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.