Gandhi, Godse and Geeta

REVIEWS: Gandhi’s still alive in Gujarat




Reviewed by Aisha Fayyazi Sarwari

In Gandhi’s hometown, Gujarat, three years after the religious violence, the Muslim community is still squandering for justice and freedom from fear of Hindu retaliation. The pogrom that left 110,000 Muslims homeless and killed over 2,000, according to the Human Rights Watch still have their violators roaming free. Recently the BBC reported that mass graves were dug out to hide evidence of the depravity. Women and children, physiologists say, are unable to get over the trauma and violence they witnessed.

Despite this, Dalits and other untouchables in Gujarat are “far worse than the Muslims.”

About eight decades ago, it was this alliance of common interest between the Muslims and the untouchables that frightened Gandhi, fictitiously known as the Mahatma, into a series of political manoeuvres to protect not only his adherence to orthodox Hinduism, but also the Congress party’s capitalist interests. If Kamran Shahid, author of Gandhi and the Partition of India: A New Perspective, is to be believed, the alliance of the lower caste Hindus and Muslims (who were themselves converts from lower-caste Hindus, escaping the drudgery and humiliation of class), formed a majority of Indian vote bank.

The British planned to leave the colonies and intended to implant the traditions of democracy and fraternity in Indian politics before they did. Recklessly abandoning his spiritual face to the world, Gandhi articulated his worst fears in reaction to safeguards granted to Muslims and untouchables granted by the British Communal Award of 1931, “the Untouchable hooligans would make alliance with the Muslim hooligans and kill upper-caste Hindus.”

As a failed lawyer in South Africa, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi had fought tooth and nail against perceived discrimination against Indians, but not as popularly believed in the interest of equality. It was for the more privileged treatment of Indians in South Africa as compared to black Africans. He fought to separate and segregate the Indians from the subhuman “savage kafirs” who were not “equal to the Indians”. It is because of this fact, outlined in his volumes of Collected Works and his own personal diaries that prompted countless South Africans to protest his statue in Johannesburg in 2002.

When he returned to India, he did so to restore the traditionalism and social conservatism of status quo. He rejected British plans to distribute power evenly amongst all parties and interests, because it would severely undermine the Congress and its leading upper-caste Hindu interests. He formulated a plan to ensure no power sharing deal with the Muslims and he broke the threat of a lower-caste Hindu and Muslim alliance by reinventing a religiously inspired revolution against the British. He claimed to blur the lines of caste by verbally restoring dignity to the lower caste Hindus or Harijans as he called them, and calling them to unite with all Indians to fight for their independence through satyagraha, however, he never forgot to spell out that their place belonged as servants to the upper caste Brahmins.

On numerous occasions he articulated that the peasant must serve his master at all costs, even if he “suffers in his person” and this usually meant exploitative labour rates. He prohibited inter-dining and intermarriage across castes.

Much to the distaste of the long-term champion of lower-caste Hindu rights, Dr Ambedkar, who is also the principal author of the Indian constitution, Gandhi continued to manipulate the lower caste into overriding any realpolitik plans to broker rights for themselves in the new independent India. Gandhi, instead, marched them to salt fields, made facades of ashrams for them, made their women spin yarn to champion self-rule, coerced the British into imprisoning him and gained mass sympathies in the process.

Winston Churchill refused to give into Gandhi’s hunger strikes, and would rather that Gandhi starve to death but his associates feared that because he has asserted himself as India’s spiritual leader, his death would turn him into a martyr. True to Dr Ambedkar’s prediction, Gandhi’s much flaunted spiritual emancipation of the lower-caste Hindus did not secure them a better future and, even today, they stand as the most marginalized lot of India, a notch below the Muslims.

Having shattered any possibility of a collective vote bank of Muslims and lower-caste Hindus, Gandhi shifted his focus to manufacturing an illusion of poverty. He successfully bought the Congress party a golden choice to back away from any power-sharing deal with the Muslims rejecting the prescience of the Lucknow Pact which secular politicians like Jinnah and Gokhale worked hard to secure the co-existence of Hindu and Muslim communities.

When Gandhi split the movement by his cleverly crafted plan of rallying a majority into religious fervour for independence, politicians like Mohammad Ali Jinnah, at first sidelined and shunned, realized that the only way they will not find themselves in the same trap shared by lower-caste Hindus is by demanding a separate state. Used as a bargaining chip, historians such as Ayesha Jalal say that Jinnah till the end tried to give Indian Muslims the best constitutional protection they could get, but at the end, for Gandhi, it had to be all or nothing.

Under no circumstances was the Congress party negotiating, nor did they see any need to, because the British were hastily retreating and the Congress was turning out to be the one with the bigger pie and the more visible forces.

Seeing that the blame would fall on him for being unable to keep the country united, Gandhi made alliances with Islamic religious leadership, distracting Indian Muslims from interest based politics into religious euphoria. This only widened the rift between the Hindus and Muslims. Ironically, his own orientation remained completely Hindu centric — “I am a Hindu and therefore a true Indian”, he declared.

Jinnah was willing to go as far as accepting the Cabinet Mission plan in 1946, favouring united India rather than Partition. Pakistan came to be because Gandhi and the Congress party found it unpalatable for Muslims to have full autonomy in the majority provinces.

The “new perspective” that Kamran Shahid has articulated in his book is not new, it is one that the Muslim League articulated and that H.M. Seervai, Asiananda and Patrick French wrote in their books. In fact, recently two fascinating books dealing with contradictions of the “great soul” who once was held by Einstein as the greatest man to walk the earth were published. These are Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity (2001) and the Ungandhian Gandhi (2004).

Certainly established as fact, this perspective the academic circles have now accepted, but where it is new, however, is in the psyche of non-serious activists and upstarts who would rather believe in the myth of Gandhi than read what he wrote and did. Will this myth persevere with time or will a more honest understanding of Gandhi emerge that will give a balanced perspective on the man held by millions as the very icon of non-violence and pluralism that Gandhi’s own actions negated?

---

Gandhi and the Partition of India: A New Perspective
By Kamran Shahid
Ferozsons, 60
Shahrah-i-Quaid-i-Azam, Lahore.
Tel: (042) 630 1196-8
UAN 111-62-62-62
ISBN 969-0-02011-0
124pp. Rs250

Well-written article. But I have a problem with your premise that there is one particular message inscribed in the Geeta or for that matter any religious/cultural text, which is subject to a singular interpretation. In fact, the Geeta has been interpreted in various different ways, towards divergent ends. During the Independence struggle it worked as a handbook for legitimising any kind of action.

Further, ethics and morals are context-sensitive. What is right in one context may not be right in another.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Pankaj, hope to get an opportunity soon to know what you had to say.
roohi, I`m curious about what you said on another thread, `a blind beggar in Bihar singing Bhojpuri bhajans`. Someday if you would care to elaborate..?

Meanwhile since this thread is dormant, here is one of the episodes related to avarnas in the Mahabharata.

The story of Utanga quoted largely from C Rajagopalachari( the full text of his Mahabharata in English is available online on a number of websites)

`when the battle was over, Krishna bade farewell to the Pandavas. On his way to Dwaraka, he met his old brahmana friend Utanga. The innocent recluse asked ` do your cousins the Pandavas and the Kauravas love one another as brothers should? Are they well and flourishing?`

Krishna was astounded at this question and explained. Uttanga got angry ` Were you standing by and did you let all this happen? You have indeed failed in your duty. You have surely practiced deceit and led them to destruction. Prepare now to receive my curse!`

Krishna smiled and tried to pacify him, showing him his Vishwarupa. `In whatever body I am born I must act in conformity with the nature of that body. I begged hard of the ignorant Kauravas. They were arrogant and intoxicated by power and paid no heed to my advice. I tried to intimidate them. Therein also I failed. I was in wrath and showed them even my Vishwarupa. Even that failed. They persisted in wrong-doing. They waged war and perished`.

Uttanga recovered his calm. Krishna offered him a boon. Utanga said he didnot desire any boon after seeing him in Vishwarupa, but finally the desert-wandering simple brahmana said `let me find water to drink whenever I might feel thirsty`. Krishna said `Is that all? Have it then` and continued on his journey.

One day when Utanga was very thirsty and unable to find water anywhere in the desert, he thought of his boon. Immediately, there appeared a nishada, clothed in filthy rags; he had five hunting hounds in leash and a water-skin wrapped to his shoulder.

The nishada grinned at Utanga saying `You seem to be thirsty. Here is water for you` and offered the bamboo spout of his water-skin to the brahmana to drink from.

Utanga looking at the man and his dogs and his water skin, said in disgust, `Friend I donot need it, thank you`. Saying this he thought of Krishna and reproached him in his mind `Indeed was this all the boon you gave me?`.

The outcaste nishada pressed Utanga over and over to quench his thirst but it only made Utanga more and more angry. The hunter and his dogs disappeared.

Seeing the sudden disappearance, Utanga reflected `Who was this? He couldnot have been a real nishada. It was certainly a test and I have blundered miserably. My philosophy deserted me. I rejected the water offered to me by the nishada and proved myself to be an arrogant fool`.

While he was pondering thus, Krishna appeared. Utanga said `O Krishna, was it right of you to try me thus - make an untouchable offer unclean water to me, a brahmana, to drink? Was it kind?`

Krishna said ` O Utanga, for your sake, when you put my boon into action, I asked Indra to take amrita[the nector of immortality] to you and give it to you as water. He said he couldnot give a mortal what would give him immortality, while he was willing to do anything else. But I prevailed upon him and he agreed to take amrita and give it to you as water, provided I let him do it as a chandala and tested your understanding and found you willing to take water from a chandala. I accepted the challenge believing you had attained jnana[knowledge] and transcended externals. But you have done this and made me suffer defeat at Indra`s hands.`

Utanga saw his mistake and was ashamed.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Dost-Mittar

Well, I guess this thread is dead. Moreover Sadhana, ,Shridhar, Pardesi and others have not left anything substantial for me to add. May be some other time we will revisit the whole thing.

re:#132 by harimau
Mahabharata, like any other Epic, is never static and keeps changing, while maintaining the same plot. K.M. Munshi had written a 7-volume book ``krishnavatara`` in which story of Pandavas is told with SriKrishna as the central character. As per that story (derived from the original epic), Dhritarashtra had lost his ability to be the king, being blind from birth. In those days, common sense still prevailed. The eldest automatically did not become king if he was incapacitated. The mantle fell on his younger brother, Pandu (father of Pandavas, the five brothers). Pandu died young and his eldest son Yudhisthira (who was older than even Duryodhana) became both an automatic and a popular choice. Following attempts on their lives (eg Lac house episodes, several others), the 5 brothers with the help of Krishna set out to create their own empire to rule. From the rubble. Krishna helps them create Khandavaprastha. It was Krishna`s own idea (as per Munshi`s book). Like the proverbial Narada, Krishna has his hand in every pie (and in every intrigue!). Founding of the new city of Indiraprastha sets the stage for future complications with the Kauravas.
Sadna`s narration was not far from truth either. There was indeed a bitter struggle over who will rule Hastinapura and Khandavaprastha was a compromise which the Pandavas accepted magnanimously.
Sridhar

Anyone still here ?

Read ``The Crime of Nathuram Godse`` by Chief Justice Khosla ...
http://www.mahatma.org.in/books/showbook.jsp?id=2&link=ld&book=ld0001&lang=en&cat=books

The first part where he talks about being the Custodian of Evacuee Property in Delhi and dealing with the Punjabi refugees and the Muslim residents in Delhi right after Partition is facinating. Godse`s testimony is intresting too.

Zafar #144
Good question :). The episode where their destruction is described is about the Yadava warriors in Dwarka. Perhaps the Bhagavatam has more information on what followed.

There are sure to have been Krishna`s Yadava kinsmen in other places too, for instance a few of his grandsons ruling elsewhere presumably survived and there were bound to be Yadavas still living in the Brijbhumi region.

One website has something about how Arjuna visited Dwarka to carry out the obsequies of Balram and Krishna and took the widows, orphans and old people back with him. Then he was ambushed on the way and the survivors were kidnapped. Those kidnapped were absorbed into the clan of their kidnappers (the Abhirs/Ahirs) and descendents of the mix were called Yadavs. But I donot how much supporting evidence from the Puranas, this particular story line has, it could be wishful thinking. btw, the Yadava caste exists in the south too.

Nand/dost mittar . . . I think Hindus tend to continue re-evaluating and re-interpreting religion of all sorts (not just ``Hinduism``) at all times and don`t seem to find much wrong in such evolution . . . so debate on religion can proceed with a lot of hot air and good rich heavy food and arts song and dance in the evening . . . but back to Gandhi & Godse, who followed the Geeta ``better``?

I would like to think Godse followed it better. Mainly because he ended up with the greater sacrifice, especially if you read the Geeta along with the Katha Upanishads?

I wonder how many posters here have actually read Mahabharat and Bhagvad Geeta.
Fisrt of all Dost-Mittar, to be technically correct you should call Geeta as Bhagvad Geeta, coz there are three different Geetas. The word Geeta merely means dialogue in sanskrit. So Bhagvad Geeta is a dialogue between the Godhead(Bhagvad) and Arjun, Ashtavakra Geeta, dialogue between Ashtavakra and Janaka and Uddhava Geeta, dialogue between Uddhava and Sri Krishna.
Pardesi, your comment on intent of action and whether it affected Krishna, is reflexcted in his response to Gndhari after being cursed by her. He goes on to say to her, that in both the victor and the vanquished, he is the one who has suffered as he resides in every living soul. So the pain suffered by the dying and wounded is suffered by him. And he does accept however, that he too is bound by the laws of Karma since he has taken this human body. His own kingdom ends when all the yadavas fight each other to the end, while the sea invades Dwarka (now Bet Dwarka) drowning the city. He is the last one to leave his body among Yadavas afetr going through the pain Gandhari had gone through, seeing her own seeds disappear and the ``vansh`` die.
Moral of the story of Mahabharat is that no one not even God`s own representative gets special treatment. We are all bound by the same laws. There are no miracles which can spare anyone from his/her misdeeds/deeds. This might look very bleak and hopeless to most of the humans, but actually is quite the contrary. It would require an article to be written by someone in defense of Hinduism perhaps. Especially more so, when you consider that the lure of miracles and forgiveness from any crimes is easily accepted by all and sundry, when it applies to there own misdeeds, but when the same principles are applied to anyone else, they call it injustice. Mahbharat perhaps is the only honest scripture ever written in mankind, delineating human character in its best and worst, wihout passing judgements on either. Thats the way reality actually exists.
Adios

Pardesi #139
Pardesiji, you are a real expert on the Mahabharata. Re Nobel, we should present a copy of the Mahabharata to the Nobel committee, instead?

btw, I too meant to say Gandhari cursed Krishna for the death of her son(s).
In C Rajagopalachari`s version it was Duryodhana`s thighs that Bhima hit. When the Kauravas tried to disrobe Draupadi in the Assembly Hall, Bhima took a vow to break Duryodhana`s thighs.

Nevertheless, Balram, who returned from his journey just in time to witness the duel, condemned Bhima and almost killed him with his plough till Krishna dissuaded him.

Balram still said `It will be said among men that the son of Pandu broke the laws of war in attacking Duryodhana. It will remain foreever a blot on his name. I hate to stay here any longer` and left for Dwaraka.

Yudhishthira knew of the vow but was upset for another reason `it hurt me to see Bhima leap on cousin Duryodhana`s mortal wounded body and trample on his head. I see the end of the glory of our race. We were wronged by the Kauravas. I know the full measure of grief and anger in Bhima`s heart and don`t wish to blame him beyond reason`. `But when men transgress the law, extenuations and excuses are of no avail in giving satisfaction`.

Arjuna `was silent and didnot show approval of Bhima`s act nor did he say anything by way of detraction`.
Duryodhana who was not yet dead, was full of anger for Krishna `I saw you instigate Bhima to aim his blow to your thigh.... Till then it had been equal battle. ..I go to swarga with my friends and relatives But you and your friends will live on earth to suffer grief. ..Who is more blest, I or you who doomed to linger here, mourning for slaughtered friends in desolate homes, find the long-sought triumph but ashes in your mouth`.

Gods showered flowers and Krishna and the Pandavas felt small. `There is truth` said Krishna, `in what Duryodhana said. You couldnot have defeated him by fair means. This wicked man was invincible in battle.`

Reply dost-mittar #119

``Hope you are enjoying your stay in Palam Vihar (or is it Ansal Vihar?).``

Ansal`s Palam Vihar :-) and yes, thank you, I am.



Reply Nasah #123

``…why not -- purde ke bahar -- get together in USA when u r in USA``

Absolutely Hasanbhai, but till that happy day…(actually, I think that we should do this in Australia.)



Reply veeresh #124

``. . . yes, it would be good to meet Unkils too?``

I thought that you said I was too old to call you unkil Veereshji?? But yes please, I would be most honoured to meet you. I currently languish in my Ammi Huzoor`s custody in Palam Vihar, but kabhi kabhi parole bhi hotha hai. Please email me at zafreallyzaf@yahoo.com with a contact # if you feel up to it. (Perhaps add to the hamara yeh bahthar hai list - my fist suggestionis traffic.) Salaams.



Reply sadna #136

``… as all her sons had been wiped out, so would all his kinsmen, the Yadavas. And thats what eventually happened.``

And Lalooji?

Sadna #136
Sadna, I can not resist temptation to correct you on Gandhari. She was not upset at Krishna on what he did to Dronacharya. She cursed him because he got her oldest son Duryodhan (Du) killed through another plot.
You see, after 99 other Kauravs died, and the war left both sides with tremendous losses, it was decided that Du and Bhim (#2 pandav brother) should have a one on one fight with their “Gaddas” and decide the matter once for all. Kauravs had a plan. Their mama (Gandhari) was blessed with a “one time” power – when she takes off her eye cover, the person in front of her will become indestructible rock solid. The reason for this power was due to her voluntary covering of eyes after she married a blind husband.
Krishna got wind of the plan and was worried. He approached Du (an “enemy”, but approachable) and asked about the plan. Du had no worries in talking about it since it was a foolproof plan. Krishna shamed the poor guy into putting some minimum langot over his private parts before appearing naked in front of his mother. When poor Du asked if that would leave him weaker at his “Achilles’ heel” area, Krishna assured him that the rules of the fight do not allow anyone to hit below the belt.
Gandhari, takes off her eye cover and starts crying at seeing the private part cover (she knew some one has left her last son with a weak spot), Bhim hits the poor guy below the belt and like they say rest is Mahabharat.
Gandhari curses destruction of Krishna’s clan.
Do you know Sadna, if posthumously Mahabharat writer can win a noble prize?

dost-mittar #134
I want to add, I`m sorry to read about your father being grievously hurt in riots. In that terrible period, Gandhiji must have sounded extremely inhuman when he told people they should not flee the horrible situation, they should die instead. I can fully understand that reason for disliking him intensely, whoever did so.

What confused me was one Punjabi`s argument for disliking Gandhiji which was Godse-like. I wondered about the person and others like her, that if the two communities were so estranged and she hated Muslims and blamed them for the things that happened, how would Gandhiji`s preventing Partition at a given point in time have helped her in any way? Its a difficult question to ask those who suffered in ways I cannot possibly comprehend, so I didnot. Sorry if I hurt you or anyone else by this.

Does anybody think that untimely death (assassination) of Gandhi helped Nehru to prolong his rule and through total control of Congress party, establishing a dynasty in Indian politics continuing to this day?
What is the probability of having Gandhi living 10 more years and never coming in conflict with Nehru on any major issue?
Sadna: You are right that not just Gandhi but Nehru and Jinnah never had personal popularity in Punjab the way they enjoyed in many other part of India. Eevn now various Muslim Leagues do not use Jinnah speeches or Independendent movement history to win votes because it won`t work. I know in Congress rallies, Nehru dynasty pictures alongwith Gandhi dominate, not so for Jinnah and other ML leaders in P-Punjab.

THIS IS AN ENLIGHENING ESSAY ON THE EFFECT OF HOLY SCRIPTURE ON MORALITY ELUCIDATING GHANDI,S IMAGE OF A PERSON OF GREAT ACTION DUE MAINLY TO THE EFEECT OF GEETA ON HIM IN THE CHILDHOOD. THIS IS SOMETHING VERY INSIGHTFUL.

dost-mittar #134
Just to clarify, I was not doubting there were threats to Gandhiji`s life. The quote in #88 seems to indicate he himself expected them.

Pardesi #133
Thats right. What you relate is also quoted as the reason why Yudhishthira had to go to hell for a spell in the version I know, ie he said `Aswathama the elephant is dead`, intending that Dronacharya should think its his son. It didnot help Yudhishthira that it was technically not a lie and that Krishna put him up to it.

As for Krishna, he was the Supreme Self which is the seed in every being and etc, but in his bodily form he didnot escape unscathed. Gandhari, the mother of the Kauravas, is said to have cursed him, that as all her sons had been wiped out, so would all his kinsmen, the Yadavas. And thats what eventually happened.

harimau #132
``the Kauravas do not have the legal right to inherit half the kingdom. So, why were they given half of the kingdom? ``

The answer is a bit long and anyone may correct me if I am wrong.
After the cousins` education, they all returned to Hastinapur. Yudhishthira as heir apparent became very popular with his subjects and Duryodhana got jealous. So he plotted to kill the Pandavas. He got King Dhritrarashtra to send the 5 Pandavas and Kunti to attend a Shiva festival in Varanavrata where he got built a highly infammable lac palace for them to stay. The plan was to burn them to death, only the Pandavas and Kunti escaped in time. Everyone thought the Pandavas and their mother had died in the blaze because the bodies of some beggars who had stopped for the night were later found.

After an year spent hiding in the forest, the Pandavas emerged from hiding so that Arjuna could attend Draupadi`s swayamvara, win her and ally himself with his future in-laws as a step towards recovering their kingdom.

Once she had been won and the Pandavas` identity revealed, Bhishma, Dhritrarashtra and other elders decided to keep the peace by splitting the kingdom into half between the Kauravas and Pandavas and to give the Pandavas the ancient capital Khandavaprastha. The Pandavas cleared the forests around the old overgrown capital and rebuilt it calling it Indraprastha which is said to be Delhi.

Sadna # 130 . . . exactly my point to . . . logical inference and illogical inference are almost the same thing . . . thus, what is evidence for one person is not for the other! The other point is that the missing 4th corner was my mising 4th corner, my child had his/her own missing 4th corner, which was not related to mine.

Please appreciate the concepts of illusion?

As for Gandhiji wrt Punjabis . . . I have heard it so often . . . who gave a billy-goat about religion? How come Punjabis got shafted, along with bengalis, in what was essentially a game over imperial ambitions by British WOG lawyers? Did you read Jack Straw`s latest statements in England?

Ref sadna #19

[harimau #7
You are mistaken. The story goes that legally, being blind Dhritrarashtra could not be king and so his brother was King. When King Pandu died, Dhritrarashtra became the Regent while waiting for the princes to grow up while Yudhishtra was heir apparent all along. Looking at C Rajagopalachari`s Mahabharata in English, Duryodhana himself mentions this in a number of conversations, eg when persuading his father to allow him to plot against the Pandavas.]

So, since Dhritarashtra was never King, the Kauravas do not have the legal right to inherit half the kingdom. So, why were they given half of the kingdom?

[Its not the claim of the Kauravas on the kingdom which makes them villianous, there was a lot of villiany quite apart from this.]

Hey, villainy is not the issue here. The question is who has legality on his side. Sometimes, the villains do. We must then swallow hard and grant the villains their due.

Sadna, Dost-mittar 112 & 118
We learned another version of Yudhishtra (Y)’s last journey.
In their last journey, while others died for different reasons (e.g., Draupadi died for her special love, little extra than her other four husbands, for Arjun), Y lost a thumb before reaching heaven. When he asked, he was told that he had knowingly kept quite during Krishna inspired trick they played upon Draunacharya (D).
You see, in order to kill D (the master of all his student warriors) with shocking, but false, news of his son Ashvasthama (A)’s death, Krishna prepared a game plan. D would only believe the news if it comes from Y, due to his 24-carat reputation. They found an elephant whose name just happened to be A, and they first slaughtered him. Now all our saintly prince Y had to do was to say, in front of D, that A the elephant has died, and that was technically right. However, Krishna, our holy avatar, blew his shankh, for a few moments when the word elephant was mentioned. Poor D, did not hear the word elephant and believing Y, died due to his enormous love for his only son A.
Moral of the story, when you go upstairs they do take into consideration the intent not just legalities of your actions. If this is true, I wonder how Krishna was judged. But then he must have been exempt from all this since his intentions, on a higher level, were to promote peace by winning war. Not to mention the fact that he himself is the ultimate boss or avatar. Who knows.

veeresh #124
A number of things we can safely accept by logical inference though we cannot see it with our own eyes. For example, that each of us has a brain(have you ever seen yours?), that ABVajpayee is our Prime Minister, that if you lived on a higher floor and the 4th corner was indeed a Mars traveller, your small children would fall off whenever you turned your back. Trust noone`s small children are habitual Mars travellers too :).

dost-mittar #118
There are holy scriptures and then there are the Sopranos and car commercials. Given that the West`s policy toward one major region is shaped by the philosophy in one of the above items .. :)
--
It so happens that my mom was in N.Delhi in 47-48. She herself doesnot remember any anticipation of an assassination, though perhaps others did. She remembers the Thursday fasts when children took their share of flour to school for the refugees. She says that she too attended a few of Gandhiji`s weekly prayer meetings at Birla house. One Friday they found the Birla House gardens were all laid waste and that the prayer meeting was cancelled. The next week`s meeting(which they didnot attend) was the one where Gandhiji was assassinated. They got the news from the radio and the announcer wept while announcing his death.

I`ve met Punjabis who hated Gandhi, but I donot fully understand why. Recently events in Gujarat have revived curiosity about Bengali/Punjabi nostalgia about commonalities. It is without doubt a very worthwhile blessing now. But were there similar sentiments back then and if so why didnot these sentiments translate into bonds strong enough to get through those difficult times? What is it that Gandhiji could have done which these bonds failed to do?

Nooralain 127
I am neither anybody`s grave-kisser nor anyone`s ass-licker. If you find some brilliance in my writings then it obviously means that you have not come across brilliant writings.

I do not fancy myself a `writer` at all. Most present-day `writers` and `poets` are losers anyway. Please spare me the `honor` to seat me in their midst.

I have never had a chance to read the Geeta but if Mahatma Gandhi`s
assassin used it as an excuse for his crime, he misread it.

Ras

GhalibZaman...reading your posts, I find you display the same religious brilliance as fellow interactor farangi kush, hamzad afaqui and progresive etc. Have I been interacting with the latest incarnation of the above? :)

re: #121 by arjun_m

``You have failed the first rule of debating. When you state something, it is for you to prove that god/whatever exists. It is for people who claim the existence of god to prove their assertion.``

Good to know you are an atheist. At least that is what you imply in the above statement. I have no problem with that. It is your personal matter.

Most people who believe in God would be hardpresssed to prove His existence (at least the kind proof that would satisfy the scientific community). Does that mean all these people stop believing in God? Again, let me ask you the question, which i have already asked. What kind of a proof are you talking about? How do you prove sugar is sweet or rose smells good? God has to be experienced. Does the fact that spiritual masters of the past (across cultures and continents) have talked about God and felt His presence mean nothing to you?

Now let us see if you can claim to be smarter than some top notch scientists in the past and present, who did believe in a ``higher power`` without any proof/evidence.
A number of top notch scientists like Newton, Einstein, Galeilio, Copernicus, Kepler, Pasteur, Harvey, Faraday, Hawkins etc. have believed in God.
Go to the url: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html
and see what many scientists have to say on this.
Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist) has this to say: ``Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God.`` (Ref: Hawking, S. 1988. A Brief History of Time. p. 175).
Carl Sagan (Astrophysicist and writer of many popular science books) in his introduction to the book ``A brief history of Time`` speaks of how Hawking set out to understand the mind of God. There is only one other scientist (AFAIK) who could make such a tall claim. Albert Einstein (arguably one of the greatest scientists who ever lived) said this: ``I`m not much with people, and I`m not a family man. I want my peace. I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomena in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.``

The problem with present day science is that it is at a threshold of many new discoveries. Still, you cannot prove existence of God or Soul with all the latest scientific techniques we have. This does not mean God does not exist. It only means man has to wait a little longer to discover the truth.
There are many paths to the same truth. Yogis of the past have discovered a time-tested way. If one has to disprove it, one has to try it out first. Few scientists today have even attempted to look at yoga as a means of reaching higher consciousness. At best, many research centers have validated its usefulness in CV problems, and as a stress-relaxation technique.
But the yogis of the yore were not trying to relax. They were pretty relaxed to begin with! They were trying to reach the state of higher consciousness with a time tested scientific technique. The technique has been explained by Patanjali in his spiritual classic ``Yogasutra`` and has been validated by many renouned yogis. The technique is difficult and time consuming. Like any other scientific query it seeks to answer the question: Does God exist? It has its own inclusion and exclusion criteria set out by Patanjali in first 2 steps (Yama and Niyama). It is clear as to what kind of people can do this and who cannot . It also sets out clearly identifiable results at the end of each stage. Am i being stupid? I am only quoting the spiritual authorities who swear to the efficacy of that technique. Like any good technique, the one elucidated by Patanjali (modified to some extent today) is reproducible and result oriented. I will leave it at that.
The rest of the post about Elvis and others is all rubbish. How many people believe Elvis is alive today? Compare that to the number of people who believe Jesus lived.

Your argument about ``headache and doctor`` is a cheap shot. I am a doctor myself and i am not impressed with that line of argument.

Sridhar

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Nand#117, mirrors are the best ways to create illusions. Also, this is something I tried right now . . . if I try to see my fourth corner by using a mirror, I lose one of the other three corners. Likewise, using a 360 degree camera would also not qualify because, simply, the camera can be fooled too.

This set of questions and answers then progresses into some heavy maya and illusion scenarios.

Zafar . . . yes, it would be good to meet Unkils too?

Sadna . . . the crow and the cockroach, who may actually eventually inherit the earth, do happen to possess 360 degree vision. Maybe there is something there. I presume there are other birds, mammals, insects etcetc which can see the fourth corner. But they can`t tell us about it.

Therefore, does the 4th corner really exist?

Likewise, on a lighter note, what happened to all the missing socks making a zillion single socks worldwide?? Is there proof that a sock-heaven of single socks does not exist?

Zafar miaN why not -- purde ke bahar -- get together in USA when u r in USA -- with Chowkis like dost-mitter, shammi, sadna, aminashah, shanker, hamidm, tahmed, prem, pankaj, roamair, freethinker, soysauce, pmishra,YLH, urstruly -- and Naqshbandi miaN (unheiN phir se mussalman banana hai) -- who like to reveal themselves -- in New York or in Atlanta -- or in Miam -- let`s have an annual sandhya mahfil of chowkis --anywhere in the United States:-)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Veeresh#114
The evidence you are searching for in the 4 corner problem lies in the answer to why humans evolved with less than 360 degree vision.

Is it because our ancestor primates were always social pack animals and there was always someone else around to watch out for one`s back? If so, we need to figure why were our ancestors were social pack animals, and so on.

Of course the basic premise used above, evolution, is something you have to accept without first hand knowledge like the existence of the 4th corner :)

#108 vereesh

My point is of course that historical fact is alien to religion. My point is the exact opposite of yours ==== in a discussion of religion, whether or not something ``actually happened`` is simply irrelevant. What is relevant is the contents of a religous text and the what people believe in. These deserve analysis and study.

The recent much hyped claim of finding the stone casket of the ``brother of jesus`` should be approached very carefully. These names are very common jewsih names and there is no reason to connect them to religous figures. There is also a long history of ``creating`` such relics of Jesus.

dost-mittar

It is relevant to mention here the story of Rishi Valmiki, who started life as a vicious forest bandit. When, one day he tried to rob the seven celestial rishis, they asked him was he aware how much negative karma he was accumulating by his daily acts of violence. He said he did know, but he was blameless because he was only doing his duty and upholding the dharma of providing for his family of aged parents, wife and children. The seven rishis asked him to go check with his family whether they too thought him blameless and as the beneficiaries of his actions, whether they were willing to share the negative karma he was accumulating on their behalf. He did go back to ask, each person in his family said his karma was his own, they didnot want a share as they were blameless and the rest is history.

Moral of the story : doing your duty as you understand it doesnot dissipate the bad karma you may incur with your actions.

Since the Mahabharata is in focus here, I cannot resist recalling the story of how at the end of their lives on their last journey, after Draupadi and his brothers fell down and died one by one and Yudhishtra alone(with a faithful dog) arrived at the gates of heaven. (Firstly he refused to enter heaven without the dog also gaining admission. That turned out OK because the dog was Yama/Dharmaraja and it was a test of Yudhistra`s adherence to Dharma till the last ).

Anyway when he was escorted into heaven he his brothers were nowhere to seen but there was Duryodhana seated on a golden throne having a good time. He was astonished that his brothers could not attain heaven while Duryodhana could and insisted that whereever they were, he should be taken there and that was his swarga.

He was then escorted to a dark and revolting place with dead men`s bones, mutilated bodies and a terrible stench. It was so repulsive for a moment he thought of going back but then he heard his brothers`, Draupadi`s , her sons` , Karna`s etc voices beseeching him to stay there with them. Yudhishtra was astonished and enraged at the injustice of dharma and the gods and told his escort to go back, he himself was staying here.

Then after the thirtieth part of a day had passed, all the darkness and foul surroundings disappeared. It appears it was another test which Yudhishtra had passed perfectly.

Yama pointed out to him that though Yudhishtra had never failed in his dharma, in life or in death, even with such perfection, as a king and a ruler it was inevitable that he would have resorted to some minimum amount of undharmic practice to carry out his duties and hence had to suffer from the horrors of hell, even if for only a thirtieth part of a day.

Moral of the story : same as above :)

Ghalib 110,

I liked that srcasm, here is one for you.

Sky is blue. blue is not sky, sky is not blue. Is connects but still seperates betwenn blue and sky. ``is` is that nothing by which every thing is. from ``politics of experience`` by an unknown indian.

GhalibZaman (I live close to Nizamuddin, and if you are thataways, look me up?) . . . the 4-corner riddle exists in a slightly more complicated form in a book lying in a room in a family ashram, said book also contains detailed mathematical equations trying to prove a sort of ``pi`` for 4th dimension as well as astral curves which I will one day try to understand from the head who is actually an M.Tech from one of the better US Universities and whose jeep I ``borrowed`` in the old days to drive past Rishikesh . . . briefly, what the 4-corner riddle says is that you have no evidence whether the fourth corner in your room exists because you can`t see it, since it is behind your back.

What happens when you turn around? Well, another fourth corner vanishes, maybe it vibrates from here to Mars while you are not looking?

What about another person in the same room who can see your fourth corner? Well, that is not my fourth corner.

From the point of view of ``historical evidence``, I cannot defeat this logic.

Dost Mittarji - you are Nand Tandon? Mubarak, mubarak!

If I may make so bold:

``So, who was following the message of Geeta in the true sense? Gandhi, Godse or both?``

Truth kya cheez hai? You perceive it one way, I perceive it another, asli cheez tho kuchh aur hi hai. Meaning, clearly they both thought they were - and people who agree with Gandhi think HE was closer to the truth, ditto for those who agree with Godse, right?

``If both, should holy scriptures play a role in morality?``

I think one of the things that comes out of the Mahabharata is that holy scriptures can only play a role in PERSONAL morality. Both ``sides`` in the Mahabharata had people who were acting, according to their lights, dharmically - this didn`t mean that one side was dharmic or the other adharmic. (ie good people can disagree fundamentally and clash without either of their being amoral.)

Just MHO

Anyway, all - pranams from the homeland (or next door for some of you). (If anybody`s in Delhi and wants to have coffee and samosas I`m on zafreallyzaf@yahoo.com - it would be nice to see chowkistas in real life.)

Veeresh #108
Now this is the kind of thought-provoking or mind-teasing stuff which everyone from across the world admires in aborginal India (call it hinduism, if you will). Why not share & promote what is your forte?

Such enigmatic and riddle-laden queries which have no real answers but still remind us of the awe we experience of our own ignorance. This alone makes Life a worthwile sojourn.

Would you or others (sridhar?) please share whatever of such stuff you can recall from the ancient sanskrit texts.

pmishra2 and others seeking historical ``evidence`` . . . here is another take on the matter - evidence does not exist, it is like the breath we just took, gone and subjective.

Do you have evidence that the 4th corner in your room exists? Can you see all 4 corners at the same time in history? Think about this question . . .

noorie #104: Technically I disagree with you. Whose responsibility comes first is the issue. It is always believers responsibility to prove it whether it is big bang, black holes, UFOs or anything else. Pharmaceutical companies spent hundreds of millions of dollars to prove that their medicine works before approved by FDA because an affirmation is to their advantage. How much money a company B spents to disprove the claims of company A? Not even 5 percent of company A. The believers had roughly 1800 years to prove before few voiced of disapproval were raised during enlightenment period. You should not expect a non-believer or doubtful person to disprove it before yourself proving it. The onus of prove lies with you and benefit of the doubt lies to the other party in this case.
Expecting to respect from other the things you respect is also subjective and conditional. A neo-Nazi or Osama Bin Laden might expect same respect from rest of the world. Only things we should expect others to respect must be common to all such as common sense or humanism or hamidmism. Myths, mysteries, magic, beliefs, snake oils, towels, tooth brushes apne apne.
Some times two or more people can agree on certain principles but the principles can be good, bad or ugly.

re:#92 by pmishra2
It is not i but you who has to furnish proof that Jesus did not exist. More than a billion souls on this earth believe in his existence. Are they all under some kind of mass delusion?
Sridhar

GhalibZaman...I`m not really sure whether it was a plea, but `nyways...people have free will...they either choose to believe or not. I`m not sure that posting what you did is going to change anyone`s mind or heart, and that`s not what this forum should be about anyway. On these forums, it is very difficult to be critical without being insulting and offensive, and I choose to remain silent for the most part when it comes to religion. Which is what I may revert back to again, as soon as I post this.

mittar ji...regardless of whether people think holy scriptures should play a role in morality or not...holy scriptures DO play a role in morality.

#104 nooralain
Thanks for your plea for reverence and respect towards our prophets. With all our bloodied history our prophets are still of the same lineage and we of the same tradition and heritage.

Jerusalem and kaaba and bethelehem have always been part of an uniterrupted and alive culture tradition and religion.


Common roots
An ancient bond

It’s called the Holy Land, its ancient history dear to the world’s three main monotheistic religions — Judaism, Islam and Christianity. While many argue that the theological past has little to do with the nationalistic forces driving the region today, protection of religious areas and icons remains a rallying cry for the faithful.

DAVID H. WELLS / CORBIS
The Tomb of Abraham: An Israeli Hebron man holds his hands in the air as he visits the tomb of a man revered by the three monotheistic religions.


IN THE BEGINNING
Abraham, the Bible says, was called by God to leave his home and move to a new land, where he was to become the father of a mighty nation. His journey has become a tale of faith and transformation embraced by Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

As the story goes, some 4,000 years ago Abraham traveled from the Chaldean city of Ur — in present-day Iraq — to the land of Canaan — essentially modern-day Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

The book of Genesis says God then spoke to Abraham in Canaan, saying: ``To your offspring, I will give this land.``

Abraham`s offspring included two sons. The first was Ishmael, whom he fathered with Hagar, his wife Sarah`s former servant. The other was Isaac, whom he fathered with Sarah.

DID YOU KNOW ... Around 1200 B.C.E., about the same time Moses led the Israelites back to Canaan, a Mediterranean seafaring people called the Philistines settled on the western seaboard of what is now Israel and the Gaza Strip. After the Jews returned, the Philistines battled them for years, including the skirmish recounted in the story of David and Goliath. The word Philistine is the etymological predecessor of the word Palestine. However, the modern-day Palestinians do not claim a cultural or hereditary connection to the Philistines — the tie between the two peoples is in name only.
A GLOSSARY
The Crusades: About 1090 C.E., Pope Urban II called for the rescue of Jerusalem from Muslims, and by 1099 C.E. armies had conquered Jerusalem and massacred most of its Muslims and Jews. The first crusade led to others over the next 200 years, each eventually defeated by Muslim forces. When President Bush referred to a ``crusade`` against terrorists after the attacks of Sept. 11, he hit the sorest of spots in early relations between Muslims and Christians.

Diaspora: Refers to the Jews exiled from Israel, beginning with the conquest of Israel by Babylonians. Also used today to describe Jews who live outside Israel. Palestinians also have used the term to describe their refugees from wars with Israel.






Jews believe they are descended from Isaac, who, as the legitimate son of Abraham, was the intended inheritor of God`s promised land. Muslims believe they are descended from Ishmael, Abraham`s first-born. They say Hagar was Abraham`s second wife and believe their claims to the holy land are as valid as those of the Jews.

Abraham is said to have lived 175 years, and then buried in a cave called Machpelah, in what is now the city of Hebron in the West Bank.

Abraham has become revered by three religions. In the Christian New Testament, Abraham is called ``the ancestor of all who believe.`` The Koran mentions Abraham more often than the prophet Mohammed, who is believed by Muslims to have been a direct descendant of Abraham. Jews see Abraham as the first person to recognize their God.

all this discussion on whether something happened, or whether Abraham existed or whoever reminds me of my atheist friends demanding I show them proof of the events in the Anjeel. There is nothing that proves that Abraham did not exist either, or that Jesus is not the Son of God...so why ridicule people for what they believe in?

Anil,
Thanks for the recommendation for Stephen Mitchell`s Geeta.

pmishra2,
I recent NY times article mentions the discovery of a stone tablet bearing an inscription in Aramic, `here lies James brother of Jesus`. This is being touted as the first solid archaeological proof of Jesus`s existence. The article mentioned that scientests had verified that the stone was not a fake and that the inscriptions were not made using any modern tools or methods. The only question is whether this is the same James and Jesus brothers or some other with the same names.

Regards.

Sridhar

A historical mahanharata can only diminish the the essential teachings from it. Jerusalem is a good example where the historical prophets and children of gads are perverting the very essence of their teachnigs. A mythical jesus, mohammed and other varieties of gods could have easily coexisted in jerusalem.

Kurukshetra as the earth and the battle there as the trial of life is more empowering and spiritual that an archeological kurkshetra. If one is ready to dive into the spiritual depths of gita, why come up with archeological trash. When one is trawling the religious oceans for pearls of wisdom, the sharks of history can only shred the nets.

Religious scholars should not delve into the history, for them the books should remain ink blots on paper to devine a higher being.

Jay #68
PS: I agree there wasn`t any compassion for avarnas in operational Hinduism except among the reformers. My point was once Gandhiji chose to apply the satyagraha principle to the address the degradation inherent in British-Indian relations, he couldnot avoid applying it to the degradation inherent in Indian-Indian relations. Didn`t he say, the upper caste treatment of Dalits dehumanizes not only Dalits but also the upper castes themselves.


-
The quotes in #88 were those of Gandhiji and sorry the first paragraph of the 2nd quote got retyped.

dost-mittar #93
I believe those who wrote the Mahabharata (and the Bhagavatam) also considered the Ramayana preceded the Mahabharata. For instance the `Madhuvan` of Krishna`s childhood was supposed to have been forest under the rulership of an `asura` Madhu who was defeated by Shatrughna, Ram`s brother. Mathura was said to be a city established by Madhu.

And also, during the Pandavas` 13 year stay in the forest, Bhima meets an aged Hanuman.

dost-mittar #96
Perhaps Godse did think he was following the Gita. Information about what he said and did before the assassination might clarify too.

What you say about the period of 1935-1940 is valid though I wonder if the estrangement began primarily in the leadership of the ML. The rejection by the Congress of the Muslim League as a partner in coalition ministries in 1937 is often cited as a reason for final Muslim estrangement. By hindsight(20/20), I wonder if this scenario of estrangement could have occurred during any election in any state in the last 55 years in a hypothetical united India.

While we are on this subject and, wonder of wonders! enjoying and appreciating RELIGION.

Chowk is definitely becoming a civilised place. I hope similar respect is extended when discussing Islam or Qura`an.


Some interesting points to ponder.

Prophet (Pbuh) Foretold in India (A) Hindu scriptures
There is no doubt that God sent Prophets (Pbuh) to people of India. There is no mention of any Indian Prophet or scripture in Holy Qur`an. But Bukhari records Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) as saying he was enjoying breeze wafting from India laden with fragrance of Tawhid (unity of God). The four Vedas (scriptures) of Hindus and their epics are said to be 5000-10,000 years old. They contain a great deal of monotheistic ideas, and of course, prophecies on Hadrath Muhammad (Pbuh).

Bhavishya Puran
This is a Sanskrit work of prophecies. The title means `Book of the Future`. Since Hinduism is based in India it was, and still is, taken for granted that its sages will be born in India itself. Contrary to this belief the Book says that a great master will appear in a foreign country (mlechcha acharya) and live in a sandy region (marusthal). His name will be Mahaaamad. Within a short span of 18 couplets Mahaamad is mentioned five times.

There is an interesting information in Bhavishya Purana that Mahaamad would appear to Bhoj, ruler of Dhar, and say that he would establish the religion of meat eaters, by the command of Ishwar i.e. God. There is a tradition that long afterwards, Bhoj got terrified on seeing the full moon split into two. Learned men consulted holy books and told him that it was one of the signs of the Universal Master to be born in a country to the West. Bhoj sent his minister to Prophet (Pbuh) in Arabia, who named the king Abdullah. The Tomb of Abdullah is still there at Dhar...

Mahabharat
This is a Hindu epic describing the struggle and triumph of good against evil. It was written by sage Vyas who also authored Bhavishya Purana. Mahabharata says that in the last eon called Kali Yug (in which we now live) a great sage will appear with name Mahaamad. He would preach about unity of God. He will be driven away from his native place by his own folk. By him the world would get peace. (Islam means peace). Mahabharat further says that cloud will provide him shade. It is recorded in history that Buhaira, the Christian priest of Syria observed this sign with Muhammad e in his boyhood and identified him as the last Prophet anticipated for millennia.

Kalki Puran
The signs and events of the final Avatar Kalki point out to final Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh). They fit those of Muhammad (Pbuh) neatly and perfectly. They are as follows;

Kalki will appear in the last on Kali Yug and will be the guide for the entire world.

He will be born on the 12th day of the month. Prophet (Pbuh) as born on 12th Of Rabiyyul Awwal).

His parents will be: Vishnu Bhagat and Soomati meaning servant of God (the Cherisher) and peace. (Messenger`s (Pbuh) father`s name was Abdullah, God`s servant and mother was Amina refuge giver which includes the idea of `peace`.)

He will be with a beauty par-excellence. His body will be fragrant.

He will get wisdom on a mountain. (Messenger (Pbuh) was conferred Prophethood on Mt.Hira)

He will receive a horse from God, which will be faster than lightning. Riding it he will go around the earth and seven skies. (During Mi`raj Prophet (Pbuh) got Buraq meaning lightning and toured the entire universe.)

Kalki will split the moon. Like Bhoj, Cheraman (Zamorin) Perumal the ruler of Indian kingdom of Kerala, witnessed splitting of the moon performed by Prophet (Pbuh). After gathering the facts he sailed to Arabia and became Muslim at Prophet`s (Pbuh) hand. His Tomb is near the city of Salala in Oman[5].


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

rsridhar #82

Sounds like you believe whatever you are told. I repeat my statement: There is NO historical evidence for much of the old testament especially folks like Abraham. There is NO historical evidence that a jewish preacher called Yeshua (Jesus) existed around 10BC. If you have such evidence bring it forward. No one else has been able to, so surprise me!

Religion deals with ``sacred stories`` that are prototypical, suggest a point of view etc. They do not need to have ``really existed`` etc. Similar remarks apply to large parts of the Hindu scriptures.

Harpreet . . . coming from Delhi, on the left side after passing through Kurukshetra, there is an interesting alligator farm. Also, there is this place where Kshatris take the ashes of their dearly beloveds to the banks of the River jamuna nearby.

Close to Kurukshetra also is a town where there are at least 300-400 shops all selling ``pach-ranga`` achaar, which is really nothing much.

Better to keep driving and stop at DharamPur/Giani da Dhaba?

Jay, HN, anyone interested

You might like to look up Eknath Easwaran`s three volumes `The Bhagavad Gita for Daily Living`. His bio says `Born into an ancient matrilineal Hindu family in Kerala state, Eknath Easwaran regards his mother`s mother as his spiritual teacher.``
He mentions the example and the instruction he got from her in his childhood throughout his commentary on the Gita and the fact was she couldnot read or write and had not read any of the scriptures.

Just fyi, he went to the US on the Fullbright exchange program and then settled in Berkeley, California. Apart from books on Hinduism and Buddhism, he wrote books on Christianity too( you can check him out on B&N or Amazon).

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

jay #68
Christians may have corporatized charity in keeping with being an organised religion with central authority while Hinduism was never a corporate `religion`, and charity, alm giving and universal welfare was an individual duty (and a raja`s dharma). Within the jaati, operational compassion was mutual help and support. Across jaatis, operational compassion was mostly expressed as charity which was practised as duty even in my grandmothers` generation, for whom giving away food daily for instance was a standard practice. I agree in modern times the charitable spirit or social cohesion is generally lacking. Also instead of building ever more wonderful temples, temple trusts should make it a point to put the donations back into the local community.

There is no twisting or interpreting necessary, btw.

The Gita
3:20 By performing prescribed activities, King Janaka and others realised complete perfection, likewise you should perform as well considering for the sake of benefiting the world(loksangraham)

3:25 O Arjuna, just as the ignorant act attached to activities, even so the wise being unattached should act desiring the welfare of the world(lok sangraham)

5:25 Those seers of truth, whose doubts have been dispelled, devoid of all sins, engaged in self realization and who are always concerned for the spiritual welfare of all living beings(sarva-bhuta-hite-ratah), achieve liberation in the Ultimate Truth.

A few of the many on charity:

9:27 O Arjuna, whatever action you do, whatever you eat, whatever you offer in sacrifice, whatever you give in charity, whatever austerities you do, make as an offering unto me.

http://www.geocities.com/hinduismcharity/
Rig Veda
The Devas have not ordained hunger to be our death: even to the well-fed man comes death in varied shape. The riches of the liberal never waste away, while he who will not give finds none to comfort him.

Let the rich satisfy the poor implorer, and bend his eye upon a longer pathway. Riches come now to one, now to another, and like the wheels of cars are ever rolling.


Yakshaprashna in the Mahabharata(Yudhishtra was being queried by the Yaksha)

Who is the friend of the dying? His charity

What is his (a man`s) principal duty? Charity


Thirukkural

The only gift is giving to the poor;
All else is exchange.

Never to say, ``I lack`` and to give
Mark the well-born.

Duty is not for reward
Does the world recompense the rain-cloud?

The worthy work and earn wealth
In order to help others.

The wealth of a wise philanthropist
Is a village pool ever full.

Those bound to their community
Even helpless will not slacken.

dost-mittar #55
Just fyi.
http://www.mkgandhi.org/sfgbook/fourteenth.htm

Here is something he said during one of his fasts(that the timing is post-Partition obvious from his words)

``...A pure fast like duty, is its own reward. I do not embark upon it for the sake of the result it may bring. I do so because I must. Hence, I urge everybody dispassionately to examine the purpose and let me die, if I must, in peace, which I hope is ensured. Death for me would be a glorious deliverance rather than that I should be a helpless witness of the destruction of India, Hinduism, Sikhism and Islam. That destruction is certain if Pakistan ensures no equality of status and security of life and property for all professing the various faiths of the would and if India copies her. Only then Islam dies in the two Indias, not in the world. But Hinduism and Sikhism have no world outside India. Those who differ from me will be honoured by me for their resistance however implacable. Let my fast quicken conscience, not deaden it. Just contemplate the rot that has set in beloved India and you will rejoice to think that there is an humble son of hers who is strong enough and possibly pure enough to take the happy step. If he is neither, he is a burden on earth. The sooner he disappears and clears the Indian atmosphere of the burden the better for him and all concerned...``
There is an alternative which is also, almost if not quite, as difficult. This creation of two armies be created, not in order to ``face and fight common danger but to destroy one another and demonstrate to a gaping world that they were unfit for any other purpose but to fight one another unto death?..``


In the Harijan, on 20-7-47

``..There is an alternative which is also, almost if not quite, as difficult. This creation of two armies be created, not in order to ``face and fight common danger but to destroy one another and demonstrate to a gaping world that they were unfit for any other purpose but to fight one another unto death?

I have put the prospect in its awful nakedness so that everyone may see and shun it. The alternative escape is undoubtedly attractive. Will the vast mass of the Hindus and those who had joined them in the struggle for Independence realize the danger in its proper perspective and rise to the occasion and swear even now that they do not wish to have an army at all or at least refuse ever to use it against their Muslim brethren whether in the Union or outside it in Pakistan? This proposal is tantamount to asking the Hindus and their associates to turn thirty years’ weakness into strength of great beauty. Perhaps to state the Problem thus is to demonstrate its absurdity-may be God has been known making for the sake of all the parties who have subscribed to the dangerous division of the army into two self-destroying warring camps...``—H, 20-7-47, 24I.

Jay # 68

I am glad you brought that thing up. About the total disrespect for issues like compassion in Hinduism, as a tenet of justice. It is however, always exalted in heroes of Hindu mythology. So while it is an accepted as a social value worth cherishing, it is NOT considered the cornerstone of Universal/Cosmic justice. There only karma counts. It is almost exact opposite of the Shakesperean dictate of ``Justice tempered with mercy.``

IN fact that is exactly what is exciting about Buddhism. It is in exact contradiction to Hinduism`s relatively ``objective`` view of the concept of justice. Maybe that explains the popularity of the religion as a counterpoint tothe Hindu view of life.

Then again,. is it any surprise that it is HIndu society`s dalits who are today`s ``neo-Budhists.``

There is an interesting book called ``The Serpent and The Rope`` by that old savant of Sanskritised culture in English Raja Rao. It postulates why Budhism was squeezed out of India, and why it fascinated the rational Western/Cartesian mind. And Rao argues the elaborate conceptual intricasies of Maya and Reality in that.

I myself think that a justice system that precludes all chances of ``compassion`` ``mercy`` and ``forgiveness`` is the best likely to succeed at a meta physical level.

And yet, the beauty of Christianity or Islam is that they bring ``forgiveness`` to the fore as a part of their theology. Thus placing a very ``human`` quality as the centre piece of their meta physics. It is both easier to relate to MOST human beings, as well as makes a religion more equitably participatory than an esoteric Hinduism does.

Explains a lot for the reasons why more Christians and Muslims know their holy books....or at least have read it...than Hindus crowding graves without ever having read Ramayan/Mahabharat/Upanishads/Vedas.

There are several more academically sophistaicated reasons also...caste, subjugation etc....BUt above all, the esoteric nature of Hindu meta physics and its constantly widening distance from the common man is a major reason we are in many ways not so much a living breathing faith as a living breathing presense. ONly National Geographic or Discovery and their documentaries recording colourful rituals seem to be Hinduism to a whole other world that is NOT Hindu.

Harish

arjun

(100 when this dude was blind..imagine what would have happened if he wasnt blind).

Errr......didn`t think you needed eyes to.....;)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re:#68 by jay
You seem to be a devotee (if i may use the word) of SriAurobindo. I respect that Sage a lot. Many of his words were prophetic. But i am not sure if he is right about Adisankara interpolating Geetha in Mahabharata. It is entirely possible that he popularised it when it was lying dormant. I mean, people may have lost its true meaning, immeresed in ritualistic traditions as they were at the time. By popularising Geetha, Sankara may have shifted emphasis away from rituals towards something more concrete. Remember, during his time, ritualistic and kabalistic traditions were popular. He was attempting to revive Vedic tradition with emphasis on Advaita and spent later part of his life in Bhakti (devotion).
Whatever the truth is, i have no problem if he did it or Vyasa did it? It is a beautiful peace and thank God many of us can read it in English.
Sridhar

Okay here is one last quick post:

One thing I like about Mahabharat is that it is not a white-washed account. The authors could have shown it to be Pandavas all good-good and Kauravas all bad-bad but that is not the case. The events described are so vivid and diverse in nature that it doesn`t appear to me the imagination of the authors. It is a living colorful account of the customs, philosophical thoughts and history of the Indian people. Of course you would have to interpret it in a meaningful way which includes discarding supernatural things like Brahmastra, Agni-bana, people taking birth from fire etc. But that is a common feature of most of the religious books from different parts of the world and Hindus are not alone in this regard. For those who are unaware, Ramayana and Mahabharat are considered to be historical documents. For example the field of action in Mahabharat is Kurukshetra which shifts to Kosala in Ramayana signifying movement of Aryans eastwards etc. Gotta go. Bye.

re: Gandhi
There is at least one person in chowk who thinks there will be many Gandhis in future. I see only Godses. All he remembers of Gandhi is agitational aspect of that great man. That is all most Indians have reduced themselves to today. Gandhi agitated to liberate India. But, still a free India is in an agitational mode. There is strike/agitation for any rhyme or reason. This is the only way Indians know to agitate. Gandhiji did not realise that his countrymen would take this aspect and blow it up so much. Why not learn the good things from him: his simplicity, his honesty, his patriotism.
Sridhar

re:#65 by pmishra2
May be 20 years from now, no one will remember a dude called pmishra or for that matter sridhar but Abraham or Jesus will live on. BTW, on what basis do you question the existence of these prophets? Please do not harp on science. I am a man of science. Not one of my research Gurus, i mean not one, has said that he or she does not believe in biblical prophets. May be India is turning cynical and i see it in the writings of some Indians in chowk.
Sridhar

Dost Mitter:

The best English translation of Geeta that I have read is by an American. His name is Stephen Mitchell. Mitchell has extensively translated Zen and other Buddhist work, and Eastern Philosophy too.

In my childhood, my Dad made my sister and I remember Geeta by heart, but I learned nothing. Instead grew rebellious. A few years ago I had an opportunity to read Stephen Mitchell`s work, and including Radhakrishnan`s work on Geeta and Upnishads. I also read Rumi`s book on Sufism. This was given as a present to me by a dear person from Chowk. The symmetry in thoughts and expression amazed me. I am sure Geeta and Rumi`s Sufism were expressed distanced both in time and space.

I thought Mitchell`s translation was simply marvellous. I finished and understood every word of it, in about two hours. Mitchell has organized verses of Geeta in abstract thoughts like, Truth, Love, Relationships, Soul, Death etc. He has organized them as the verses of questions that Arjun poses and the answers that Krishna gives. I would recommend it to anyone interested in Geeta.

To me, Geeta reflects timeless Human Thoughts. It is amazing how these thoughts whenever expressed, are still relevant. I do not view Geeta as the expression of GOD`s word etc. Instead, a little more humble, Human Thoughts. Its symmetrical beauty allows people to read, understand and see whatever they want. Just as when a murderer sees in the mirror he/she sees completely different than what the most beautiful woman sees in the mirror when she looks in it. Like Geeta, to me, is for us to see and reflect.

Similarly, expressions for example, in Koran, allows Bin Laden to see whatever he wants, while to a Sufi the expressions in Koran are quite different. Likewise is Godse and Gandhi analogy too.

ANIL KAPURIA

Dost-Mittar jee

I am out of town till Monday, next week. After that we will continue our discussion from where I have left if the article is on front page. Regarding Dharma, let me merely mention what is often called the ``sookshma bhed`` of Dharma for future discussions. Suppose I defined Dharma to consist solely of Truth, Honesty and non-violence. Then what should one do in a situation if two of the aforementioned values contradict each other. How can one decide what value should one give priority to. In other words, what is the bedrock of Dharma and how do the ethics evolve over time and space(ie in different societies). Some of the things that Lord Krishna did will make greater sense once you have pondered over the above questions. I also never understood all this till I developed a basic understanding of the game theory. That is not to say I have answers to all these questions now, but at least I have one ``reasonable`` perspective.

re:#71 by rsaxena
In believing or disbelieving Mahabharata, i would rather go by what sages and seers have to say than what some in this chowk are saying. After all what expertise have you or others to say the events really did not happen? If Mahabharata did not happen the way it is being taught, enlighten us as to how it happened.
Of course, Mahabharata is full of symbolism. But the symbolisms are based on real life events. Most Indians miss out on the symbolism and read Mahabharata as a family drama.
So, did Krishna really exist or is he also a myth? After all Krishna forms an important character in this whole epic drama and without him, the epic is nothing.
In this regard, may i point out that a whole new city of Dwaraka has been excavated in 1987 off the coast of Gujarat under the sea by S.R.Rao and his colleagues, putting to rest the mythical Dwaraka. The German archaologist who spend all his millions in trying to find the city of Troy did find it: not one but seven of them one below the other (i am forgetting his name but you can surf the internet and find out).
So, in these matters let the sages speak. Yogananda wrote an eminently readable book on the symbolism of Geetha. He does concede that Geetha was perhaps imagined as a coversation between Arjuna and Krishna by Vyasa. Vyasa was a very spiritual and liberated soul and he wanted to tell the spiritual truths and it is entirely possible that he did introduce this imaginary conversation happening just before the epic war.
Rest of the events in Mahabharata is as real and you and me. So says Yogananda, one of the great masters that India has produced in the last century. I think i will let it rest at that.
Sridhar

re:#69 by jay
You seem to be baffled by too many magical things that happened in Mahabharata. What is it that baffles you? That India had already reached the pinnacle of glory, both spiritually and materialistically or that compared to India`s pathetic condition today, all that is being said in Mahbharata looks like fairy tale?
Without going into controversial things, all i have to say is that science today does not have all the answers. I have seen how science works. It depends on facts. There is no book of science that says God exists or there is something as a soul. Yet, these were the very things that concerned the Sages and Yogis of the past. Many of them seem to have transcended time and space by being one with God. One of them wrote a classic in sanskrit (often quoted by Wayne Dyer, the eminent pschologist and new age Guru in USA). Yogasutra by Patanjali details how to scientifically approach and merge with God. It also details the benefits (including many Siddhis or powers) that accrue during the process. The process occurs in stages and is painfully slow and few can even attempt it. However, it has been done and many yogis of present and past are a living proof. If you or anyone else in chowk says this is all nonsense, it is too bad. It still does not change the fact that it has been or is being done.
I would recommend you or anyone else in chowk a book by Paul Brunton. It is called ``A search in secret India``. Now, Brunton was a British journalist, a well educated man. He was intrigued by yogis of India and he went in search of a real Guru. On this journey, he witnessed a number of miracles that he has written about in the book. This book became a best seller in 1930s, a time when few knew or cared about yogis. BTW, Brunton was also the first man from West to have written in detail about Yoga and introduced yoga to the west. Did he finally find a Guru? Read that book. It is unputdownable.

Sridhar

re:#67 by arjun_m
Proof, Proof! Let me see. Is there a proof God exists? Is there a proof there is something called a Soul? What kind of proof are you talking about? One which can be held in hand or seen under a microscope? Is there something called a life experience? Close to 95% (perhaps more) people in this world (leaving China, we do not know how many in China believe in God though officially it shuns religion) believe in God yet only a handful have experienced or seen God.
How about soul? The best available technology cannot document the presence of a soul in the body, yet it is felt and people believe in it. Raymond Moody became famous for research on NDE (near death experience) and documented this elusive entity. Popular culture in the west does not support it and wants scientific proof. You seem to be aping the west when you talk about proof.

Sridhar