports him.
 He can even stay hungry for some days but would not like to kill an animal for that. He can live in a jungle but does not covet another's land .
What kind of recommendations would you provide to that person for further upliftment and contentment?

Now there is a person who cannot be happy even if you provide him a mansion and provide him with hundreds of counsellors.

There is another person who needs to pray to God to be happy. But there is someone else who not only needs prayers but needs music during prayer. There is another person who does not want to pray but wants to meditate.

We can in this manner show that the choice of people is different and no-counselor can make things completely suitable. We need to work at the level of the society's consciousness. The society the man is born in has a certain consciousness and influences individual behavior.What ever we propose must allow an individual maximum freedom to progress but should also be something that is acceptable for everyone around that individual. Reason for that is we cannot divorce ourselves from our family and society unit. In that case there must be a consensus on what should be applicable to all individuals in the planet. Then there should be a consensus on what should be applicable to an individual country , individual society , to a sect and to a family.

That is the concept of Samanya Dharma and Visesha Dharma as is preached in Sanathana Dharma. Thus every religion must within its codes have some special specifications and also a universal specification. This way it is easy to reach a pact and work together for complete progress. The idea of a single set of rules and edicts and a single prescription for way of leading life is applicable only if all humans have the same level of consciousness and same level of requirements!

Sanathana Dharma - Part 3

The previous part of this series was covered in http://reconcilecomplexity.blogspot.com/2012/10/sanathana-dharma-part-2.html

There are some things which all humans must note.
We need to lead ourselves in a way which must give us more wisdom and contentment. Many people can intuitively perceive that we must all live in harmony with nature and other humans. While we set about creating our own rules to live in harmony with others we must understand that there is limitation to self-made rules.

The very concept of self-made rules and concepts created out of consensus with just some people is akin to selfishness inherent in us. It only serves our ego and is opposed to the principle of universal harmony. On the other hand if we consult the views of everyone( regardless of their wisdom and motive) and compose a hotch potch set of regulations for society it is likely to be chaotic .

If we select a panel to set the order for the society the question will arise, who is the personal who will select the members of the panel who set the rules for the entire society. Should it be based on some degree. While a degree might imply some knowledge on a subject, that need not be a pointer to commonsense and wisdom. Even if it is perceived so by society, there is much to question as none of these degree holders have come up with a long lasting stable set of rules for society. In the same way any kind of criteria we use could always be put to question by others opposed to that criteria or that set of people. There may be merits even in the words of an illiterate but there is no easy way to pick and choose the right from the wrong.

The animal kingdom is less governed by self-regulation. They live and eat as they please. They are also at easy disposal. The mighty lion and tiger of the jungle are at the mercy of nature and humans. If they kill indiscriminately they would perish. But nature presents them with a limitation, since they cannot go beyond a particular set of activities and a particular mode of life, once the condition is unsuitable to their life, their population reduces.

Humans on the other hand have the ability to stretch  the limits. If a particular way of life is no longer suitable we can use our intelligence to extend the boundaries. But if we go too far too fast things are no longer under control. Thus there is a definite need for regulation  to live harmoniously with everyone and given our ability to improvise we can live in a system that is more orderly.

We can only seek to identify the patterns of the past and understand the circumstances of the present to create our stable system. For this we need the co-operation of a majority of humans.
This is what Sanathana Dharma is all about.

As we rephrase the same definitions of Sanathana Dharma in different ways, we must understand that Sanathana Dharma is about getting the big picture and not confine to narrow aims which are self serving. If we trust nature to give us wisdom, then we must at an individual level create the environment for others to grasp the significance of this. We must figure out a way for changing the behavior of people. The right direction will automatically be established if every one has the right motivation. This cannot be a one day wonder. It must take thousands of years for order to be established and thousands of years for this established order to change under pressure. So we can figure out that people's adherence to the right way of living also can possibly change with time but there is a difference that can be made at the micro level starting from the individual and extending to his family to his community and to his nation and to the world.

Having said this let us visit some questions which I raised in my previous post and give my take on them
1. Believe that as long as they do not interfere in others life, anything they do is fine - If we accept the concept of Sanathana Dharma that entire world is related to each other in effect and in cause and no one is isolated , we can say that such an attitude is wrong. A society which seeks to establish its goal in such a manner will self-destruct. It will only boost ego and egoistic society will neither live harmoniously within and with others. This kind of society is opposed to Dharma and such a society cannot be!
2. People with an agenda but find life unfulfilled because others do not accept their agenda - Any right set of actions will create positive ripples in the environment. If there is some progress one should not feel disheartened. But when people devise their own agenda with scant respect to history or past experiences or previous knowledge , it is no different from the blind trying to be the leader. Whether or not others follow this leader is immaterial. We know that this kind of leadership will not go too far.
3. People whose ideas are accepted by people but the positive impact of their ideas is short-lived or never
      able to take shape- I have the same thing to say about this as the one previous. There is a limitation to self-devised ideas. One should accept with humility that one is not all knowing. If that were the case the individual would always come up with a solution to every problem. No doctorate in human psychology can enable an individual is able to lead a completely stress free life. One must understand that ideas born out of limited knowledge of history and specific to circumstances and a period of time is bound to be short-lived.
4. People who act on the basis of established beliefs and who believe in some eternal religion like
       hinduism,   Christianity, Islam but yet not able to achieve what their religion says can be established. - To cut things short, we see people who believe in Sanathana Dharma conduct Yagnas for rain and similar such prayers. If man's life is itself contrary to nature and one side they pray and on the side they cause destruction, how fruitful would their prayers. Life is more than just a bunch of rituals . One should correct one's way of life and then hope for effects to take shape. If you pray to Jesus for the victory of America in Iraq, and on the other hand kill an innocent child how do you expect God to help. This is where people do not see the big picture.

Thus Dharma regardless of the religion to which you belong is seeing the big picture and positioning yourself as a part of your society and not as a whole , will enable you to constructively act. This kind of Dharma as one can understand is independent of the sect in which you are born. There are works of nature to which all of us must subscribe. This is what Paramacharya of Kanchi meant when he said that all individuals of all religions by default belong to Sanathana Dharma and are under its purview. Different religions including modern hinduism or christianity are but its branches.

Sanathana Dharma - Part 2

The first part in this series can be referred here
http://reconcilecomplexity.blogspot.com/2012/10/sanathana-dharma.html

The basic concept which I was discussing in part 1 is the existence of an eternal law which operates on all aspects of our life be it physical or be it emotional.

If there be such a  law that governs every aspect of universe then there should be an implication of believing in such a principle.

This is where Scientists are likely to be pessimistic. We described in part 1 that every behavior can possibly be studied as some kind of science based on a known set of laws, Scientists would not necessarily be averse to it. But the moment we start talking of implications of believing in the existence of a universal law that should govern an individual behavior there will be a lot of tension. It is not difficult to see the reason. Science as we know today emerged from the conflicts that arose with religion in the medieval ages in Europe. Religion as was known in those days tried to stifle creativity which is the bed rock of modern scientific progress. It tried to stifle questioning of age old concepts. Such a questioning led to a more rational explanation of the universe and allowed people to establish principles that has helped in material progress.

However if there were a law that governs human behavior and action and the resultant impact of actions and thoughts, there must be sufficient thought given to understand this. The solution does not come from dismissing the existence of such a pattern but understand it rationally. One cannot dismiss something just because we may later find it inconvenient.

So talking about implication, the implication is this- Nothing , not even the freedom to exercise a thought can be viewed in isolation from our surroundings. We are dependent on nature and nature is also known as the sum of its parts which includes us.

So my proposition is that we start there.
1. An Eternal law governs the whole of living and non living world.
2. That the eternal law needs to be understood to have a beneficial impact on oneself and others.
3. That we need to act in a spirit of co-operation with nature as it were which includes us as one of its parts

This is what concept of Sanathana Dharma is all about . It starts there!
How do we live life rightfully for our own sake and for the sake of others. How do we factor in the whole nature in our actions!

Once we understand that it is not insane to believe in such things we should immediately review the kind of life that is being led today.

We commonly see people who
  1. Believe that as long as they do not interfere in others life, anything they do is fine
  2. People with an agenda but find life unfulfilled because others do not accept their agenda
  3. People whose ideas are accepted by people but the positive impact of their ideas is short-lived or never
      able to take shape.
  4. People who act on the basis of established beliefs and who believe in some eternal religion like 
       hinduism,   Christianity, Islam but yet not able to achieve what their religion says can be established.

If we understand what Sanathana Dharma is all about , we can correctly understand the problems with the way people deal with things. This is what I intend to explore in the next post!

Sanathana Dharma

There are countless articles on this subjects.

I hope to share my take on this topic. My thought process on this subject has developed due to the inspiration of Paramacharya of Kanchi, and some other great thinkers and saints.

Sanathana Dharma would mean the "Eternal Dharma".

Dharma is a unique indian word which can be loosely described as the principles that should govern an individual's life.

Should there be one?

Today science is trying to postulate the laws that govern the universe. It seeks to explain the behavior of all matter. Why is it looking for such an answer? The reason is that there is a principle that governs the property of all matter.

Moving from the realm of matter to the realm of thought we are slowly transcending to an area or a domain that is not exactly in the same class of objects as the materials dealt with by science. We are talking about psychology.

Human , animal psychology!

But it is not just that we can say. The behavior response to a circumstance from a plant can also be studied.

What I intend not to discuss is the similarity or difference of thoughts from matter. What I would like to point out is that the subject of psychology should also be governed by certain laws as which governs matter. It is not difficult to see why this seems possible. Every thought, every living being is not unrelated to its circumstance. Any idea holds its dependency on a previous idea or activity in the world. From birth to death, from the time in the womb to beyond, any kind of development in the mental and physical activity of a living being is dictated by the circumstance and by the thoughts and information received by it.

No scientific information or invention is possible without a source of information or without a surrounding circumstance. Thus thoughts by themselves can be shown to be never be independent of their circumstance. If one were to therefore refer back to the linked references one is likely to speculate that it may be possible to construct a particular behavior under a particular circumstance. This is thus something that pertains to a law of psychology.

We can also see that just as in the case of non living matter no part of a living matter is independent of circumstances in the universe. This seems to be a common experience.

Looking at the entire picture, we could suppose that all living and non living matter in this universe is part of the universal law which creates the circumstances for the matter to operate. If we could say that the primeval or elementary laws that governs the atoms must have been consistent since the beginning of universe the same may be said about living matter too. There does not seem to be an evidence to the opposite. Any new kind of rule that emerges in the universe must be as a consequence of these elementary laws that operate.

The idea of Sanathana Dharma must be seen in this way. The eternal law that an individual must be subject to is what Dharma is all about. Such a thing should be eternally in operation subjecting both living and non living matter. While we can speak about laws , can an individual show a behavior contrary to a law. The answer is no but we can show that following and creating certain circumstances around oneself one can help to create a situation that is more beneficial to one's contentment and thought process . Acting in another way, is likely to create an environment around one's mind which is likely to be less satisfactory. To say that the effect of all circumstances and thoughts is the same and has no effect on the individuals' own behavior and character development is nothing short of advocating that there is no such thing as a law of human behavior. It can easily be recognized that every circumstance in the world has a particular behavior syndrome associated with the living beings of the world who are part of that circumstance.

What constitutes this Dharma is a separate discussion!

Pointless comparisons between Krishna and Christ

The objective of this blog is not to dispute the divinity of either krishna or christ. But it is to respond to people who are ever comparing the two. It is most certainly an objection to the fanatics who want to show how krishna( who belonged to a much earlier era and lived at a different period) does not meet the standards of christ. I am not going to be probing any of the beliefs of the christians in bible and I assume that the modern bible may be indeed recording the real life of christ.
I present a few common arguments made against krishna and provide my answers.

1. Krishna was not born to a virgin but Christ was - I can understand the angle from which this point is stated by christians. It is their belief that if he were not born to a virgin then somehow his divinity is lost. Let us proceed by the assumption that christ was born to a virgin. Fine! Here we need to stretch ourselves and accept that occassionally,in human history, unusual things happen. This defies conception of modern science. Fine! But then in that case none of the miracles in krishna's life can be dismisssed as implausible either, by the same set of standards. Can a woman be a sinner if she is not a virgin after marriage? It is merely an assumption by christians that she is! There is no basis for such a belief . The Hindus believe that the reason unwedded or extramarital sex is to be prohibited is that it prevents a proper lineage in the family to be passed on. It is more of a practical law that prevents disintegration of the family. It may be a divine law or otherwise but it assumes importance because of its practicality. Thus this law is very much followed by the hindus as much as they abstain from meat or alcohol. Millions of hindu women remain virgin until marriage even if it means that they need to wait for 40 or 50 years for getting married or even if it means that they must stay unmarried for life. So hindus are certainly following moral life here and they need no tutoring on this. Its great that christ was born to a virgin but somehow his mother was impregnated by the holy ghost according to some. During the same period as krishna , another person karna was born to his mother kunti who was a virgin. The great sage Vyasa in that period having born to his mother satyavati immediately grew up to an older boy ready to travel with his father for education. These are miraculous events and one can easily see that each of these events are equally likely or unlikely.
On the other hand the reason why krishna was born to devaki and vasudeva( his mother and father) was because they were granted boon of being the parents of vishnu's incarnation. If krishna were to be born to a virgin then he couldnt be a true son to his father vasudeva. Also there is nothing to prove that sexual affair between married parents is a sin. It can easily be argued that the only reason that sex is ever considered a sin, is that it has a possibility of abuse , and of perpetuating a wrong lineage(if done illegally). In fact jesus had to pass through the genital tract of his mother. One can easily see that this kind of thing may be called impurifying . So this whole argument is a needless one. Joseph was not present with Mary for a long time,so if jesus wanted to be born to her, he could only be born to a virgin. Because a divine being cannot be born in an illicit affair. If one is looking for miracles at the time of krishna's birth there are plenty of them recorded. Further to assume that God can be defiled by the simplistic acts of humans is ridiculous. This is what the whole virgin argument does. This argument can in no way distract from hindu claim of krishna's divinity
2. Claim that Krishna did not heal people and cure the sick and bring the dead back to life - Krishna did bring sandeepani's son back to life. He did save draupadi from being abused even though he was not physically present at the place where she was affected. Then again parikshit was born dead and was brought to life by krishna. Now we can see that krishna's power did not necessarily have limitations. Jesus was supposed to be like a wandering mystic healing people and bringing back the dead. Krishna's life mission was different. It had a clear agenda to inspire people in devotion. hindus are aware that through devotion to the lord of universe one is able to connect with the divinity that pervades this universe and there is a gradual process of mental and emotional clensing which happens till the point is reached when the individual soul meets the divine lord. Krishna's whole life was to inspire devotion through his eternal charm and beauty and it is this everlasting charm and beauty that has kept vaishnavism flourishing to this date.
To cure a few sick people God need not incarnate on earth at all. He can cure them from whereever he is. The point of coming onto visible earth is to provide inspiration for devotion. There is a group of hindus who with good reasons reject this whole concept of faith healing, not because it is not possible, but because it is wrong. There was no need for krishna to make healing the only purpose of his life because he could do the same wherever he is. Had he made healing and cure of the dead as the main motive of life, it distracts from the real purpose of life, not to run away from suffering but to conquer it. Suffering is caused by one's own actions. Christians believe that too in some way. Hindus believe that through surrender to god, one can be cured of suffering, but they add that the individual must make the best efforts to keep away from unwarranted wrongs if one has really surrendered to god. christians have somewhat a similar belief but there are many who believe that surrender to christ is the only means of being freed from sin. Krishna does not say that, he only says that the kind of being one worships results in prayer being granted according to the nature of the divinity in the being. At the same time, if at all any kind of wish or prayer is fulfilled it is because of the power of the one supreme lord of universe. In many ways we can contrast the teachings of krishna and christ but it is easy to see that the entire purpose of their lives were different. krishna established order in the world before leaving it. This is considered proof of krishna's great mission. Christ and krisna therefore have a different kind of mission, and it is pointless comparing these aspects to establish the divinity of one and rejecting the divinity of another on the basis of comparison of few superficial aspects such as way of life.
3. krishna's life was filled with imperfections whereas christ's life was not- This is a spurious argument when we cite individual cases of krishna's supposed misdeeds.
i. krishna stole butter from the neighbours- Claim is this is bad example to set for people. It completely misses the fact that krishna was playing around with people and teasing them as a child and actually gave joy to the people.Neither is the fact that he stole butter hidden nor is the fact the fact that people were overjoyed by the pranks of a naughty child hidden from hindus.Stealing is a reprehensible act, and no true devotee of krishna ever does that even in his dream. Further to this there was a purpose to these acts and that was to teach the people to share the food they have and not to hide it away from others. Krishna not only stole the butter but shared it with his friends. Critiscism also misses the basic fact that the whole village community lived like an extended family and krishna did not steal food from any stranger. There are more beautiful and detailed explanations to this story but it should suffice that when determing whether something as right or wrong the following things need to be investigated
a. who are the parties being affected by a "so called crime"
b. what is the conclusion of the affected parties at the end of the episode
c. what was the intention behind the acts
No hindu has ever been shy of the story of krishna stealing butter including the most honest of people and the legend as described in bhagwatam describe how the people of the village felt blessed by krishna. Further to this - the same krishna protected the villagers from the wrath of Indra( the lord of the angelic beings) by stressing the importance of hardwork as opposed to blind prayers.
ii. krishna played pranks with women and stole their clothes-
the facts stand
a) the girls secretly admired krishna and undertook a long ritual for getting married to krishna. They were so committed in their prayer that they took bath naked in the cold river of yamuna and only the last day of that period of prayer did krishna make his entry
b) krishna was not a stranger to them nor is the description of the story mentioned in anyway that the girls felt humiliated and insulted by such an act. On the contrary they were basically shy even though they harboured such a desire
c) a Prank is wrong only if it affects the parties concerned. krishna does not fit the bill here as well
Here there are likely to be two more objections
...krishna should set a moral example from desisting from such pranks. the fact that he did not indicates that he was not god- this objection is based on the assumption that to honour the desire of an individual is wrong. krishna however did not set any immoral precedent. Neither were the girls molested nor were they strangers nor was there a sexual act nor is krishna described to have been infatuated by the ladies nor was he said to have done something the girls did not wish for. Finally reading the episode between the lines cannot be justice. One must read the whole episode and find out the real intention behind the play. The ultimate climax of krishna's play with gopis was the following
1. the gopis(his lady friends) lost any form of sexual feelings for krishna and realized him as the divine lord
2. the gopis lost jealousy , pride, greed, lust and realized the presence of krishna everywhere
3. the gopis develop true devotion to god
If one just quotes a small part of an episode without reading the full episode one is bound to lead to absurd conclusions. The entire episode happens in a logical sequence and once one reads the full episode one can see and understand why each episode happened the way it did. krishna's stealing of the clothes was not just to thrill the ladies but it was his way of bringing out the feeling of these ladies into an open unabashed manner. he brings the feeling out and slowly purges the base qualities in the desire. the desire for krishna was not wrong, the infatuation was.the ladies are filled with infatuation even before krishna was involved in stealing the clothes but their infatatuation only leads to them realizing that krishna is really unattainable through infatuation, and one by one all their worldly feelings are transformed into pure divine love for god. It is easy to cristiscize but to this date there has been no one other than krishna who could remove all forms of lust and base qualities from his devotees.
c. krishna married, christ did not - this is again a presupposition that an incarnation of god should not marry. if he can be the son of someone, he can be the husband of another.
d. krishna had thousands of wives- if god can have one wife he can have thousands. Infact the reason he had more than one wife was that there were many who equally desired him and if at all god can marry someone who loves him he cannot be partial.the common hindu is wedded to one wife- not to speak of the fact that most do not undergo even divorce. but there is reason for the general tendency to have only one wife- that is one must not neglect resposibilities to one's partner. hinduism sees possibility in both polyandry and polygamy within the framework of marriage. But it is no where a common practice . this cannot be accepted as an imperfection because krishna does not impose restriction on his wives and their freedom, all the women he married desired him, and he is supposedly present at the same time in everyone's house and showered equal love on all. the legend actually recalls the above fact. Marrying more than once is wrong only to the specific repurcussions of the act. people may dismiss krishna's amazing simultaneous presence at the homes of all his wives but they are willing to believe that he had 16000 wives and no wife was forced to marry him nor was the freedom of any wife restricted in any way. we certainly dont have a jealous and admonishing god here. if one holds strict conventions on right and wrong without understanding the purpose why something is called right and something wrong , one is ever likely to critiscize krishna.
e. krishna could have stopped the war from happening if he was god-
firstly krishna was the one who went on a peace mission to stop the war. Infact to prove his point he showed his divinity to the blind king who was momentarily filled with wonder, but fell back to his ignorant thinking. the reasoning of the king and his sons was not correct and their act was an unjust proposition. the pandavas could have accepted the unfair agreement and desisted from war totally. It would have only saved the royal family from death but not the world from an unjust king and his aides. if the accusation is that a god can prevent death and wars then this accusation is no different from the accusation of atheists " that if there were a god, he could have prevented death". krishna's bhagwat gita answers this question well enough.the message here is death is something that should never be feared as fatal.it has a purpose. so no incarnation of god ever completely stopped war and death whether it was christ on his heavenly throne or on his earthly life . the argument is spurious. if one is to accept this argument then that means that everyone should tolerate all the injustice meeted out to them and resist in no way even if the welfare of public is not being served through this silence.

4. krishna did not save people from sin- this is purely a theological argument . the concept of sin as preached by modern church even it was advocated by jesus has not been proven to be true. it is an assumption possibly coming from the teachings of jesus. krishna saves all his devotees provided they act in a god conscious manner. this idea has been presented well by prabhupada the founder of iskcon and one may read it for a detailed understanding of the saving grace of krisna.

5. krishna did not have all qualities of god- well vaishnava literature lists down an exhaustive list of attributes of god and they show krishna satisfying all of them. somebody brings different scales and shows different definitions and such readings conveniently fitting one person and rejecting another. if the scale of vaishnavas were to be used against jesus, then he would fail to qualify. it can easily seen that humans want a rigid definition but god cannot be circusmcribed to a limited circle. when krishna invokes his power to save parikshit he says- if I have never done anything unrighteous may he be protected. vaishnavas take that as proof of his correct nature.when one reads the narrative of srimad bhagwatam one can easily see that but for rigid definitions of actions( without examining whether these definitions can be held universally valid- the way to examine that is to understand the purpose behind rules) there is no way krishna can seen to be doing something improper or there is no real instance when he was immoral or when someone was unjustly affected by krishna.

Of late the main accusations against krishna that I have seen are regarding his many girl friends and wives, his stealing of butter as a child, his encouragement of war. I have briefly provided the lines of argument in support of each these acts. People are free to discuss with me on specifics

Purusha sooktam verse 2

Verse 2

(purusha) purusha (eva) alone (idam sarvam) is all
of this, (yad bhUtam) that which was, (yac ca bhavyam) and
that which is too be. (uta) Moreover (amRtatvasya) of
immortality too (IshAna) is he alone Lord. (yad) That
which (annena) as food (atirohati) shows itself, that too is
purusha.

This is the standard translation given. While this might be the correct translation. There are some who have slightly different translations to this. One translator has given a meaning for atirohati as "grows immensely", so that the last part of the verse would mean that purusha grows immensely by food. I leave the discussion open here . I have another doubt with regard to the translation for the words (idam sarvam). As opposed to the translation given below, when the verse is chanted it sounds like purushaevadagum sarvam. evadagum - what does that mean? If I were to follow that the svaram and the tone is to determine the meaning then evadagum might mean something more. Why this doubt? Isnt the meaning obvious. Again I repeat what Lord Krishna had to say. That he is not this material manifestation.
So while translation may be correct I will personally favor such a meaning at a more deeper level
"Purusha is the one who pervades or permeates everything,what was and he is the lord of immortality,and is beyond anything which grows by food"The last part may be translated in different ways such as he grows immensely by food etc. But somehow that did not satisfy me.
He is certainly beyond anything which grows by food, since the purusha does not need any food to grow or sustain? ati means beyond
yad anena rohati could mean that which grows by food and therefore loosely it can be translated as he is beyond anything which grows by food.
My translation may possibly be fanciful and just a play of words. I leave my thoughts open and I will continue to ponder on this verse!

My take on Purusha sooktam - Introduction and Verse 1

Scholars seek to ascribe multiple meanings to this exalted hymn from the vedas. Having gone through a number of translations of this hymn, I feel more satisfied with translation attempts by Sri vaishnavaites. What makes their translations praiseworthy, is the fact that they have a deep foundation in not only sanskrit scholariship, but are heavily moved by devotion when seeking to represent its meaning. I am not going to deviate from such translation attempts but I would like to view the translations in the light of my slightly different philosophical viewpoint. Thats the only difference which you will find here.
For the source of this translation please refer to http://www.ramanuja.org/purusha/sukta-1.html
I have with due homage to their seers represented the translation as it is in their website in my blog. But I have lent intepretation colored by own philosophical view, to this. I feel that translations and interpretations of such great verses should not be bound by copyright as the source and inspiration to any translation, has come from the common ancestors of entire mankind . In this sincere view I am representing this translatioN. However should anyone have objection to my representation of this translation, from a legal standpoint, I will sincerely pay heed to the advice of the genuine people concerned.

My justification for the need of an ellaborate contemplation on the meaning of vedic verses
1. The upanishads and vedanta in a more comprehensible language prove beyond doubt that the seers of those times had contemplated on nature of god at the very deepest level. If the internal evidence in these works are to be accepted then it must be acknowledged that the source for all this is in the vedas itself as represented by the innumerable hymns including the purusha sooktam. So such powerful understanding of god must have come from equally deep and rich verses
2. It is already recommended that while reciting vedas , knowing its meaning brings maximum benefit. While this is not possible to do so now due to the difficulty in grasping the meaning by modern humans, one should certainly be open to listening or chanting mantras, while simultaneously contemplating on the mantras. Remember that there is qualification to the kind of person who must chant the mantra. But I feel that it is wrong to say that-listners can never seek to derive the same benefit from the mantras as the chanter.
I however personally feel that merely contemplating on the meaning is not the key. The secret is to be able to study the effect of the mantras and dig at the source of its meaning. I can assure that there is certainly spiritual power in these mantras, and the way they are chanted makes a difference. Further the person who chants these hymns also can make a big difference on the power unfolded by the mantra. Finally, to be able to study the effect of such mantras, one must himself be a qualified person. Normal mortals like us can only open our minds to the translations produced by great seers like syanacharya and interpret them from a reasonably open point of view, and hope to learn to visualize the power of these mantras in due course of time, as we progress spiritually.


verse 1-
(sahasra) Thousands (SIrshA) of heads has (purusha:)
the great being. (sahasra) Thousands of (aksha) eyes has he,
(sahasra pAt) and thousands of legs. (sa) He (vRtvA)
manifests (bhUmim) the world. (atyatishTat) He stands
beyond (daSAngulam) the count of ten fingers.

In accordance with Sayanacharya, we may take the meaning of this verse to represent the manifestation of god in all that lives. The word Sahasra may just mean a thousand or might mean uncountable. But we need to understand that there is a subtle difference between what purusha is and what he is not. As in Bhagwat Gita, Lord Krishna says that the ignorant mistake him to be the material manifestation. If we were to go by this understanding and go by a more literal translation then the verse should mean-that the purusha has thousands of heads,thousands of eyes and thousands of eyes and he extends the world by ten fingers or limbs. Some interpret the last part of verse to mean that the divine purusha cannot be measured by the 10 finger counting system. This interpretation is certainly true if it can be proven from ancient scriptures that dasangulam is used to refer to a counting system. If we rewrite the interpretation as extends beyond the 10 fingers, we are closer to this meaning.what this particular verse does not mean, is whether we ourselves are a limb or a head or an eye of the purusha. The verse indicates the powerful facet of this purusha with these huge number of dimensions and who has huge physical and mental resources at his disposal.This way I must acknowledge that the scholars of dvaita, advaita and vishitaadvaita can each interpret something according to their own viewpoint. Why use the word -thousands?, is there a word for uncountable which would have been more suitable? The grand darshan or vision of the thousand headed vishnu was granted to arjuna, as described in bhagwat gita. so that there must have been something to the head and limbs of purusha which is different from an individual or a normal human's head! So the verse certainly should not be interepreted to mean that our heads are the head of the lord , our eyes are the eyes of the lord, etc as some people intend to do when they translate.

There are two possibilities in my view though I feel more comfortable with the second possibility
1. the word for thousand - sahasra may mean just thousand or thousands if we were to go by a literal translation. which means that the divine purusha has delibrately manifested himself with only those many heads, eyes and limbs as is needed to be present everywhere in the world.
2. the word for sahasra might mean something more. Is there a clue? It can be understood from the teachers of the vedas that the swaram or the manner of recitation of the syllables define the meaning intended to be conveyed. I can vouch that having heard the recitation of this verse, the word sahasra is given a special stress during the recitation of the verse and this swaram has to determine its meaning. Further the same word sahasra is recited with different swaras according to its position in this verse.Maybe sayancharya might have been aware of the meaning based on such recitations, in which case, his interpretation must be given more importance. I however would like to leave the interpretation of sahasra open for understanding through devotion and meditation rather than just forcing it to subscribe to someone's religious views.
Coming back to the last part of verse. I feel that by merely stating that the lord cannot be counted by 10 fingers is stating an obvious assumption of people with regard to god. No there is something deeper. lets see how this verse is chanted. atya thistat is prounced as though it is somehow separated from dashangualam or 10 fingers. so we must first state this- the purusha stands extended beyond the material world. this seems to be implied. then we state the next part of the verse. dashangulam. Though I leave the meaning of this verse to readers, I would like to bring forward a view that dashangulam refers to 10 members and not just 10 fingers. Thus in such a view, the purusha is beyond the constituent 10 members or properties or elements of the universe. Here is an interpretation that I have brought from the following website
http://www.vjsingh.info/int3.html
according to this
quote
"
The phrase 'dashangulam' in the verse stands for the universe and the heart. The word angulam (finger) is here used as a name for limbs or members.
It signifies the finite world. The entire universe is composed of ten parts, viz., fiver great and five subtle, i.e., altogether ten elements.
The phrase may also be taken to mean five vital airs (<>pranas) the four inner senses, the manas, etc.., together with the outer senses, and the jiva as the tenth or agan,
it may mean the jiva's heart which also measures ten finger breadths."

There is a possibility that such an interpretation is true because the word 'anga' in sanskrit may also mean limb or member and not just refer to a finger- example usage is the word "vedanga"

Ayodhya : What is the correct solution

Yesterday, September 30, 2010 was another day chance missed. The Indian Allahabad High Court Bungled by declaring that only 2/3 of land must be given to the Hindus and only 1/3 of land must be given to Muslims. It was a great opportunity missed.
Why?
It would have been the new beginning to religion in India. And a solution that could have changed history of religion was missed. But I hope that atleast the Supreme Court changes its views and provides the right solution

Let us consider the facts first
1. Hindus worshipped in the place for many centuries and they dont pray at any xyz place, and this itself is proof that the place was sacred to the Hindus
2. Evidence has been broughtout to show that Mosque was built on a temple( whether on ruins or on a temple where people continued to pray will always be debatable)
3. Mosque was there for centuries in that place and that place was important to the Muslims too

Now the solution
Hindus recognize that God has form and also a formless attribute. Muslims believe that God is formless. Even those Hindus who believe that God cannot be formless, also believe that God can have a form yet he can be prayed to within the mind.

So the solution is here. The Court should have ruled that the place of worship must go both to the Hindus and the Muslims. They must together discuss within a specific time frame on how they would like to Build a religious structure, where both can pray together- where neither muslims or hindus are disallowed and where there are common code of conduct for conducting prayers. This would have been revolutionary - This does not mean that there is a call for a new fusion religion. But whoever cares to pray there should be able to pray in his own way, silently, without noise at that place. The cleanliness of that place is to maintained in a way acceptable to both

The fact is neither are our saints so revolutionary in thinking, nor are our courts so far sighted when it comes to interpretation of religion. Also I found that the three judges expressing dissenting views in public is a shame.

Hinduism allows silent prayer to God and so does Islam. The solution was to grant both of them the right to pray without causing disturbance. This would be the most revolutionary and correct judgement.

My answers to the preachings against Hinduism - Part 1

This is part of the series of Blogs and I hope that these answers will atleast help hindus resolve the doubts raised in their minds by christian missionaries. The intention of this blog is not to run down on Jesus, which is what an ordinary christian would assume. But it is to free the public from the propaganda that belief in christ is somehow essential for every one who wants to be the beloved child of god.

1. "Jesus was the first person to emphasize that love not hate is the ideal." - The life of many vedic rishis like vasistha and the later saints like Buddha and Mahavira is sufficient to prove that neither was Jesus the first person to emphasize love against hatred, nor was he unique in this matter. Infact it can be easily seen from the life story of these saints that their love and affection to people was not only free from hypocracy , greed, want of some heavenly glory etc but also extended to animals. Those who are filled with hatred will choose to pick up those examples who are imperfect and highlight their flaws at the expense of good qualities. But atleast in this regard the characters I have mentioned do not have the flaws which the missionaries would like to find.
2. "Jesus can only truly cure the sick and provide solace to desolate sections of society" - This is not true at all. We have a recent example in India, the Sai Baba of Shiridi who has performed miracles and cures at the same level of Jesus Christ, and he certainly not even a christian. There have been more examples even in the past including the likes of Tiruganasambandar. Just like among the christians, the hindus too have amongst them more charlattans and fake gurus than true saints. However the great saints of India, have never attached much importance to miracles(whether or not they performed them). The reason being that miracles and healings could only provide temporary solace to the Individual. Until the individual understood that material desires amount to nothing, and the only purpose of a long life was to reach atleast a more disciplined and sustained experience of spirituality, before making the journey to next life. The fact that praying to a God cures a person of a certain problem does not really prove that the saint or deity is all knowing. Further if failure in getting expected relief even after prayer to God is to be taken as a standard for deciding if that God is powerful ,in that case, even christianity has failed someof its more sincere followers. Similarly the chirstians like to argue that non christians could be cured of their problems only if satan decides to help them or only if they somehow unknowingly win the grace of christ. Not only can this argument be applied against the christians, there have been plenty of examples available to prove that even those who are cured of certain diseases at a certain stage continue to suffer again at a later point of time due to a certain other health problem or disease or pain at the time of death. Thus the christian cure is not a gurantee against future occurence of a more fatal health disorder.
3. "Jesus worked for the lowest sections, while Hinduism worked against the lowest castes"- This feeling is widely received by the affected sections of the society. But we need to see if the so called component of Hiduism called varnashrama as it was deviced really exists in the current society of India. The next question to ask is if the socalled varnashrama is responsible for the social inequalities. This question has been sufficiently addressed by aurobindo, ISKCON and Vivekananda that I direct the readers to their explanation of these questions. But if the flaws of the Indian society is to be taken as proof of the failure of the Indian rishis and Krishna , then how would any logical person accept the argument that christianity was somehow better when it was able to spread mainly due to imperialism and not until the christian world became millitarily powerful and not until they managed to enslave the africans, native americans and conquer India, and not until they tortured thousands of goan hindus. The christians would retort that Christ never preached inequality but Krishna and the rishis did. My answer is -If the Rishis were so fond of spreading inequality then why did they throw off all comfort and embrace the forests and why did they allow even scorpions to bite them , but refused to kill them. Krishna 's view on Varna is however sufficiently explained by ISKCON and the actions of Ramanujacharya, that I dont even think I need to defend it.
4."However inspite of the good qualities of the saints of other saints,Jesus was alone perfect". This is again a repetitive argument. Please ask the Christians to enlist the good qualities of Christ and compare these qualities with Vasistha, Buddha and Mahavaira. I think any logical and well read hindu would see that there is really no logical foundation to the argument in favor of a unique christ. An alternate christian tactic is to divert the attention by starting a discussion on Krishna's so called flaws . Even if we allow the accusations to pass, the uniqueness in terms of good qualities of christ would remain unproven. I again see no reason to defend Krishna's actions as they need to be seen from a spiritually matured point of view and it would be apparent that even if the so called actions of Krishna of stealing butter as a child, playing and teasing the village girls, use of cunningness against the wicked were all taken true, these actions in no way prove Krishna to be a wicked or a criminal person. A patient reading of Srimad Bhagwatam is sufficient to understand the incidents according to the prose of the work and not according to the imagination of the accusers. However incase there are people who want to still debate on this I redirect them to vaishnava forums who have answers to each of these silly questions.
5. "Christ was born to a virgin"- The argument here is that this is a unique incident. A little reading of pagan deities reveal that this belief is not unique to christ. Some christians like to quote vedas and say that it refers to a virgin son and that it is really a prophecy of christ. If this is to be taken as a prophecy which was fulfilled 2000 years after it was made, then in that case one cannot dismiss the other verses of vedas which are contrary to christian understanding of god. Rather one must conclude that christian understanding of god, is only a subset of the vedas -more comprehensive understanding of god. A more rational argument is that vedas also pointed to deities born to virgins and this again makes Jesus non unique. I dont need to go so far back in time, even the renowned saint Sadasiva Brahmendra was believed to have born to a virgin mother just over a few centuries back. There must be a logical reason to only accept that one incident alone was true, and really speaking there is none. Being born to a virgin proves or disproves nothing . Finally there is really an alternate christian legend which explains that christ had a brother. This leads us to suspect that this virgin story was superimposed by the early church by amalagamating the pagan legends in the many lands it conquered.
6. "People have been blessed with the vision of Christ". I am not sure whether any christian is really aware of this-"But people of other religions have also had these visions."
7. "Christ said that I am the only way". If he indeed said this, then he was not a fair person because he does not say what happened to people of his grandfather's generations and other earlier generations before him ? There are people who could argue that somehow christ mysteriously saved those deserving people who did not worship him. If that is the case, then we should all try to become a deserving person rather than focussing on accepting christ(and not be deserving at all). End of argument.
The vedas put a fullstop to all these motivated arguments of the missionaries by a simple proclamation
"Truth is one, the sages call it by different names".
Let us all focus on becoming good individuals rather than trying to superimpose the rituals and labels we follow on others.

Vegetarianism in Ancient India

Hello friends , there are many among you who have read contradictory tales of vegetarianism in India.On one hand you would have heard that many people in India were meat eaters and later became vegetarians. There is also an accusation that brahmins used vegetarianism to practice untouchability. There are others, who consider that vegetarianism arose out of a desire to defeat buddhism and jainism.
Unlike my other blogs , I will not flood my blog with quotations or make it too long. I will present a few facts and the reader can ask me for specific sources. Further I shall leave the reader to make their own inferences
Fact 1. Vegetarianism as a lifestyle in India predates Buddhism and Jainism
Fact 2. Majority of Indian Population were vegetarian most of the times.
Fact 3. Maintenance of Slaughterhouse were considered taboo
Fact 4. Domestic animals were not eaten except probably as sacrifical offerings conducted on rare occassions.
Fact 5. People from good family never consumed any unclean meat or meat not offered to God and this was consumed along with a prayer
Fact 6. It was acknowledged even by the meat eaters that animals had a soul and that they had a karmic responsibility to take care of animals
Fact 7. Meat consumption vanished not because brahmins wanted to prove themselves superior to jains, but because they were fully convinced of vegetarian ethics.
Fact 8. Meat was consumed in extremely low quantities by many brahmins and that too only during sacrifices and that is why vegetarianism quickly spread across brahmins during reformations.
Fact 9. Vegetarianism was the practice of most ascetic orders which included the buddhists, the jains as well as the brahmins
Fact 10. Yagna did not always involve sacrifice of animals
Fact 11. Yagna was not performed to relish the taste of flesh.
Fact 12. The smritis of Hinduism is clear about virtues of vegetarianism

A clearer picture of Ancient India

Clearer Picture of Ancient India-

What Ancient Indians already knew can be reconfirmed by the Indica of Megasthenes
Until the British came to India , the Indians knew this of themselves . Since today Indians don’t trust each other, I thought it was necessary to reconfirm some of what Megasthenes had to say about Indians. There is nothing strange or confusing about all this.
A vast majority of Indians, in pre British India, knew exactly about the nature of people who lived in the past in their own country. We can clearly see that the current situation in India was a result of subsequent changes.
Reference
http://www.payer.de/quellenkunde/quellen1102.htm

1. Identity of India is a very ancient concept- Quote “India , which is in shape quadrilateral, has its eastern as well as its western side bounded by the great sea, but on the northern side it is divided by Mount Hemōdos from that part of Skythia which is inhabited by those Skythians who are called the Sakai, while the fourth or western side is bounded by the river called the Indus , which is perhaps the largest of all rivers in the world after the Nile . 2 The extent of the whole country from east to west is said to be 28,000 stadia, and from north to south 32,000” (in Ind. Ant. vol. V. p. 86, c. 2).
2. India was a fertile and famine free land, and certainly not barbaric with people destroying and subjugating each other- Quote – “But, farther, there are usages observed by the Indians which contribute to prevent the occurrence of famine among them ; for whereas among other nations it is usual, in the contests of war, to ravage the soil, and thus to reduce it to an uncultivated waste, among the Indians, on the contrary, by whom husbandmen are regarded as a class that is sacred and inviolable, the tillers of the soil, even when battle is raging in their neighbourhood, are undisturbed by any sense of danger, for the combatants on either side in waging the conflict make carnage of each other, but allow those engaged in husbandry to remain quite unmolested. Besides, they neither ravage an enemy's land with fire, nor cut down its trees.”
3. Indians including the ruling class were indigenous people. Quote
“It is said that India, being of enormous size when taken as a whole, is peopled by races both numerous and diverse, of which not even one was originally of foreign descent, but all were evidently indigenous ; 23 and moreover that India neither received a colony from abroad, nor sent out a colony to any other nation. 24 The legends further inform us that in primitive times the inhabitants subsisted on such, fruits as the earth yielded spontaneously, and were clothed with the skins of the beasts found in the country, as was the case with the Greeks ; and that, in like manner as with them, the arts and other appliances which improve human life were gradually invented, Necessity herself teaching”
Quote – “For the Indians stand almost alone among the nations in never having migrated from their own country. From the days of Father Bacchus to Alexander the Great their kings are reckoned at 154, whose reigns extend over 6451 years and 3 months.”

4. The society of India was not certainly demoniac and trying to enslave the low castes -The only way we can understand the contradiction with the present culture is to view the effect of politics and wars, and the result of the fight for limited resources. The quotation takes care of itself
“Of several remarkable customs existing among the Indians, there is one prescribed by their ancient philosophers which one may regard as truly admirable : for the law ordains that no one among them shall, under any circumstances, be a slave, but that, enjoying freedom, they shall respect the equal right to it which all possess: for those, they thought, who have learned neither to domineer over nor to cringe to others will attain the life best adapted for all vicissitudes of lot : for it is but fair and reasonable to institute laws which bind all equally, but allow property to be unevenly distributed.”

5. That land was not even under the control of Brahmins and
priests of that time is reconfirmed – Quote “The husbandmen themselves, with their wives and children, live in the country, and entirely avoid going into town. 46 They pay a land-tribute to the king, because all India is the property of the crown, and no private person is permitted to own land. Besides the land-tribute, they pay into the royal treasury a fourth part of the produce of the soil.”

6. Artisans were so respected as to be exempt from taxes-Quote
“Of these some are armourers, while others make the implements which husbandmen and others find useful in their different callings. This class is not only exempted from paying [S. 43] taxes, but even receives maintenance from the royal exchequer.”

7. Orderliness and little theft,drinking among Indians
Quote:
“The Indians all live frugally, especially when in camp. They dislike a great undisciplined, multitude, and consequently they observe good order. Theft is of very rare occurrence. Megasthenēs says that those who were in the camp of Sandrakottos, wherein lay 400,000 men, found that the thefts reported on any one day did not exceed the value of two hundred drachmae, and this among a people who have no written laws, but are ignorant of writing, and must therefore in all the business of life trust to memory. They live, nevertheless, happily enough, being simple in their manners and frugal. They never drink wine except at sacrifices.a Their beverage is a liquor composed from rice instead of barley, and their food is principally a rice-pottage.b The simplicity of their laws and their contracts is [S. 70] proved by the fact that they seldom go to law. They have no suits about pledges or deposits, nor do they require either seals or witnesses, but make their deposits and confide in each other. Their houses and property they generally leave unguarded. These things indicate that they possess good, sober sense ; but other things they do which one cannot approve: for instance, that they eat always alone, and that they have no fixed hours when meals are to be taken by all in common, but each one eats when he feels inclined. The contrary custom would be better for the ends of social and civil life.”
8.That the modern situation of labourers falling into bonded labour due to non payment of loan, was not a practice during that period.
Quote “The Indians neither put out money at usury, nor know how to borrow. It is contrary to established usage for an Indian either to do or suffer a wrong, and therefore they neither make contracts nor require securities”
Quote “Among the Indians one who is unable to recover a loan or a deposit has no remedy at law. All the creditor can do is to blame himself, for trusting a roque.”
9. Rigours of Brahmacharya and the virtue of abstinence from meat was not a new concept to Hinduism- Quote “The Brachmanes are best esteemed, for they are more consistent in their opinions. From the time of their conception in the womb they are under the guardian care of learned men, who go to the mother and, under the pretence of using some incantations for the welfare of herself and her unborn babe, in reality give her prudent hints and counsels. The women who listen most willingly are thought to he the most fortunate in their children. After their birth the children are under the care of one person after another, and as [S. 99] they advance in age each succeeding master is more accomplished than his predecessor. The philosophers have their abode in a grove in front of the city within a moderate-sized enclosure. They live in a simple style, and lie on beds of rushes or (deer) skins. They abstain from animal food and sexual pleasures, and spend their time in listening to serious discourse, and in imparting their knowledge to such as will listen to them. The hearer is not allowed to speak, or even to cough, and much less to spit, and if he offends in any of these ways he is cast out from their society that very day, as being a man who is wanting in self-restraint. After living in this manner for seven-and-thirty years, each individual retires to his own property, where he lives for the rest of his days in ease and serenity”
10. The argument of kancha illiah that Ancient Indians somehow hated buffaloes is trashed by this quote. Neither there seems to be any reason to believe that beef consumption was widespread. JNU Scholars have tried to argue that Indians were reckless meat eaters can be disproved by this single quote Quote “
They eat flesh, but not that of animals employed in labour. It needs to be emphasized that in parts of India lay brahmins did eat flesh, but even there it was certainly not reckless meat eating with beef and a whole lot of other domestic animals. Once again even here we can see from earlier quotations, that they did not eat during brahmacharya and a specical category amongst them did not eat meat at all.
11. Genealogy of Kings existed as far as 6451 BC in India,
Quote – “For the Indians stand almost alone among the nations in never having migrated from their own country. From the days of Father Bacchus to Alexander the Great their kings are reckoned at 154, whose reigns extend over 6451 years and 3 months.”
12. That there was an ascetic sect amongst Brahmins whose principles seem similar to modern sanyasis . The fact that they followed the upanishadic thought is indicated here Quote–“ There is among the Brachhmans in India a sect of philosophers who adopt an independent life, and abstain from animal food and all victuals cooked by fire, being content to subsist upon fruits, which they do not so much as gather from the trees, hut pick up when they have dropped to the ground, and their drink is the water of the river Tagabena.a Throughout life they go about naked, saying that the body has been given by the Deity as a covering for the soul.b They hold that God is light,c but not such light as we see [S. 121] with the eye, nor such as the sun or fire, but God is with them the Word,—by which term they do not mean articulate speech, but the discourse of reason, whereby the hidden mysteries of knowledge are discerned by the wise. This light, however, which they call the Word, and think to be God, is, they say, known only by the Brachhmans them selves, because they alone have discarded vanity,d which is the outermost covering of the soul. The members of this sect regard death with contemptuous indifference, and, as we have seen already, they always pronounce the name of the Deity with a tone of peculiar reverence, and adore him with hymns. They neither have wives nor beget children. Persons who desire to lead a life like theirs cross over from the other side of the river, and remain with them for good, never returning to their own country. These also are called Brachhmans, although they do not follow the same mode of life, for there are women in the country, from whom the native inhabitants are sprung, and of these women they beget offspring. With regard to the Word, which they call God, they hold that it is corporeal, and that it wears the body as its external covering, just as [S. 122] one wears the woollen surcoat, and that when it divests itself of the body with which it is enwrapped it becomes manifest to the eye. There is war, the Brachhmans hold, in the body wherewith they are clothed, and they regard the body as being the fruitful source of wars, and, as we have already shown, right against it like soldiers in battle contending against the enemy. They maintain, moreover, that all men are held in bondage, like prisoners of war,e to their own innate enemies, the sensual appetites, gluttony, anger, joy, grief, longing desire, and such like, while it is only the man who has triumphed over these enemies who goes to God. Dandamis accordingly, to whom Alexander the Makedonian paid a visit, is spoken of by the Brachhmans as a god because he conquered in the warfare against the body, and on the other hand they condemn Kalanos as one who had impiously apostatized from their philosophy. The Brachhmans, therefore, when they have shuffled off the body, see the pure sunlight as fish see it when they spring up out of the water into the air.”
13. Brahmins of those times were certainly not money minded as there are in the modern times-
Quote – “Bragmanes neither love gold nor fear death.”
Quote – “They (the Brachmans) eat what they find on the ground, such as leaves of trees and wild herbs, like cattle”

Deconstructing the world: Understanding the Supposition layers of Consciousness and beliefs

The stress here is more on underlining the levels at which we have become a product of our own suppositions. I demonstrate here that current scientific knowledge cannot prove that anything around us is really happening. I expose the problem , but the solution is left to the reader, and no where do I haughtily claim that some particular supposition is wrong. But I demonstrate that there is no way we can claim that life around us is any more different from the dream we experience.

I take you step by step to demonstrate this

1.Brain in the Vat
Situation-
This is an interesting puzzle . Today it is assumed by neuroscientists that every thought and feeling is a consequence of some brain activity. Well that is not a proven statement but it is a strongly held view. This view makes brain in the vat as real as it can be. How do we know the world? By the excitation that the nerves leading to the brain recieve. This means that the light falling on the optical nerves are not conducted as light itself to the brain but they just excite the nerve and the signals are interpreted within the nervous system and finally these impulses make us correlate with the world we know. This means that we can take the brain out of the skull and attach it to a computer, which would then send signals to the brain The brain would then have no way of knowing that it is not in the skull.

Conclusion- The information about the world collected by the brain is just a consequence of neuron activation and hence there is no way we can know using the brain alone ,whether or not the world really exists.

2. Myth of brain as a reliable observation tool.
Situation-
We Have seen through vat problem of brain, that nothing can be known truly of the world .If the individual's world view were just the consequence of the stimulation of brain cells then it is important to prove that through some principle of nature, brain happened to be stimulated in just the right way necessary for it to know about the world accurately. Any scientist would say that experience is a consequence of brain wiring. Based on this information let us come to the next point. People who report strange experiences claim them to be real. But an average individual does not see this. Immediately the scientists dub these experiences as hallucinations. whatever. But these experiences are also a consequence of brain wiring. Brain wiring leads to experience. But then how different is that experience from the experience of the normal individual, unless it can be proven that the normal individual's brain , can exactly map information of the world and present it as a coherent thought. The argument that can be made in support of the "exact map theory" is that more than one person sees the same observation and that instruments devised to measure physical phenomenon lead to the same results as the results being observed by the brain. If more than one individual can observe the same result can it not be because they have similar brain wiring. wherever brain wiring is different, there observations are different.so based on this argument one cannot support the exact map theory.Now the instruments making observations - what do they do and why do they work the way they do? Let us understand that instruments were built to finetune observations of the material world or observe phenomena that cannot be observed by senses of the body. In either case, the instruments were built to support the inferences made out of the observations of the brain.These inferences are logically consistent with the observations made. Therefore the instruments will observe phenomena in line with logically inferred possibilties of the world as conceived by the brain. But the conception of the world as understood by brain is itself due to brain wiring. Therefore observation of instruments is a mere function of brain wiring. And hence observation of instruments cannot be taken as evidence that brain understands world correctly. Thus we see the two possible reasons cited to prove that brain is a right map, cannot be really used to prove anything concrete about our understanding of the world or our understanding of the brain.
Conclusion- This completely proves that brain is only assumed to be a reliable tool for the purpose of practicality but there is no proof, on the contrary there is plenty of reason to disbelieve in the very nature of world presented by brain.

3. How much strength is there in the supposition that brain could be responsible for an individual's mind?
Situation- Is it the hen and egg problem? Did mind come first or the brain? Scientists would say it is the brain.Because brain causes mind. There is no evidence even by the standards of science . Evidences are cited to disprove the contrary claim.But these are lengthy arguments which can be easily disposed off as baseless and of no consequence to any understanding. I could argue with specific points in the comment section. What we however observe is that many a times, when we think there is brain activity which can be measured .we may also find brain activity which could affect the mind. Good . Now we can see that the same thing is possible in reverse, that mind affects brain activity too.Mind specifically affects how brain processes information. It is mind that conceives that something is happening around it. It is mind that conceives that an event in the world affects the body and also the brain.It is mind which conceives of the idea called brain, without this mind brain would cease to exist as an entity and which can be experienced. Therefore this is truly a case of the hen and egg problem.

Conclusion- The claim by some , that brain alone causes the mind to exist is purely a supposition. There is no strong reason to claim that this supposition is true.

4. The one principle that we know which is not a supposition
Situation-"At this moment I exist".
This is not a supposition. How do we know that?
If I were not true, then there is nothing called my imagination, my supposition, my belief, the validity and invalidity of all these claims dissappear. But I know I suppose, because I do. Therefore I dont need a proof to know I exist. But do you? That you only know. I hope you get the point!
Conclusion- Any theory that does not show how the structure of the world is derived from the individual's awareness of oneself is not a sound basis for understanding the nature of the world. The Reason is that awareness is the basis for all other understanding and reason is that it is the only truly unfalsifiable premise.

5.Finally the supposition model responsible for what we know of the world.
Layer 1- We start with the Individual I. This is true. But then I assumes different concepts regarding thoughts and about the mind. For instance I might assume that mind is real, I might also assume that mind is necessary for "I" . All these are unproven suppositions. So these suppositions comprise the first layer.
Layer 2- Layer 1 contributes to assumptions . Depending on how one views of one's own mind, one's assumptions about one's own brain varies. So all suppositions regarding the relation between mind and brain is unproven and hence these suppositions are dependant on layer 1 suppositions.This is Layer2
Layer3-Brain's conception of world. This is again a consequence of layer 2 suppositions,more the number of suppositions in layer2,greater the number of suppositions in layer 3.
Layer 4-Inferences made due to interaction with others and due to inferences derived from signals transmitted by mechanical instruments.These set of suppositions come into place as a consequence of layer 3 suppositions.

If we represent this as a visualizable model, we can create a three dimensional pyramid like structure based on our suppositions.This is how we really construct the world. These layers of suppositions must be deconstructed in order to truly understand the world.